Rules of road question

ciaeim

tonight while driving through town i came to a standstill in traffic and my daughter who was in rear seat passenger side goes to get out of car, she never looked and almost caught a cyclist with the door, my question is do cyclists have the right to pass on the left ? I cycle a lot myself and am unsure as whether u can pass on left or not ,, this is just for information purposes only, no one got hurt thank god and all went on our merryway.. so single lane, stopped in traffic, daughter opens door without looking, cyclist passes on inside . who is wrong in eyes of the law?

longshanks

You're supposed to look before opening a door.

Dermot Illogical

ciaeim wrote: »

my question is do cyclists have the right to pass on the left ?

Yes.

Orion

ciaeim wrote: »

, she never looked and almost caught a cyclist with the door,

There's the relevant part. She never looked. I realise she is probably a child on the school run so not her fault but the lesson is to always check mirrors or look behind before opening a door.

And yes - cyclists can pass on the left. Any experienced cyclist will be aware of the risks of passing a car that's stopped - I always watch out for doors and will usually pass on the right if safe to do so but it's not mandatory.

RobertFoster

Cyclists are permitted to pass on the left with a few exceptions: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88740818&postcount=39

crosstownk

longshanks wrote: »

You're supposed to look before opening a door.

^ This.

The driver needs to ensure that it is safe for any passengers to open the door. Probably the best thing to do if you've to let out a passenger on the left is to pull close to the kerb to prevent a cyclist passing on the left (obviously without cutting the cyclist).

A good piece of advice that I read somewhere was to open the left door with your right arm as this rotates the body and makes it easier to look behind. I'm rarely a passenger so I can't testify to it's effectiveness. In any case, there will be inevitable blind spots.

ciaeim

thanks for replies thats good to know, i freely admitted that she didnt look and wasnt trying to lay the blame elsewhere but was just curious if something had happened what would the legal situation be. thankfully it didnt come to that. oh and she was getting out for the cinema and is 17. but hopefully this is a lesson learned for all of us

DirkVoodoo

ciaeim wrote: »

thanks for replies thats good to know, i freely admitted that she didnt look and wasnt trying to lay the blame elsewhere but was just curious if something had happened what would the legal situation be. thankfully it didnt come to that. oh and she was getting out for the cinema and is 17. but hopefully this is a lesson learned for all of us

It's something we've all done. Thankfully no one was hurt and like you say, a lesson learned.

Most cycle lanes tend to be on the left hand side of traffic lanes, it's a good habit to remind your passengers to check before getting out (I do all the time now!).

cjt156

What's this?!

A reasoned and mature discussion ending on a point of clarification and resolution?

Where's the 'all cyclists are lycropaths', 'cage drivers must die', 'cinema is a dying artform consumed by teenage blockbuster-ism' escalation?

Pfft, /unsubscribe.

ciaeim

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

It's something we've all done. Thankfully no one was hurt and like you say, a lesson learned.

Most cycle lanes tend to be on the left hand side of traffic lanes, it's a good habit to remind your passengers to check before getting out (I do all the time now!).

in this instance their is not a cycle lane, was stopped in traffic. at least no one hurt could have been nasty

ciaeim

cjt156 wrote: »

What's this?!

A reasoned and mature discussion ending on a point of clarification and resolution?

Where's the 'all cyclists are lycropaths', 'cage drivers must die', 'cinema is a dying artform consumed by teenage blockbuster-ism' escalation?

Pfft, /unsubscribe.

nice for a change ha ha

gumbo1

You were stopped in traffic, presumably not pulled in to the kerb and not at the top of the line of traffic at a red light. So why wouldn't a cyclist be able to pass you on the left?

gumbo1

You were stopped in traffic, presumably not pulled in to the kerb and not at the top of the line of traffic at a red light. So why wouldn't a cyclist be able to pass you on the left?

Sleeper12

ciaeim wrote:

tonight while driving through town i came to a standstill in traffic and my daughter who was in rear seat passenger side goes to get out of car, she never looked and almost caught a cyclist with the door, my question is do cyclists have the right to pass on the left ? I cycle a lot myself and am unsure as whether u can pass on left or not ,, this is just for information purposes only, no one got hurt thank god and all went on our merryway.. so single lane, stopped in traffic, daughter opens door without looking, cyclist passes on inside . who is wrong in eyes of the law?

