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

cython

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Grey area

(b) A pedal cyclist may overtake on the left where vehicles to the pedal cyclist’s right are stationary or are moving more slowly than the overtaking pedal cycle, except where the vehicle to be overtaken—

(i) has signalled an intention to turn to the left and there is a reasonable expectation that the vehicle in which the driver has signalled an intention to turn to the left will execute a movement to the left before the cycle overtakes the vehicle,

So again - is a cyclist expected to stop to avoid a collision here? As the car cuts across?

In a word, yes. After all, there is no longer a concept of a cycle lane in law (the same SI only refers to cycle tracks), so the cyclist is overtaking in the same lane, and the obligation on traffic to yield to traffic already in a lane they are crossing/entering thus does not exist.

If you want to look for an equivalence, a driver should not pass on the right of a vehicle that has indicated an intention to turn right, so why should a cyclist be permitted to do virtually the same thing on the left?

Tombo2001

Again - is there an equivalent rule for motorists cutting across cycle lanes?

By the definition above, a motorist is perfectly entitled to cut across a cycle lane and expect any cyclist coming along it to jam on the brakes to avoid a collision.....

Danjamin1

plodder wrote: »

I don't see the problem with teasing out the incident a bit more with a few questions about it to the poster. People don't usually set out to be dicks on bikes or cars for that matter. Maybe he thought he had right of way. I'm absolutely serious as well that the RSA should be doing information videos about situations like this.

Might not set out to be a d**k but some people are d**ks through ignorance of the rules. I was guilty of it myself years back when I was cycling on a footpath until an off-duty Garda politely educated me. Haven't done it since.

You're right though, in what seems like a poorly understood area of rules of the road/etiquette there should be should be a campaign around expanding people's understanding.

Tombo2001

cython wrote: »

In a word, yes. After all, there is no longer a concept of a cycle lane in law (the same SI only refers to cycle tracks), so the cyclist is overtaking in the same lane, and the obligation on traffic to yield to traffic already in a lane they are crossing/entering thus does not exist.

Understood.

So you are saying that in Law, the cycle lane and the motor lane are the same lane.....and that a cyclist should treat a motorist in front of it as being in the same lane.....even though in practice the cycle lane is a separate lane marked out on the LHS of the car lane.

Not being smart......but I would say not many cyclists are aware of that, or motorists...and its a concept that really doesn't protect cyclists at all.....

..which all brings it back again to being a grey area.

and because (I) in practice a cycle lane is distinct from the motor lane
and because (II) cyclists are told to be on the left hand side of cars.....thereby creating the impression of two separate lanes.

Tombo2001

cython wrote: »

In a word, yes. After all, there is no longer a concept of a cycle lane in law (the same SI only refers to cycle tracks), so the cyclist is overtaking in the same lane, and the obligation on traffic to yield to traffic already in a lane they are crossing/entering thus does not exist.

Also....in practice, the lane encourages cyclists to Undertake, not Overtake.

cython

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Understood.

So you are saying that in Law, the cycle lane and the motor lane are the same lane.....and that a cyclist should treat a motorist in front of it as being in the same lane.....even though in practice the cycle lane is a separate lane marked out on the LHS of the car lane.

Not being smart......but I would say not many cyclists are aware of that, or motorists...and its a concept that really doesn't protect cyclists at all.....

..which all brings it back again to being a grey area.

and because (I) in practice a cycle lane is distinct from the motor lane
and because (II) cyclists are told to be on the left hand side of cars.....thereby creating the impression of two separate lanes.

There you go again, using the word lane, when the track is simply a section of the lane, not a lane of its own. And frankly ignorance of the law does not a grey area make. While arguably there is a need for greater publicity (though all road users have a responsibility to inform themselves and keep current on traffic laws), there is no grey area in the law.

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Also....in practice, the lane encourages cyclists to Undertake, not Overtake.

Overtake on the left, perhaps. I don't believe there is any encouragement in the law for them to organise funerals, however, nor to make any formal pledges.

Tombo2001

cython wrote: »

There you go again, using the word lane, when the track is simply a section of the lane, not a lane of its own. And frankly ignorance of the law does not a grey area make. While arguably there is a need for greater publicity (though all road users have a responsibility to inform themselves and keep current on traffic laws), there is no grey area in the law.


Overtake on the left, perhaps. I don't believe there is any encouragement in the law for them to organise funerals, however, nor to make any formal pledges.

