Near misses - mod warning 22/04 - see OP/post 822

CramCycle

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

No, they're not. Cyclists can be in whatever lane they choose.

gavinoontheweb wrote: »

A point I which I made in the proceeding sentence. The junction as a whole can be messy with peds and cyclists intersecting from different crossing points.

I think Gavins point is the bike light applies to the cycle track, not the general traffic lane, ie if your in the general traffic lane, the bike light doesn't apply to you at that junction. Not that you have to be in the bike lane. Do I have that right? I always wondered, as there are junctions where this is clearly the case and others where it is ambiguous, does anyone know if there are regs for this or is it just a whatever suits kind of situation?

blackwhite

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

No, they're not. Cyclists can be in whatever lane they choose.

I *think* what he means is that - to be allowed proceed on the green cyclist light (instead of the primary traffic light) then you need to be in the cycling lane.

Not sure what the legal position actually is for those lights - do they cover cyclists in any lane, or just the cycle lane (where present)?

MojoMaker

Gavin, you do realise that the use of the word 'dedicated' in this context means 'only cycle traffic allowed' and not 'must use the cycle path'?

Right??

MojoMaker

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You're going to have to cross the white line to pass one cyclist, so it really doesn't matter whether they are two or three abreast - you're still going to have to cross the line.

The nub of the argument in a majority of debates like this and spot on for (re)posting it AndrewJRenko.

There is a strong belief among motorists that if cyclists are in single file it is ok to pass by without crossing the white line or median of the road. Hence the real reason for motorists' annoyance around 2 or (God forbid) 3 abreast. All overtakes require crossing the central median to a degree, otherwise they are not safe - and if you're crossing the central median then it matters little whether it's 10 cms or 2 metres, it's not as if you can simply 'duck back into the lane if something is coming towards me because it's only a cyclist on my left after all'.

To think that a motorist might believe it's ok to pass a cyclist 'in-lane' on a standard-width road is quite shocking.

Pinch Flat

Yeah that seems to be the main argument about cyclists travelling 2 abreast. Many motorists just want to blast on regardless. Sure aren't they're in a car and we all know it's the most important vehicle on the road anyways.

Utter Consternation

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Yeah that seems to be the main argument about cyclists travelling 2 abreast. Many motorists just want to blast on regardless. Sure aren't they're in a car and we all know it's the most important vehicle on the road anyways.

Heaven forbid that they slow down for a few seconds in their massive rush to whatever pressing appointment that they simply must be at immediately.

CramCycle

MojoMaker wrote: »

Gavin, you do realise that the use of the word 'dedicated' in this context means 'only cycle traffic allowed' and not 'must use the cycle path'?

Right??

I read it that he did get it

average_runner

Nearly got taken out twice yesterday while walking to my bus, 5 min walk only.


One was a cyclist cycling with one hand on the handle bar and the other texting on his phone.


2 mins later similar again but this time a driver on the phone in the car!!!


Can we not put the phones down for a few mins!!!

gavinoontheweb

blackwhite wrote: »

I *think* what he means is that - to be allowed proceed on the green cyclist light (instead of the primary traffic light) then you need to be in the cycling lane.

Not sure what the legal position actually is for those lights - do they cover cyclists in any lane, or just the cycle lane (where present)?

MojoMaker wrote: »

Gavin, you do realise that the use of the word 'dedicated' in this context means 'only cycle traffic allowed' and not 'must use the cycle path'?

Right??

Exactly, perhaps the terminology I used was a bit misleading. The point I'm getting is can a cyclist legally proceed on a green bike/ped crossing light if they are not exactly 'in line' with that light. Per the example going North on S.Beckett bridge.

Utter Consternation

average_runner wrote: »

Nearly got taken out twice yesterday while walking to my bus, 5 min walk only.


One was a cyclist cycling with one hand on the handle bar and the other texting on his phone.


2 mins later similar again but this time a driver on the phone in the car!!!


Can we not put the phones down for a few mins!!!

No, we cannot. My office looks out onto a busy junction in Dublin CC. I'd say that on balance, more people use their phones when their cars are stopped at lights, than those that do not.