Not only can cyclists pass on the left but they travel on your left all the time. It's where they are supposed to cycle.

billie1b

If a driver is signalling to turn left or a passenger is alighting from a stopped vehicle or seems to be letting passengers alight the cyclist is not to pass on the left. Thats the rules of the road, end of story, regardless if the person looked or not.

ciaeim

gumbo1 wrote: »

You were stopped in traffic, presumably not pulled in to the kerb and not at the top of the line of traffic at a red light. So why wouldn't a cyclist be able to pass you on the left?

i suppose i foolishly thought that cyclists of which i am one had to use same rules of road that cars etc have to use. thats why i asked the question

Sleeper12

billie1b wrote:

If a driver is signalling to turn left or a passenger is alighting from a stopped vehicle or seems to be letting passengers alight the cyclist is not to pass on the left. Thats the rules of the road, end of story, regardless if the person looked or not.

Car stopped in traffic with lots of other cars. Can you explain what the cyclist would have seen that would indicate that a passenger was about to open a car door in a dangerous Manor in the middle of the road?
Obviously cyclists need to be vigilant but the law is clear that the driver must ensure that passengers open doors safely

Sleeper12

ciaeim wrote:

i suppose i foolishly thought that cyclists of which i am one had to use same rules of road that cars etc have to use. thats why i asked the question

They do. The rules of the road for the driver & cyclist is that the driver must make sure passengers open the door safely.
Look at cyclists at the edge of the road. Consider that is their lane. Just because your Lane of traffic has stopped that doesn't mean that where the cyclists are has stopped.
If there was 2 lanes of traffic & you are in the right Lane and the right Lane has stopped but the left Lane still had moving cars. It's your fault if your passenger opens a door and a car in the left Lane hits you or worse still, your daughter

ciaeim

Sleeper12 wrote: »

They do. The rules of the road for the driver & cyclist is that the driver must make sure passengers open the door safely.
Look at cyclists at the edge of the road. Consider that is their lane. Just because your Lane of traffic has stopped that doesn't mean that where the cyclists are has stopped.
If there was 2 lanes of traffic & you are in the right Lane and the right Lane has stopped but the left Lane still had moving cars. It's your fault if your passenger opens a door and a car in the left Lane hits you or worse still, your daughter

their was only one lane of traffic and as cars etc cant pass on left and as cyclists use same rules of road i am wondering why cyclists can pass ? can motor bikes also pass on left ?

Sleeper12

ciaeim wrote:

their was only one lane of traffic and as cars etc cant pass on left and as cyclists use same rules of road i am wondering why cyclists can pass ? can motor bikes also pass on left ?

You missed the point. You need to see the side of the road as a separate lane to yours but for cyclists. It's almost identical to two car lanes and you daughter opening the door onto another car.

ciaeim

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You missed the point. You need to see the side of the road as a separate lane to yours but for cyclists. It's almost identical to two car lanes and you daughter opening the door onto another car.

can motorbikes use this separate lane?

brianomc

Cars can pass on the left hand side of slower moving traffic, you were just going so slow that you were stopped. As has been said, if you planned to let someone out you should have pulled closer to the kerb to prevent anyone moving up the left hand side. But even at that, your daughter should have checked before opening the door, it doesn't matter if the car door hit another car, a bike, a pedestrian etc.

I've done it myself, opened the passenger door without looking and almost took down a cyclist on a footpath who luckily avoided the collision. It wouldn't have made a difference that he shouldn't have been there, I would have been at fault. It's a good example to use to teach her to be observant, so many people don't look when making manoeuvres it's crazy. That applies to pedestrians, cyclists, drivers, everybody. A quick glance over the shoulder makes all the difference.

Sleeper12

ciaeim wrote:

can motorbikes use this separate lane?

A motor propelled vehicle? Why would you think that? Can motor bikes use cycle lanes?

Put this another way. Do you indicate every time you pass a cyclist? I don't because they are not in my driving lane

DirkVoodoo

ciaeim wrote: »

in this instance their is not a cycle lane, was stopped in traffic. at least no one hurt could have been nasty

Maybe not, but you can understand that because of how cycle lanes are designed, it teaches people to "ride on the left" past stationary traffic even if there are no painted lines.

The alternative is passing on the outside, the risks there being u-turning vehicles or traffic coming in the opposite direction.

ciaeim

Sleeper12 wrote: »

A motor propelled vehicle? Why would you think that? Can motor bikes use cycle lanes?

Put this another way. Do you indicate every time you pass a cyclist? I don't because they are not in my driving lane

and i indicate every time i pass a cyclist as they are almost always in my driving lane, very few cycle lanes where i live

can motorbikes use cycle lanes ? definitely not.

