Left hooking a cyclist with no lights?

Averagevegan

With all these ninjas doing the rounds.
Is it better to occupy the cycle lane at the junction in order to prevent undertaking and left hooking?
I understand this is a ****ty thing to do for cyclists who are going straight on, but some road layouts don't give much of a choice.
Maybe better safe than sorry.

An example would be here
//goo.gl/maps/apeDE4LLQVS2

TheChizler

I'm not sure I follow...

I thought left-hooking was waiting to turn right in the left of the lane while vehicles pass on the right, and making the turn either once there's a gap or the lights change?

Hrududu

TheChizler wrote: »

I'm not sure I follow...

I thought left-hooking was waiting to turn right in the left of the lane while vehicles pass on the right, and making the turn either once there's a gap or the lights change?

Isn't that a U turn?

TheChizler

Hrududu wrote: »

Isn't that a U turn?

A u-turn would be turning back the way you came, this is just a right turn. But I think we're all working off different definitions.

Grassey

I believe he means pull the car up tight to the curb on the left of car to prevent cyclists heading straight through (or left) from filtering up the inside so that when he turns left he doesn't hit them.

Correct, it is a ****ty thing to do if you are encroaching on a marked cycle lane, and likewise only forcing the issue you face back on the drivers behind you.

Wishbone Ash

I thought it meant driving a LHD vehicle in countries which drive on the left (i.e. steering wheel on wrong side).

OP - it shouldn't really affect cyclists going straight on as they should be passing you on your right if you intend to turn left and have indicated so.

magicbastarder

i always understood left hooking to be where a car will pass a cyclist and immediately turn left on top of them, instead of waiting behind and taking the left behind the cyclist.

Averagevegan

TheChizler wrote: »

I'm not sure I follow...

I thought left-hooking was waiting to turn right in the left of the lane while vehicles pass on the right, and making the turn either once there's a gap or the lights change?

It could be my bad choice of words, maybe sideswiping a cyclist when turning left?

To turn left at the junction at churchtown and Beaumont ave you have to cross the cycle lane, if there is a nija going straight on they no hope of me seeing them.
I guess in all cases the cyclist is undertaking and is at fault? But the lanes only merge 30m ahead of the junction so not really possible for cyclist traveling straight on to filter to the right to overtake the left turning car.

TheChizler

Grassey wrote: »

I believe he means pull the car up tight to the curb on the left of car to prevent cyclists heading straight through (or left) from filtering up the inside so that when he turns left he doesn't hit them.

Oh I thought we were talking about bikes here! Wouldn't have a problem if they were at the top of the lane about to turn and it was a dashed cycle lane, but doing it for more than a second or two or in a mandatory lane would be kinda sh***y.

Edit: FYI this was the definition of left hook I was going by. The other commonly used one seems to be literally driving through a cyclist as you turn left.

Chips Lovell

If they're overtaking you on the inside when you're turning left, then its their own fault if they hit you. If they want to overtake a left turning vehicle, they need to do so on the outside.

Averagevegan

Grassey wrote: »

I believe he means pull the car up tight to the curb on the left of car to prevent cyclists heading straight through (or left) from filtering up the inside so that when he turns left he doesn't hit them.

Correct, it is a ****ty thing to do if you are encroaching on a marked cycle lane, and likewise only forcing the issue you face back on the drivers behind you.

It maybe ****ty but it appears to be the safest option? Assuming there will be a ninja going straight on.

Wishbone Ash

Averagevegan wrote: »

...I guess in all cases the cyclist is undertaking and is at fault?...

In all cases? What about the motorist crossing the track without yielding?

Averagevegan

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

If they're overtaking you on the inside when you're turning left, then its their own fault if they hit you. If they want to overtake a left turning vehicle, they need to do so on the outside.

But if I am slowing for the junction and they maintain their speed are they still undertaking.
This junction is a mess

Averagevegan

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

In all cases? What about the motorist crossing the track without yielding?

This is what am wondering, I am yielding but with a black out cyclist traveling at 25kph how can I be sure when it is safe to turn?

Chips Lovell

The fault will lie with the overtaker. If you overtake someone and pull across them, it's your fault. If they overtake you after you've signalled and begun to move left, then it's their fault.

TheChizler

Averagevegan wrote: »

This is what am wondering, I am yielding but with a black out cyclist traveling at 25kph how can I be sure when it is safe to turn?

Do it slowly and check your mirrors, as normal?

amcalester

Averagevegan wrote: »

But if I am slowing for the junction and they maintain their speed are they still undertaking.
This junction is a mess

I use this junction a lot and you're right it is a mess, the cycle should split and divert cyclists going straight into the right hand land, and those turning left into the left hand lane. Obviously that doesn't happen.

