Cam footage - who is at fault here?!

droidus

GreeBo wrote: »

There are many junctions where this approach would lead to the car not being able to make any progress while a stream of bikes overtake on the left. Then the lights turn red and another stream of bikes catchup and repeat.

Uh-huh, just like in almost every other situation where a driver has to take a turn. Turning right, merging, turning left onto a main road etc. You cant make progress until someone lets you in.

Personally, when driving I try treat the cycle lane like a zebra crossing. If there's a cyclist in it I wait for them to pass or only enter the lane if there is space for me to do so safely and they have enough time to go around me.

jon1981

I've been beside/behind many cars that have indicated an intent to turn in slow moving traffic for ages! We don't all slow down as many times we will pass the car and be 500m down the road before the car gets a chance to turn.

This car was indicating while at a near stop. I caught him up before the corner due to him slowing down because a car stopped in front of him, going straight ahead.

BorneTobyWilde

at 0.10 you look ahead with no need to stop, but you did come to a stop and encouraged him to keep going.
I think at 0.10 you could have just kept going straight as you were ahead of the car as one can see front of car, and car had not turned at that point so why stop and look for trouble.

GreeBo

droidus wrote: »

Uh-huh, just like in almost every other situation where a driver has to take a turn. Turning right, merging, turning left onto a main road etc. You cant make progress until someone lets you in.

Its not a case of being let in if there are a stream of 20 bikes passing you on the left.

jon1981

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

at 0.10 you look ahead with no need to stop, but you did come to a stop and encouraged him to keep going.
I think at 0.10 you could have just kept going straight as you were ahead of the car as one can see front of car, and car had not turned at that point so why stop and look for trouble.

As already mentioned, his bonnet was coming towards me, I wasn't convinced he was going to stop. I had moved to left to avoid not to confront.

Boooourns

You don't cross a broken white line unless it is safe to do so. The driver was not fully aware of what was around him/her.

Edit: actually they did not cross a white line but they should have been more aware though as they're the ones driving a car whereas you are more vulnerable.

jon1981

jon1981 wrote: »

I've been beside/behind many cars that have indicated an intent to turn in slow moving traffic for ages! We don't all slow down as many times we will pass the car and be 500m down the road before the car gets a chance to turn.

This car was indicating while at a near stop. I caught him up before the corner due to him slowing down because a car stopped in front of him, going straight ahead.

Isn't a solid white line mean Stop? Maybe in Ireland not, because you didn't.

dubrov

Looks to me like there is no relevant legislation covering this.

The lack of clarity in the legislation leads to situations like the Ops video where both appear to think they have right of way.

On balance, I think explicilty giving right of way to the cyclist would lead to the best outcomes.
It would force motorists to take more care when turning left.

droidus

GreeBo wrote: »

Its not a case of being let in if there are a stream of 20 bikes passing you on the left.

What do you do if youre making a right turn and there's a stream of 20 cars in the lane you're trying to turn across?

_Brian

To me it seems that although the car was indicating to turn left the cyclist continues up the inside and puts themself into the path of the car turning left which had been indicating to do so all along.

jive

droidus wrote: »

What do you do if youre making a right turn and there's a stream of 20 cars in the lane you're trying to turn across?

Different rules; if crossing lanes you have to wait for it to be clear. If going across a 'cycle track' then once you have indicated and are ahead of the bicycle then you have right of way.

Having said that I saw a guy crash into a cyclist at Donnybrook Topaz last week. He was turning across 2 lanes of traffic + cycle track and got pissed at the cyclist saying the cyclist should have stopped. That's the standard of some drivers unfortunately and there's only going to be one winner in all these scenarios.

Too hard to tell from OP's video who is right, who is wrong. Personally, ignoring the legalities, I'd have sat back and err'd on the side of caution regardless.

Wishbone Ash

Deleted User wrote: »

Isn't a solid white line mean Stop? Maybe in Ireland not, because you didn't.

It a traffic light controlled junction. Presumably the light was green.

amcalester

dubrov wrote: »

Looks to me like there is no relevant legislation covering this.