Sleeper12

ciaeim wrote:

and i indicate every time i pass a cyclist as they are almost always in my driving lane, very few cycle lanes where i am

I'm middle aged and I definitely don't cycle. I drive up to 100 miles per day around Dublin as part of my job. I've no reason to stick up for cyclists but I have to say midweek cyclists are usually ok. It's the weekend warriors in their lycra gear that should be locked up.

Orion

ciaeim wrote: »

and i indicate every time i pass a cyclist as they are almost always in my driving lane, very few cycle lanes where i live

can motorbikes use cycle lanes ? definitely not.

You mean they're in the road traffic lane where they are entitled to be?

You are absolutely right to indicate - as every road user should do when overtaking anything. It allows oncoming traffic to know that you are about to use more of your side of the road to overtake and traffic behind that there is something you are overtaking which they may not be able to see yet. The latter is very important. I always indicate when overtaking also - whether it's pedestrians walking towards me on country roads or cyclists.

DirkVoodoo

Sleeper12 wrote: »

It's the weekend warriors in their lycra gear that should be locked up.

Sigh.

I guess this thread was too good to be true.

Btw, there should be no reason at all to "stick up for cyclists".

Sleeper12

DirkVoodoo wrote:

Btw, there should be no reason at all to "stick up for cyclists".

Sorry. Not sticking up for cyclists. Just showing I'm not a cyclist and I'm not biased. Its basic rules of the road though.

2RockMountain

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I'm middle aged and I definitely don't cycle. I drive up to 100 miles per day around Dublin as part of my job. I've no reason to stick up for cyclists but I have to say midweek cyclists are usually ok. It's the weekend warriors in their lycra gear that should be locked up.

How about the mid-week warriors in Lycra like myself - should I be locked up too?

tomasrojo

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I'm not biased.

"weekend warriors in their lycra gear that should be locked up"

I'm having trouble reconciling.

John_Rambo

I got clotheslined by a truck driver a few years ago, opened his door and kicked it open wider. I slammed in to his door and grabbed on to a handle, he grabbed me by the back of my top and bag strap. Both our efforts left me dangling from his door with my bike carrying on it's happy way for about fifty metres before flopping over.

After he told me he saved my life we carried on with our lives.

eeeee

Back on topic the law says cyclists are allowed to undertake slower moving traffic of the left.
You would be liable in an accident as your daughter was wrong to open the door onto the cyclist through a lack of care and attention.
I think as she's under 18 it would be on you like not wearing a seatbelt but I'm not 100% sure on that.

Sleeper12

tomasrojo wrote:

"weekend warriors in their lycra gear that should be locked up"

Ah hang on. There's a big difference between midweek cyclists and middle aged overweight weekend warriors. Have you had the misfortune to be behind these. Cycle in the middle of the road doing their tour de France up howth hill. Very dangerous. Bendy roads and they won't move from the centre line. Definitely lock them up.

Sleeper12

2RockMountain wrote:

How about the mid-week warriors in Lycra like myself - should I be locked up too?

Mid week they seem to obey the rules of the road

20/20

nee wrote: »

Back on topic the law says cyclists are allowed to undertake slower moving traffic of the left..

Well that is just another stupid law in favour of cyclists. Just because the bike can move faster then slow moving traffic don't make it right to undertake at 35kph. It may be time to tell your daughter that sometimes lying is ok and she did look and the arse on the bike was going to fast.

hullaballoo

You would have to wonder at the legal mind that came up with the exceptions for cyclists passing on the left.

The wording means that the cyclist must not overtake on the left if the person inside the car has decided to stop to let someone out of the car. So it doesn't matter that the cyclist has no way of knowing why the car is stopped, only the driver knows that (and maybe passengers if the driver has communicated the reason for stopping.)

The corollary of that is that if your passenger gets out and clatters a cyclist, the cyclist has been in an accident while performing an illegal manoeuvre which, imo, means liability is very questionable and not quite the 100% case most of you have suggested.

Orion

hullaballoo wrote: »

The wording means that the cyclist must not overtake on the left if the person inside the car has decided to stop to let someone out of the car. So it doesn't matter that the cyclist has no way of knowing why the car is stopped, only the driver knows that (and maybe passengers if the driver has communicated the reason for stopping.

From the OP: "i came to a standstill in traffic and my daughter who was in rear seat passenger side goes to get out of car"

This was a car stopped in traffic not pulled in to let someone out. Pretty clear cut that there was no indication that it was stopped to let someone out.

Orion

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Bendy roads and they won't move from the centre line.

The former is the reason for the latter. It's safer to take prime position to stop angry drivers like your good self from atttemping a dangerous overtaking manoeuvre.