You shouldn't block the cycle lane though.

Averagevegan

TheChizler wrote: »

Do it slowly and check your mirrors, as normal?

Mirrors in the real world only work if you can see the cyclist (lights). If they have no lights them then?

Chips Lovell

Law states:

(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,

(ii) is stationary for the purposes of permitting a passenger or passengers to alight or board the vehicle, or

(iii) is stationary for the purposes of loading or unloading.”,

If the above applies, then you have right of way. If you can't see them, then it's a different matter and it's their fault they didn't have lights.

Idleater

Averagevegan wrote: »

This junction is a mess

The design of the cycle lane on that stretch is a mess, and puts a "correctly" going straight-on cyclist on the left of traffic in a specific left turn lane.

The lines are solid, so you should really treat that cycle lane as another full lane of traffic and yield to it when crossing (turning). You also should not enter it to "block" those already in it.

That's a lot of should's but there are a lot of similar junctions like that that do not account for actual traffic patterns (cyclists are traffic).

Common sense as always should apply, but if you were to collide with a straight on going cyclist, I would say that you would be at fault at that particular junction.

Obviously as many other posters have said, it would not be beyond reasonable expectation to find cyclists going straight on from either the RHS lane or even the left turn lane, especially if more vehicles take command of the left turn by using the cycle lane.

Averagevegan

amcalester wrote: »

I use this junction a lot and you're right it is a mess, the cycle should split and divert cyclists going straight into the right hand land, and those turning left into the left hand lane. Obviously that doesn't happen.

You shouldn't block the cycle lane though.

For what is there now, occupying the cycle lane when turning left is the safest option for everyone. It's not ideal but it's the best option?

Macy0161

My car commute takes me left at Donnybrook Bus Garage. Can't say I've ever had a problem spotting cyclists without lights to be honest. Check of the mirrors, check of the blind spot off you go. And that's a downhill where bikes generally carrying a decent speed.

Not sure I get the logic of blocking the cycle lane - if you're stopped, they'll just go around the outside and back in front. If you're moving, I don't see how they would be coming that fast for you not to see them? If the cycle lane is solid lines, it's mandatory, so no motorised vehicles allowed.

amcalester

Averagevegan wrote: »

Mirrors in the real world only work if you can see the cyclist (lights). If they have no lights them then?

Lights would obviously make it easier to see the cyclist but it's not like that junction is in the middle of dark sky preserve, it's well a well light-up area so if you're looking you should see any cyclists.

Macy0161

Weepsie wrote: »

Be ultra vigilant with mirrors and checking and you should be fine.

And the blind spot, especially if it's an area that you have concerns about.

lawred2

Averagevegan wrote: »

With all these ninjas doing the rounds.
Is it better to occupy the cycle lane at the junction in order to prevent undertaking and left hooking?
I understand this is a ****ty thing to do for cyclists who are going straight on, but some road layouts don't give much of a choice.
Maybe better safe than sorry.

An example would be here
//goo.gl/maps/apeDE4LLQVS2

maybe you just worry about following the rules of the road and leave others to do the same

amcalester

Macy0161 wrote: »

My car commute takes me left at Donnybrook Bus Garage. Can't say I've ever had a problem spotting cyclists without lights to be honest. Check of the mirrors, check of the blind spot off you go. And that's a downhill where bikes generally carrying a decent speed.

Not sure I get the logic of blocking the cycle lane - if you're stopped, they'll just go around the outside and back in front. If you're moving, I don't see how they would be coming that fast for you not to see them? If the cycle lane is solid lines, it's mandatory, so no motorised vehicles allowed.

This section is a "mandatory" cycle lane.

TheChizler

Averagevegan wrote: »

Mirrors in the real world only work if you can see the cyclist (lights). If they have no lights them then?

It's not like not having a light renders them invisible, you can see pedestrians can't you? They should have one but just be aware of who you pass out on the way to the junction, look carefully, check your blind spot, and make the turn slowly.

Averagevegan

amcalester wrote: »

Lights would obviously make it easier to see the cyclist but it's not like that junction is in the middle of dark sky preserve, it's well a well light-up area so if you're looking you should see any cyclists.

There is traffic behind so you are trying to see a blacked out cyclist coming from behind a set of headlights using a 8cm patch of glass.

You lads must have x-ray vision!

I will ask the garda as they might have a more practical view of it.

Cyclist will be cyclist.

Averagevegan

TheChizler wrote: »

It's not like not having a light renders them invisible, you can see pedestrians can't you? They should have one but just be aware of who you pass out on the way to the junction, look carefully, check your blind spot, and make the turn slowly.

Coming from behind a set of head lights, yes it does.