The lack of clarity in the legislation leads to situations like the Ops video where both appear to think they have right of way.

On balance, I think explicilty giving right of way to the cyclist would lead to the best outcomes.
It would force motorists to take more care when turning left.

A cyclist is not allowed overtake a vehicle on the left if that vehicle is indicating to turn left and will complete the maneuver before the cyclist passes.

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,

The legislation is pretty clear but there are a lot of cyclists that aren't aware of it and seem to think they have right of way, it's scary how many continue up the left of vehicles that are just about to turn.

the_pen_turner

droidus wrote: »

GreeBo wrote: »

Its not a case of being let in if there are a stream of 20 bikes passing you on the left.

What do you do if youre making a right turn and there's a stream of 20 cars in the lane you're trying to turn across?

Yield to their right of way. Just like the cyclist should do when you are turning left

TheAnalyst_

100% you and its worrying that you would think its worth even having a debate about it.

GreeBo

droidus wrote: »

What do you do if youre making a right turn and there's a stream of 20 cars in the lane you're trying to turn across?

I yield because I dont have right of way, just like (most of) the cyclists should be doing to me when turning left.

Fortywatt

The law as set out by buffalo in post 18 makes clear that cyclists are allowed to undertake a car on the left if the car is moving more slowly, unless the car driver is indicating to turn left (we may assume that the indicators were on before the cyclist came level with the rear lights) and (ii) - and this is the important bit - "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".

The cyclist had overtaken the car before it started to turn so it would be hard to argue that the OP's expectation that he would be able to overtake before the car turned was not reasonable. The OP was entitled to overtake.

There was then a separate incident: the car driver overtook the cyclist and turned left while doing so. The car driver was in the wrong.

I expect the point of the legislation was to give cars the right not to be stuck waiting to turn left while an interminable line of cyclists overtakes them on the inside. I think it leaves far too much to chance in terms of faulty indicators and when exactly the indicator was turned on, and it strikes the wrong balance between vulnerable and less vulnerable road users.

dubrov

Fortywatt wrote: »

The law as set out by buffalo in post 18 makes clear that cyclists are allowed to undertake a car on the left if the car is moving more slowly, unless the car driver is indicating to turn left (we may assume that the indicators were on before the cyclist came level with the rear lights) and (ii) - and this is the important bit - "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".

The cyclist had overtaken the car before it started to turn so it would be hard to argue that the OP's expectation that he would be able to overtake before the car turned was not reasonable. The OP was entitled to overtake.

There was then a separate incident: the car driver overtook the cyclist and turned left while doing so. The car driver was in the wrong.

I expect the point of the legislation was to give cars the right not to be stuck waiting to turn left while an interminable line of cyclists overtakes them on the inside. I think it leaves far too much to chance in terms of faulty indicators and when exactly the indicator was turned on, and it strikes the wrong balance between vulnerable and less vulnerable road users.

Thanks. I somehow missed that post.

Sleeper12

Looks to me if you saw the indicator you should have slowed down & given way

Regardless of the rules of road If he saw you then he's a donkey for not waiting for you to pass imo

J.pilkington

Fair play to the OP, its rare that you come across a car / biker with a camera who is willing to have a mature conversation and take some feedback on board and learn from the experience.

axer

OP unfortunately you are 100% wrong in this situation. Fair play to you for posting and looking for feedback. You would have been much better to stop dead as soon as you saw the car move anyway left - not sure why you continued to turn left and then swing out in front of the car to cross like that. You can chalk it down to a learning situation to avoid in the future. This is the problem with having a cycle lane - it gives the feeling of right of way. All cycle lanes should be gotten rid of unless they are segregated with right of way for the cyclist - otherwise these types of things happen.

The best advice when using cycle lanes/tracks is to pretend they are not there as they offer no benefits or protection to cyclists.

route66

As a cyclist, I'd have waited. I would not have "undertook" a car with it's left indicator on. I'm pretty sure this is what legislation would dictate also, but, regardless I would be more interested in staying alive than being right.