Here's an example. Cycling on a road that has two consecutive 90 degree turns (about 300 metres apart). In between them boy racer asshat decides he wants to overtake me - right about here.



Now those cars and people weren't there. But still a blind corner. Right around the corner a 2 km straight with plenty of opportunity to overtake. So what did I do? I signalled for him to slow down, he ignored it so I moved right into the middle of the road to stop him overtaking. When I got around the corner I moved back to the left and let the ignorant, foul-mouthed little prick to fly by me with his lovely hand-gestures out the window. People like him are the reason I wear a RoadID bracelet with my next of kin's contact details on it. So maybe next time you see the "weekend warriors" taking the centre line you might understand why we do.

hullaballoo

There doesn't need to be any indication or anything other than stopping the car for one of the listed purposes.

In case you missed my point, it is a clearly bizarre provision and I doubt the intention was to create a defence for drivers but that's what the provision does because that's what those words mean.

BoatMad

hullaballoo wrote: »

You would have to wonder at the legal mind that came up with the exceptions for cyclists passing on the left.

The wording means that the cyclist must not overtake on the left if the person inside the car has decided to stop to let someone out of the car. So it doesn't matter that the cyclist has no way of knowing why the car is stopped, only the driver knows that (and maybe passengers if the driver has communicated the reason for stopping.)

The corollary of that is that if your passenger gets out and clatters a cyclist, the cyclist has been in an accident while performing an illegal manoeuvre which, imo, means liability is very questionable and not quite the 100% case most of you have suggested.

intersting, I espect in any accident , it would be for a court to decide who was in the right or to sign a percentage of blame, which i think they would probably do, . It means that cyclists must maintain an awareness of stopped cars, as does cars maintain a lookup for approaching cyclists

nothing is clearly cut , cyclists clearly have limited rights to pass on the left

Orion

hullaballoo wrote: »

There doesn't need to be any indication or anything other than stopping the car for one of the listed purposes.

In case you missed my point, it is a clearly bizarre provision and I doubt the intention was to create a defence for drivers but that's what the provision does because that's what those words mean.

I understand what you're saying and legally yes it's ambiguous. But in the OP's case there could be no reasonable assumption that the motorist had stopped to let a passenger out - they were stopped in traffic and a passenger decided to alight. That puts the onus on the car passenger not the cyclist who was proceeding through traffic.

Orion

BoatMad wrote: »

It means that cyclists must maintain an awareness of stopped cars, as does cars maintain a lookup for approaching cyclists

nothing is clearly cut , cyclists clearly have limited rights to pass on the left

As a cyclist I do have an awareness of stopped (as in pulled in to the side) cars. But this was a line of traffic and the passenger should have checked. I cycle in traffic a lot (as do many others here). If there is a line of traffic at the lights I'm not going to assume that every car has a passenger about to get out - they are just stopped at the lights and I will pass them on the left up to the lights (and yes I do stop at them myself).

hullaballoo

BoatMad wrote: »

intersting, I espect in any accident , it would be for a court to decide who was in the right or to sign a percentage of blame, which i think they would probably do, . It means that cyclists must maintain an awareness of stopped cars, as does cars maintain a lookup for approaching cyclists

nothing is clearly cut , cyclists clearly have limited rights to pass on the left

Put it this way. If you had asked me a few hours ago where most of the blame lies when a cyclist gets doored, I would have said with the person who opened the door. (Still and all, you're right, the law works in cases like this by balancing the evidence and apportioning blame. Sometimes that can mean that the person suing - the plaintiff - is found to be 50% or more liable but will still get an award of compensation.)

Having now seen the provision linked to above regarding cyclists passing on the left, it is a curveball that someone defending can use to make liability more of an unknown quantity and make everyone feel a bit nervous and ends up with the plaintiff either risking trying to defeat that defence in court or taking a lesser amount in settlement (which is most likely.)

Of course, there would be another school of thought that says that even though the provision is badly worded, it can't mean what it means because it's plainly stupid to have a situation where a cyclist has to stop behind every stationary car or else overtake it on the right. Nonetheless, stupid laws have existed in force here before and unfortunately, a stupid law is still a law.

BoatMad

hullaballoo wrote: »

Put it this way. If you had asked me a few hours ago where most of the blame lies when a cyclist gets doored, I would have said with the person who opened the door. (Still and all, you're right, the law works in cases like this by balancing the evidence and apportioning blame. Sometimes that can mean that the person suing - the plaintiff - is found to be 50% or more liable but will still get an award of compensation.)