Silly me calling them cycle lanes. Dublin city council also call them cycle lanes, you might enlighten them....

http://www.cycledublin.ie/cycling-facilities/cycle-lanes-and-facilities

NyOmnishambles

ThisRegard wrote: »

You'll have a much more pleasant cycle by exiting the park and going through Kilmainham and down the canal until you turn off where you need to head around by the green.

I will have to give that a go at some stage, though to be honest as I try to come in early there isn't too much traffic so I have had no major issues so far

plodder wrote: »

Probably the cyclist's fault all right. But, would you say the motorist was a bit hesitant, after indicating? If they had indicated in good time and were safely ahead of both of you, why didn't they just go for it? How fast was the other cyclist going?

They were safely ahead of both of us, but there was a bus pulled in at the stop to the left of the lane so i guess they were making sure it wasn't pulling out and then spotted us in the mirror and were making sure we would let them in, which gobsh!te ahead of me didn't
Neither of us were going that fast and had plenty of time to stop

Tombo2001 wrote: »

What you are saying here is that the car is turning left across the cycle lane - it did indicate - but it is saying to the cyclists 'you have to stop now so I can cut across the cycle lane' .....if I understand you correctly.

A lot of cyclists will feel - this is my lane, you are cutting across it, you should wait for me to come through and then cut across it....

So - imho - its a grey area......who is right and who is wrong - I'm not 100% sure.

jive wrote: »

It's not, if the car is indicating and there in good time it's legally entitled to cross the cycle 'track'. It's not perceived as crossing a proper pane although it probably should be.

I would be of the opinion that the person ahead in the traffic has the right to make the maneuver if they are a safe distance ahead, they would have been if other cyclist had shown a bit of cop on

plodder

cython wrote: »

In a word, yes. After all, there is no longer a concept of a cycle lane in law (the same SI only refers to cycle tracks), so the cyclist is overtaking in the same lane, and the obligation on traffic to yield to traffic already in a lane they are crossing/entering thus does not exist.

Rules of the road

A cycle track or lane is a reserved part of a roadway for bicycles (not
motorcycles).
Some cycle tracks are bordered by a continuous white line on the right-hand
side. These are only for bicycles and motorised wheelchairs, so no other drivers
may use them or park in them.
Other cycle tracks have a broken white line on the right-hand side. Other drivers
may make temporary use of this type of track if it is not occupied.

If anything, that implies that cyclists do have absolute right of way. Though I realise it could just be wrong.

nyOmnishambles wrote:

They were safely ahead of both of us, but there was a bus pulled in at the stop to the left of the lane so i guess they were making sure it wasn't pulling out and then spotted us in the mirror and were making sure we would let them in, which gobsh!te ahead of me didn't
Neither of us were going that fast and had plenty of time to stop

Fair enough. Cyclist's fault then.

buffalo

Tombo2001 wrote: »

So again - is a cyclist expected to stop to avoid a collision here? As the car cuts across?

No, a cyclist is expected to be looking ahead of them and note the indicators in operation on the vehicle ahead, and adjust speed as necessary if they have a "reasonable expectation" that "the vehicle will execute a movement to the left before the cycle overtakes the vehicle".

If the driver does not use the indicators properly of course, then collision avoidance measures should be taken.

Tombo2001

buffalo wrote: »

No, a cyclist is expected to be looking ahead of them and note the indicators in operation on the vehicle ahead, and adjust speed as necessary if they have a "reasonable expectation" that "the vehicle will execute a movement to the left before the cycle overtakes the vehicle".

If the driver does not use the indicators properly of course, then collision avoidance measures should be taken.

Yes - and what I am reading here is that car was well ahead......fine......indicated .......fine......

If the car had cut across the lane, with the cyclist well behind it.....then again fine.....cyclist should adjust speed....

However what I am reading is that the car indicated....and then stopped.....and then finally turned at a time when the cyclist was beside it rather than behind it....hence the potential collision.

To me, the car is sending out a mixed signal here - it is stopping as if to say - I will wait until you have passed until I turn......but then the car doesn't wait.

Again, I agree its the cyclists fault, but I can also see how this (potential) collision could happen....and that the driver has some responsibility for not being more decisive on the road.

buffalo

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Yes - and what I am reading here is that car was well ahead......fine......indicated .......fine......

If the car had cut across the lane, with the cyclist well behind it.....then again fine.....cyclist should adjust speed....

However what I am reading is that the car indicated....and then stopped.....and then finally turned at a time when the cyclist was beside it rather than behind it....hence the potential collision.