For now I will occupy the cycle lane at the junction. So apologies in advance to any cyclist going straight on. But at least you'll know why.

smacl

Averagevegan wrote: »

It maybe ****ty but it appears to be the safest option? Assuming there will be a ninja going straight on.

If you're stopping at the junction and there is no cyclist on your inside, it seems reasonable as they cyclist would need to undertake you to get past given you're ahead of them when the lights change. If you're a few cars behind the junction, it is unreasonable as the cyclist may correctly pass you on the inside to get to the junction while the lights are still red. Problem is this could leave you making an unexpected move at a junction which may be counterproductive.

Personally, as a cyclist approaching a junction with potentially left turning traffic, I take the lane to avoid getting 'left hooked' which is essentially the same manoeuvre in reverse.

amcalester

Averagevegan wrote: »

There is traffic behind so you are trying to see a blacked out cyclist coming from behind a set of headlights using a 8cm patch of glass.

You lads must have x-ray vision!

I will ask the garda as they might have a more practical view of it.

Cyclist will be cyclist.

I fully agree that the cyclists should have lights, should not be moving up your left hand side if you're indicating to turn left I just don't think it's the issue you're making it out to be.

Remember most people posting here also drive so face the exact same issues as you do and manage fine

The guards will give you the same advice as was given here, basically mirror, signal, mirror, maneuver.

amcalester

smacl wrote: »

If you're stopping at the junction and there is no cyclist on your inside, it seems reasonable as they cyclist would need to undertake you to get past given you're ahead of them when the lights change. If you're a few cars behind the junction, it is unreasonable as the cyclist may correctly pass you on the inside to get to the junction while the lights are still red. Problem is this could leave you making an unexpected move at a junction which may be counterproductive.

Personally, as a cyclist approaching a junction with potentially left turning traffic, I take the lane to avoid getting 'left hooked' which is essentially the same manoeuvre in reverse.

Except you're allowed do it, while in this instance the OP is not.

Grassey

Averagevegan wrote: »

There is traffic behind so you are trying to see a blacked out cyclist coming from behind a set of headlights using a 8cm patch of glass.

If the cyclist is backlit by car headlights then they should be visible no?
Would a bicycle light be lost in the stronger car head lights and be rendered useless?

Wishbone Ash

Averagevegan wrote: »

....I will ask the garda as they might have a more practical view of it.....

:eek:

Most Gardai haven't a clue about road traffic regulations and will merely give their own opinion which is usually from a motorists point of view.

Averagevegan

smacl wrote: »

Personally, as a cyclist approaching a junction with potentially left turning traffic, I take the lane to avoid getting 'left hooked' which is essentially the same manoeuvre in reverse.

Agree.

But unfortunately this cycle lane is raised until approx 30m before the turn so cyclist do not have a realistic option to take the lane with bumper to bumper but moving traffic.

Averagevegan

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

:eek:

Most Gardai haven't a clue about road traffic regulations and will merely give their own opinion which is usually from a motorists point of view.

To be fair, it would more practical than most of the half baked nonsense posted here.

Nekarsulm

This kind of scenario is one of the reasons cars have small indicator lights on the side of the front wings, just ahead of the door.
Any cyclist sho is stopped beside a car which is indicating left and doesn't let it go first when the lights ahead turn green , but tries to "beat it" away from the line can hardly be surprised when they get run over.

__..__

TheChizler wrote: »

Do it slowly and check your mirrors, as normal?

I think cyclists think that mirrors are magic and that drivers always see everything in them.
Mirrors are a bitch when they have drops on rain on them at night with all sorts of light behind you. Driver never sees everything in his mirrors all the time. He's human and they are just mirors. Cyclists shouldnt depend on the driver to save their life everytime they make a mistake.
When I'm on the bike I am always fully aware that drivers may not see me in their mirrors despite their best intentions.

07Lapierre

If i was cycling along that bike track and I intended going straight on, if there was a car ahead of me (indicating that it was going to turn left), I'd stop behind the car. Once the lights go green, the car turns left and I would proceed straight on. At least, IMO, that's how it should work.

smacl

amcalester wrote: »

Except you're allowed do it, while in this instance the OP is not.

Fair enough, but would you really want to be at a junction on the inside of a car indicating to turn left? Whatever about a car, if it was a larger vehicle it such as a HGV it makes sense not to leave this space available to the cyclist regardless of whether they technically have a right to be there. The problem I have with many cycle lanes is that they're poorly designed and can leave the cyclist in a vulnerable position at a junction. As a cyclist I ignore cycle lanes in these circumstances. If a motorist does similar with the specific aim of limiting the vulnerability of cyclists I've no problem with it, even if they're technically in the wrong for doing so. YMMV.

amcalester

smacl wrote: »

Fair enough, but would you really want to be at a junction on the inside of a car indicating to turn left? Whatever about a car, if it was a larger vehicle it such as a HGV it makes sense not to leave this space available to the cyclist regardless of whether they technically have a right to be there. The problem I have with many cycle lanes is that they're poorly designed and can leave the cyclist in a vulnerable position at a junction. As a cyclist I ignore cycle lanes in these circumstances. If a motorist does similar with the specific aim of limiting the vulnerability of cyclists I've no problem with it, even if they're technically in the wrong for doing so. YMMV.