Utter Consternation

I don't know how the cops haven't lifted this lad yet. He was flying it. He went through a red light just around the corner from here after that.

https://streamable.com/4204v

average_runner

Utter Consternation wrote: »

I don't know how the cops haven't lifted this lad yet. He was flying it. He went through a red light just around the corner from here after that.

https://streamable.com/4204v

There seems to be rules to for those things. At that speed he should have a helmet on him like motor cyclists do.


Also to me they are a lazy form of cycling, getting the benefit of getting to a place quicker but no exercise.

RobertFoster

CramCycle wrote: »

I think Gavins point is the bike light applies to the cycle track, not the general traffic lane, ie if your in the general traffic lane, the bike light doesn't apply to you at that junction. Not that you have to be in the bike lane. Do I have that right? I always wondered, as there are junctions where this is clearly the case and others where it is ambiguous, does anyone know if there are regs for this or is it just a whatever suits kind of situation?

I think you'd have to be in the cycle lane in order to proceed with the cycle lights, at least personally I err on the side of caution if there's any ambiguity.

Ignoring bicycles for a moment, how would a bus in the driving lane proceed at this light on the Templeogue Rd? I think the light refers to the lane rather than the vehicle.

blackwhite

RobertFoster wrote: »

I think you'd have to be in the cycle lane in order to proceed with the cycle lights, at least personally I err on the side of caution if there's any ambiguity.

Ignoring bicycles for a moment, how would a bus in the driving lane proceed at this light on the Templeogue Rd? I think the light refers to the lane rather than the vehicle.

Badly constructed light anyway - the "Bus" light should really be on left hand side of the light (matching the lane position) - like on N11

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.2943173,-6.2026886,3a,61y,160.18h,99.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sN7baGOUYW5I7NECnfMt70Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

What Username Guidelines

RobertFoster wrote: »

I think you'd have to be in the cycle lane in order to proceed with the cycle lights, at least personally I err on the side of caution if there's any ambiguity.

Ignoring bicycles for a moment, how would a bus in the driving lane proceed at this light on the Templeogue Rd? I think the light refers to the lane rather than the vehicle.

I think that light is sensored so busses trigger a red light for traffic, but oddly it still goes red when there aren't busses around, resulting in lots of people ignoring it, in the mornings anyway.

A couple of years back I was at the top of the queue one morning and the guy behind started beeping and waving for me to just go through. I almost never drive in rush hour so I considered maybe I didnt know something he did, was it broken maybe? I erred on the side of caution and moved forward a few feet, allowing him to undertake. He flipped me the middle finger as he passed straight through the red, followed by 3 or 4 others, all irate. Well except the last car, he looked quite smug, and he had these little flashy blue lights. Up there as one of the best days of my life.

CramCycle

My understanding is that when its just the green, the bus lane treats it as a yield, hence the triangle, and then the bus lane has priority when only the green bus sign is illuminated. It applies to the lane though, not just for buses, so taxis and cyclists can also proceed on it. The N11 one s funny because alot of cyclists sit under the light and don't see it, looking across the junction, so think you are breaking a light when you go through.

ED E

CramCycle wrote: »

and then the bus lane has priority when only the green bus sign is illuminated.

I think its just an exclusive filter. Just like a red light with a green left filter.

AndrewJRenko

Utter Consternation wrote: »

Heaven forbid that they slow down for a few seconds in their massive rush to whatever pressing appointment that they simply must be at immediately.

Usually the massive rush to the back of the next queue of cars

AndrewJRenko

RobertFoster wrote: »

I think you'd have to be in the cycle lane in order to proceed with the cycle lights, at least personally I err on the side of caution if there's any ambiguity.

Do the little bike lights actually exist in law? They are mentioned in ROTR page 105 but I'm wondering if they exist in law at all.

It seemed to me like this cyclist got a raw deal at the time

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/four-gardai-needed-to-put-arrogant-cyclist-in-cell-court-told-376308.html

CramCycle

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do the little bike lights actually exist in law? They are mentioned in ROTR page 105 but I'm wondering if they exist in law at all.