Where are you reading that?

There was a car ahead of both of us who was indicating that he was going to turn left and had to cross the cycle lane, he had indicated correctly and in plenty of time and had the right of way as he was ahead of both of us and started his maneuver before we approached

The other cyclist guy continues on up the cycle lane and forces the car to jam on the brakes so as to not knock him off

Danjamin1

I love how these stories get embellished, why can't the story just be taken as fact without people adding their assumptions to it?

Tombo2001

Danjamin1 wrote: »

I love how these stories get embellished, why can't the story just be taken as fact without people adding their assumptions to it?

I'll bow out of the conversation here.

Danjamin1

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I'll bow out of the conversation here.

I'm not having a go, I just don't get why people automatically assume the driver MUST have done something to encourage the stupid manoeuvre when turning. Some people are just d**ks no matter their mode of transport.

shootermacg

Clear cut case. The cyclist showed no consideration for the driver ahead. He is clearly in the wrong. The driver should have went for the turn, though I'll always forgive the driver in cases where this becomes a stale-mate because they cared enough for my safety to not make the turn even when they're in the right.

TheChizler

The opposite happened to me last week. I was driving and turning left up ahead and passed a guy cycling just as I was coming to the turn. I was indicating and stopped waiting for him since I'd have cut him off if I went for it, but he stopped too and let out a torrent of abuse for me being so slow to make the turn.

cython

TheChizler wrote: »

The opposite happened to me last week. I was driving and turning left up ahead and passed a guy cycling just as I was coming to the turn. I was indicating and stopped waiting for him since I'd have cut him off if I went for it, but he stopped too and let out a torrent of abuse for me being so slow to make the turn.

Fair play for stopping to let him through, but would you not have just waited behind him and made the turn then? While the RSA have their shortcomings, that is one message (not to overtake a cyclist only to turn/indicate left immediately after) that they are very right in pushing.

Ultimately what you did sends very mixed messages to other road users (not just the cyclist), and he may have assumed (reasonably enough, since if were going to wait for him to pass anyway the question has to be asked of why overtake in the first place?) that if you overtook you were going to turn across him anyway.

Sorry, but while the cyclist's reaction does sound a bit OTT, your own driving did leave scope for improvement.

TheChizler

Nobody should ever be congratulated for not doing something dangerous i think, it should be the standard course of action! Definitely in hindsight I should have hung back, when I made the decision to pass he was going fairly slow up a hill and I would have had plenty of room, but in the meantime he got to the crest (which I didn't anticipate and maybe should have, used to cycle that hill all the time before I disassembled my bike to service it 2 years ago...) and put the foot down which made it borderline. If I'd gone for it I should have ended up on this thread from his point of view! So my intention was ambiguous but didn't warrant the abuse.

shootermacg

TheChizler wrote: »

Nobody should ever be congratulated for not doing something dangerous i think, it should be the standard course of action! Definitely in hindsight I should have hung back, when I made the decision to pass he was going fairly slow up a hill and I would have had plenty of room, but in the meantime he got to the crest (which I didn't anticipate and maybe should have, used to cycle that hill all the time before I disassembled my bike to service it 2 years ago...) and put the foot down which made it borderline. If I'd gone for it I should have ended up on this thread from his point of view! So my intention was ambiguous but didn't warrant the abuse.

If you'd have drove past me only to turn, and it was close enough to cause this stand-off, I wouldn't be happy with your driving either. That's just poor driving. There's a difference between what you did and a car that's ahead at the turn waiting to turn.

ED E

Im with Cython here, what you've done freezes everything. No way am I risking going for it because you just cant assume a driver wont do something stupid when its 1 tonne vs 80kg.

Now I'd put my hands up in the air to ask wtf you're at, not yell, but still.