Absolutely agree with you, but knowing this particular junction as both a cyclist and motorist I just don't see that it is as big an issue as the OP is making out.

smacl

Averagevegan wrote: »

Agree.

But unfortunately this cycle lane is raised until approx 30m before the turn so cyclist do not have a realistic option to take the lane with bumper to bumper but moving traffic.

Some cycle lanes are best avoided for this reason, e.g. this dead end on Nutgrove that just stops for no good reason. In this case the best option is just to stick with the traffic, which if bumper to bumper will probably be slower than the cyclist anyway.

ED E

smacl wrote: »

Some cycle lanes are best avoided for this reason, e.g. this dead end on Nutgrove that just stops for no good reason. In this case the best option is just to stick with the traffic, which if bumper to bumper will probably be slower than the cyclist anyway.

Thats a BMX track not a cycle lane.

amcalester

smacl wrote: »

Some cycle lanes are best avoided for this reason, e.g. this dead end on Nutgrove that just stops for no good reason. In this case the best option is just to stick with the traffic, which if bumper to bumper will probably be slower than the cyclist anyway.

That section used to be on my commute home but I switched to Dodder Park road as it is an awful stretch to cycle.

Macy0161

Averagevegan wrote: »

To be fair, it would more practical than most of the half baked nonsense posted here.

Seriously, what half baked nonsense have you got? Check your mirrors, check your blind spot, proceed with caution, don't illegally block a mandatory cycle lane. Plenty saying cyclists should have lights and saying cyclists shouldn't be going up the inside of an indicating vehicle in the circumstances you outlined.

What exactly were you looking for? Just an OK to illegally block a mandatory cycle lane?

Grassey

smacl wrote: »

Some cycle lanes are best avoided for this reason, e.g. this dead end on Nutgrove that just stops for no good reason. In this case the best option is just to stick with the traffic, which if bumper to bumper will probably be slower than the cyclist anyway.

Such a confusing lane... do you take the dip into road lane, or continue straight into the invisible car illegaly parked?

TheChizler

__..__ wrote: »

I think cyclists think that mirrors are magic and that drivers always see everything in them.
Mirrors are a bitch when they have drops on rain on them at night with all sorts of light behind you.

Maybe my mirrors are better than most (they are heated though) but I never have an issue seeing anything coming up a cycle lane when I'm turning next to one.

Of course nobody should assume that they can be seen but if you can't see you need to slow down and look more thoroughly.

amcalester

Grassey wrote: »

Such a confusing lane... do you take the dip into road lane, or continue straight into the invisible car illegaly parked?

In my experience there's usually a car parked blocking the dip as well so that's out.

smacl

amcalester wrote: »

Absolutely agree with you, but knowing this particular junction as both a cyclist and motorist I just don't see that it is as big an issue as the OP is making out.

Just saw the link in the OP. That's a cycle lane where you can go straight on the inside of a left turning lane. This is crappy and dangerous design pure and simple. If the cycle lane wasn't there, a cyclist wouldn't be in that position at all at the junction, they'd be in the other lane. Funny enough if you look at the same junction from the other side, you see how it should be done. The road design strategy seems correct at the T-junction but not the straight ahead quite often around there.

ted1

Averagevegan wrote: »

TheChizler wrote: »

It's not like not having a light renders them invisible, you can see pedestrians can't you? They should have one but just be aware of who you pass out on the way to the junction, look carefully, check your blind spot, and make the turn slowly.

Coming from behind a set of head lights, yes it does.

For now I will occupy the cycle lane at the junction. So apologies in advance to any cyclist going straight on. But at least you'll know why.

You’ll be forcing the cyclists to weave, there will be another driver on in a minute giving out about drivers who weave.

Op indicate early. Don’t block the cycle lane, take the turn when you can clearly pass the cycling lane. Use your mirrors and proceed.

Grassey

amcalester wrote: »

In my experience there's usually a car parked blocking the dip as well so that's out.

I know, it's why I'll go the slightly longer way down the dodder and up through Churchtown using the nice cycling infrastructure provided, rather than that farce and/or bumper to bumper traffic... not that the Nutgrove road surface is any better to the Nutgrove BMX trail.