Having now seen the provision linked to above regarding cyclists passing on the left, it is a curveball that someone defending can use to make liability more of an unknown quantity and make everyone feel a bit nervous and ends up with the plaintiff either risking trying to defeat that defence in court or taking a lesser amount in settlement (which is most likely.)

Of course, there would be another school of thought that says that even though the provision is badly worded, it can't mean what it means because it's plainly stupid to have a situation where a cyclist has to stop behind every stationary car or else overtake it on the right. Nonetheless, stupid laws have existed in force here before and unfortunately, a stupid law is still a law.

Many laws are written specifically with a degree of indecision or lack of clarity , because its simply impossible for the legal drafter to document all the situations and what is applicable and what is not. thats why we have civil courts, thats a primary part of their activity

whats it means is that both the cyclist and the motorist have a duty of care and neither has unrestricted rights

I see no issue with that

hullaballoo

Orion wrote: »

I understand what you're saying and legally yes it's ambiguous. But in the OP's case there could be no reasonable assumption that the motorist had stopped to let a passenger out - they were stopped in traffic and a passenger decided to alight. That puts the onus on the car passenger not the cyclist who was proceeding through traffic.

No, but the provision doesn't say anything about what the cyclist knows/assumes/can infer from the circumstances. It specifically says that a cyclist cannot overtake on the left if the car is stopped for the purposes listed.

What the cyclist knows about the reason for the car being stopped is irrelevant.

Once the car is stopped for one of the listed purposes, then it becomes illegal for the cyclist to overtake on the left, even where the cyclist has no way of knowing for what reason the car has stopped.

You are quite rightly trying to look at it through a lens of reason and good sense but the words mean what they mean and your reason and good sense don't come into the equation!

BoatMad

Orion wrote: »

As a cyclist I do have an awareness of stopped (as in pulled in to the side) cars. But this was a line of traffic and the passenger should have checked. I cycle in traffic a lot (as do many others here). If there is a line of traffic at the lights I'm not going to assume that every car has a passenger about to get out - they are just stopped at the lights and I will pass them on the left up to the lights (and yes I do stop at them myself).

Theres nothing wrong with making that assumption , however in the case where an accident occurs between you and a passenger attempting to alight m it will be for a court to decide if you "assumptions" were valid

all it means is that you have limited rights to pass on the left , hence that means , a court may decide you had exceeded those rights by a particular degree and would assign blame accordingly

Orion

hullaballoo wrote: »

You are quite rightly trying to look at it through a lens of reason and good sense but the words mean what they mean and your reason and good sense don't come into the equation!

I fcuking hate lawyers - present company included

BoatMad

hullaballoo wrote: »

No, but the provision doesn't say anything about what the cyclist knows/assumes/can infer from the circumstances. It specifically says that a cyclist cannot overtake on the left if the car is stopped for the purposes listed.

What the cyclist knows about the reason for the car being stopped is irrelevant.

Once the car is stopped for one of the listed purposes, then it becomes illegal for the cyclist to overtake on the left, even where the cyclist has no way of knowing for what reason the car has stopped.

You are quite rightly trying to look at it through a lens of reason and good sense but the words mean what they mean and your reason and good sense don't come into the equation!

its not that clearcut, a judge would have to decide , taking into account many factors , had you any advance warning, ( for example indicators on) , what was your speed ( i.e. were you travelling too fast to maintain an aproproate level of awareness and self protection etc

these things are never clearcut

Orion

hullaballoo wrote: »

Once the car is stopped for one of the listed purposes, then it becomes illegal for the cyclist to overtake on the left, even where the cyclist has no way of knowing for what reason the car has stopped.

OK - what if a car is stopped at traffic lights and that was the only reason the car was stopped. Then, because the car is stopped a passenger decides "sure this is a grand place to get out" - which appears to be the case in the OP. Car stopped for road traffic reasons but passenger took advantage. That doesn't change the initial reason the car stopped so the cyclist is perfectly right to continue on the left.

I hate myself right now - I'm starting to sound like a lawyer

BoatMad

Orion wrote: »

OK - what if a car is stopped at traffic lights and that was the only reason the car was stopped. Then, because the car is stopped a passenger decides "sure this is a grand place to get out" - which appears to be the case in the OP. Car stopped for road traffic reasons but passenger took advantage. That doesn't change the initial reason the car stopped so the cyclist is perfectly right to continue on the left.

I hate myself right now - I'm starting to sound like a lawyer

again , these are issues that a judge would be called on to decide, speculating here about potential judicial decisions isn't productive in reality

the fact is rarely is any party totally blameless in an accident