TheChizler

I'm not disagreeing, I should have slowed down on the hill and stayed behind him, but at the end of the day all that happened was that we both lost a couple of seconds, there was no danger despite him being justifiably cautious, unlike the situation I was comparing to up above.

mr spuckler

it seems TheChizler that you're well intentioned in your posts and fair play for acknowledging that you should have acted differently.

put yourself in the cyclists place though. when someone feels endangered they tend to react quite strongly and it sounds to me like that's what happened here.

also, what seems safe to you might not seem safe to the cyclist.

from personal experience i've pretty much lost all reason when i've been subject to dangerous manouevres in the past. listening back afterwards to what i've shouted on my helmet camera has actually made me cringe and has caused me to try to react better since.

queldy

Was commuting along the canal, Parnell road, usually tons of motorcyclists on the cycling line, most of the time they take the line if free and do not endanger anyone - today one idiot coming particularly fast from previous traffic lights, passing me at speed, bending to change trajectory, missing me and the car in front of me for cm, takes the cycling line, goes till the end of it at speed, stops at the next traffic lights on the cycling line. He is signing left.
I speed up a bit, I reach the lights, I pass him and I stop putting my foot on the ground, I was on the cycling line. He was as well.
When green, I take a few seconds for starting (I delayed it on purpose, yes) - he passes me, he cuts my way (I was prepared for it, anyway), he swears at me, I tell him to shut up (sure all the people around that corner this morning will remember me as the impolite cyclist against all the motorists in the world)- so he stops the motorcycle and tries to push me down my bike (tip for the next time idiot: if you want me down my bike, push on the handlebar, not on my shoulder).
Just sharing the funny story.

07Lapierre

Cycling along a narrow country road in NCD yesterday evening. A BMW 320 convertible pulls out of a driveway right in front of me and proceeds to travel in front of me in the same direction. The passenger realises i'm behind them and that i was freewheeling, as they were travelling quite slowly. there's a T junction just ahead and they are turning left. I'm turning Right and as i move up to the junction on the right side of the car, the driver shouts "sorry about that", to which i reply " no problem...nice car by the way!". A nice summer evening and a nice cyclist/motorist encounter.

PaulieC

07Lapierre wrote: »

Cycling along a narrow country road in NCD yesterday evening. A BMW 320 convertible pulls out of a driveway right in front of me and proceeds to travel in front of me in the same direction. The passenger realises i'm behind them and that i was freewheeling, as they were travelling quite slowly. there's a T junction just ahead and they are turning left. I'm turning Right and as i move up to the junction on the right side of the car, the driver shouts "sorry about that", to which i reply " no problem...nice car by the way!". A nice summer evening and a nice cyclist/motorist encounter.

do you have video footage of this ?

queldy

07Lapierre wrote: »

Cycling along a narrow country road in NCD yesterday evening. A BMW 320 convertible pulls out of a driveway right in front of me and proceeds to travel in front of me in the same direction. The passenger realises i'm behind them and that i was freewheeling, as they were travelling quite slowly. there's a T junction just ahead and they are turning left. I'm turning Right and as i move up to the junction on the right side of the car, the driver shouts "sorry about that", to which i reply " no problem...nice car by the way!". A nice summer evening and a nice cyclist/motorist encounter.

was it a dream or it really happens sometimes?

07Lapierre

PaulieC wrote: »

do you have video footage of this ?

queldy wrote: »

was it a dream or it really happens sometimes?

I assure you i wouldn't lie about it...these encounters are rare enough, so it's good to acknowledge them.

Seaswimmer

mr spuckler wrote: »

it seems TheChizler that you're well intentioned in your posts and fair play for acknowledging that you should have acted differently.

put yourself in the cyclists place though. when someone feels endangered they tend to react quite strongly and it sounds to me like that's what happened here.

also, what seems safe to you might not seem safe to the cyclist.

from personal experience i've pretty much lost all reason when i've been subject to dangerous manouevres in the past. listening back afterwards to what i've shouted on my helmet camera has actually made me cringe and has caused me to try to react better since.

this is interesting as myself and wife cycled out to airshow in Bray last Sunday. There were a couple of minor incidents on the way. One where a car pulled up on the cycle lane and a passenger got out and another where a pedestrian walked into the cycle lane ahead of us and opened a passenger door to get in.

In both cases it was obvious to me what was going to happen so I made allowances (moved off my line or slowed down) but in each case she reacted out of character. The first case she said something like "very dangerous" and second case she again said something to the pedestrian.

We were discussing this after and she explained it was out of fear that made her react like this.

I tried to explain that if every time you cycle you react to every incident then you will be permanently on edge and stressed. Far better to anticipate and take avoiding action.

Roadhawk

Seaswimmer wrote: »

...In both cases it was obvious to me what was going to happen so I made allowances (moved off my line or slowed down) but in each case she reacted out of character. The first case she said something like "very dangerous" and second case she again said something to the pedestrian....

...I tried to explain that if every time you cycle you react to every incident then you will be permanently on edge and stressed. Far better to anticipate and take avoiding action.

Great approach, well said.