As a driver, I often come across a roughly similar piece of road at the Stillorgan dual Carriageway end of Brewery road in Dublin. There is a turn left here that I take (link) that crosses a busy cycle lane. I look over my left shoulder before I turn left and if there is a cyclist, I stop and let them pass. I am sometimes amazed when cyclists "undertake" me - when I have right of way. Why would you put your life in the hands of somebody else?

Looking at this still from the Youtube video, the driver does look like an aggressive sort:

the_pen_turner

In fairness you would be pretty annoyed if someone went up the inside of you like that. Then went across in front of you.

Doesn't make it right though

CramCycle

The other thing that people are missing though, right or wrong, the driver kept letting their foot off the clutch. It really doesn't matter at this point who has the right of way, the driver is using their vehicle to threaten/intimidate the OP, that is insane. People like that should not be on the road.

Markiemarkso

1) Never cycle between another left turning vehicle and the kerb. Stay well behind it and let it go. Then turn and don’t swing out into the road.
2) Never pass a vehicle on the inside when it may turn left. Keep well clear of buses and trucks near junctions.

Source: http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Campaigns/Wrecked/Downloads/Cycle%20safety%20booklet.pdf

foxatron

When I'm driving id always give way to bikes unless i was well ahead of them and could easily turn without them braking suddenly. Why would you risk busting up your car. People just rushing to cut 2 seconds off their journey.

GreeBo

CramCycle wrote: »

The other thing that people are missing though, right or wrong, the driver kept letting their foot off the clutch. It really doesn't matter at this point who has the right of way, the driver is using their vehicle to threaten/intimidate the OP, that is insane. People like that should not be on the road.

Can you not use that same argument against the OP though?

The OP kept cycling, they used their vulnerability to threaten/intimidate the car into stopping.

Someone who behaves like that on a bicycle doesn't suddenly turn into a mild mannered road user when behind the wheel of an artic.

droidus

GreeBo wrote: »

Can you not use that same argument against the OP though?

The OP kept cycling, they used their vulnerability to threaten/intimidate the car into stopping.

Someone who behaves like that on a bicycle doesn't suddenly turn into a mild mannered road user when behind the wheel of an artic.

Yes, using your vulnerability to intimidate and threaten, that age old tactic.

The OP proceeded as he was level with the car when they indicated and then ahead when the car started to turn. At worst it was a bad decision and technically he may well have had right of way.

The driver then tried to proceed despite the fact that the OP was directly in front of him - effectively trying to run him down.

That you can equate these actions is baffling.

queldy

He is at fault, no doubts.
You are ahead of him, then he overtakes and turns left. He either did not see you, or intentionally turns left without caring about you there.
Cannot be sure, I have the impression this is the typical motorist punishment "I signed left, I don't care if I had to queue while he had time to legally overtake me on the cycling line; I will turn left anyway and punish him - he will learn the lesson".
My humble opinion, obviously.

GreeBo

droidus wrote: »

Yes, using your vulnerability to intimidate and threaten, that age old tactic.

The OP proceeded as he was level with the car when they indicated and then ahead when the car started to turn. At worst it was a bad decision and technically he may well have had right of way.

The driver then tried to proceed despite the fact that the OP was directly in front of him - effectively trying to run him down.

That you can equate these actions is baffling.

Both people kept going and tried to force the other out of their way.

The OP tried to proceed despite the fact that a 1 tonne vehicle was indicating and crossing his path - effectively trying to intimidate the driver into stopping to avoid hitting him. He then cycled around the car rather than wait and let the car pass.

In fact the OP was stopped at one point and still tried to overtake the turning car, despite being *in* the junction.

There are two people who acted very inappropriately and dangerously in this case; my viewing of the video shows the OP passing a moving vehicle thats indicating and about to turn left. Thats a suicidal move in my experience.

How anyone can say the OP is "ahead" of the car is baffling for me. We can see the indicator while the OP's bike is still partly behind the car a couple of feet from the junction!