It seemed to me like this cyclist got a raw deal at the time

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/four-gardai-needed-to-put-arrogant-cyclist-in-cell-court-told-376308.html

I don't think he did, he was swerving all over the road, apparently drunk and from that brief article, got a fair deal after being such a lout.

ED E

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do the little bike lights actually exist in law? They are mentioned in ROTR page 105 but I'm wondering if they exist in law at all.

Yes, RTS 007, RTS 006 in regulation.

And cited in acts as such:

“(3) A pedal cyclist facing traffic sign number RTS 006 or RTS 007 (cycle traffic lights) in which one lamp is lit and which shows a symbol of a pedal cycle in green, may proceed beyond that traffic sign provided no other road user is endangered.

CramCycle

provided no other road user is endangered

This answers my follow on Q about the shared lights with pedestrians, it causes agro on the canal way all the time because some people cannot help acting the pr1ck

AndrewJRenko

ED E wrote: »

Yes, RTS 007, RTS 006 in regulation.

And cited in acts as such:

Thanks, very helpful. I wonder about the legal definition of 'facing'. There is about 1m between the bike lane and the road at the Guild St side of the bridge. Am I REALLY not 'facing' the bike light when I'm at the edge of the road?

Seth Brundle

What exactly does it say in the RTA?

AndrewJRenko

Seth Brundle wrote: »

What exactly does it say in the RTA?

See https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110378012&postcount=8272

AndrewJRenko

CramCycle wrote: »

I don't think he did, he was swerving all over the road, apparently drunk and from that brief article, got a fair deal after being such a lout.

Sounds fairly makey-uppey to me - no dashcam, no blood alcohol level - just vague, non-specific allegations. Maybe he was 'facing' the little light, so maybe he was actually within the law, and found himself trying to explain that to four Gardai displaying all the prejudices that we've all seen from Gardai all the time.

queldy

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Sounds fairly makey-uppey to me - no dashcam, no blood alcohol level - just vague, non-specific allegations. Maybe he was 'facing' the little light, so maybe he was actually within the law, and found himself trying to explain that to four Gardai displaying all the prejudices that we've all seen from Gardai all the time.

The whole story looks all very full of prejudices to me.
If he was drunk and violent, the article should not have focused on his being a cyclist.
Had to argue many times with "arrogant" garda, for being a cyclist myself too.
The only way to deal with it is give up and accept everything they say (sad story yes); tried to reasonably explain to them my (our) point, there's no way you can explain.
If they see you like "the cyclist", then you have no chance.
In the specific, maybe the man was drunk, he was arrogant, he was violent. But i don't think this has nothing to do with being a cyclist, which is pretty much the focus of the article.

Weepsie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Sounds fairly makey-uppey to me - no dashcam, no blood alcohol level - just vague, non-specific allegations. Maybe he was 'facing' the little light, so maybe he was actually within the law, and found himself trying to explain that to four Gardai displaying all the prejudices that we've all seen from Gardai all the time.

It's Dublin, I'd very well believe that someone was drunk and all over the place while cycling.

Generally if you have that light too, the pedestrians have a light so if you're on the road youre probably cutting through pedestrians crossing which you might not be on the cycle path as they've already left the crossing.

queldy

And by the way, many times it has been witnessed by us some very wrong behaviaour on the road by "drivers", and we are very much outraged when we see garda being present at the scene! If you ask them "why did you not intervene?" then you are answered that they are on some other duties!

In this case then, is it fair to believe that they were on duty of "catching drunk cyclists?" Because if that is so, I wonder if there are more serious issues on the Irish road they should take care of...

AndrewJRenko

Weepsie wrote: »

Generally if you have that light too, the pedestrians have a light so if you're on the road youre probably cutting through pedestrians crossing which you might not be on the cycle path as they've already left the crossing.

In my experience, this varies greatly from junction to junction. It works reasonably well along the canal, where most of the pedestrian traffic is going in parallel to the cyclists, so there is little enough conflict. It doesn't work well on Sam Beckett bridge in my experience, as much of the pedestrian traffic is crossing the direction of travel of the cyclists, leading to frequent conflicts.