Cam footage - who is at fault here?!

ForestFire

07Lapierre wrote: »

Who cares? Hitting moving cars hurts!..cyclists should have anticipated the car turning.

Is that not what I said?

cython

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

hide behind your semantics and legalese all you want, it's fairly obvious to anyone the bike lane is a separately and obviously defined lane of road by markings alone. It's stupid and careless to simply swing across it without checking it's clear and shows nothing but contempt for other road users.

With all due respect, as has been highlighted on these boards countless times in the past, there is actually nothing in law that gives cycle tracks (yes, that is the legal term, regardless of marking) the same status as a traffic lane, and indeed a similar distinction in markings to that which means that cyclists may cross the solid line delineating mandatory lanes also means that the marking does not necessarily make them a separate lane. While I can see where you are coming from to claim it is obvious, the law offers little to no support to this assertion, and ultimately that can't be ignored.

ittakestwo

If you are turning of the main road you have to wait for it to be clear. People here are saying that there is no cycle lanes by law, Well that means they are then both sharing the same lane so how can the driver push across if it is not clear to do so. And indicators don't give you the right to push out either. if the driver can't excute the turn without a collision then they must wait till its safe to do so.

It would be the drivers insurance paying out if an injury was caused by a collision.

Grassey

ittakestwo wrote:

Well that means they are then both sharing the same lane so how can the driver push across if it is not clear to do so.

If it's the same lane then is the onus not on the cyclist to overtake in a safe manner on the left ie not commencing an overtake on the inside of a left turning car?

ittakestwo

Grassey wrote: »

If it's the same lane then is the onus not on the cyclist to overtake in a safe manner on the left ie not commencing an overtake on the inside of a left turning car?

If it is the same lane the onus is on who ever is turning off the road, whether it be bike or car to make sure it is clear to do so.

The car had not commenced the turn until they were side by side.

cython

ittakestwo wrote: »

If it is the same lane the onus is on who ever is turning off the road, whether it be bike or car to make sure it is clear to do so.

The car had not commenced the turn until they were side by side.

So the below bolded section of Statutory Instrument might as well not exist then?

SI 332/2012 wrote:

(5)(a) A driver (other than a pedal cyclist) may only overtake on the left—

(i) where the driver of the vehicle about to be overtaken has signalled an intention to turn to the right and the driver of the overtaking vehicle intends, after overtaking, to go straight ahead or turn to the left,

(ii) where the driver of the overtaking vehicle intends, after overtaking, to turn to the left at the next road junction and has signalled this intention, or

(iii) in slow-moving traffic, when vehicles in the traffic lane on the driver’s right are moving more slowly than the overtaking vehicle,

(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.

The video literally does not provide enough information (we can't see how long the indicator was on for) to pin this on the car driver (equally it can't be blamed on the cyclist for the same reason), but your assertion is completely at odds with the written law.

Grassey

ittakestwo wrote: »

The car had not commenced the turn until they were side by side.

From my viewing the car had already begun turning when the cyclist came from behind at pace and broadsided him. If they were side by side it would have been a shallower angle of impact and you'd see the cyclist in frame before the car turned.

the_pen_turner

cyclist 100%. the car was turning a long time before the cyclist hits the car.

axer

cython wrote: »

The video literally does not provide enough information (we can't see how long the indicator was on for) to pin this on the car driver (equally it can't be blamed on the cyclist for the same reason), but your assertion is completely at odds with the written law.

While I agree if the car had just indicated just as it came into shot then it might have been tight time-wise but either way the car was indicating, it started a slow turn into the entrance and the bike appears not to have even tried to brake. There was enough time to brake hard and maybe just end up touching the car - not wacking into it like it did. There is no evidence to show the driver did anything wrong - all the evidence points to the cyclist being 100% wrong.

It looks to me that the cyclist thought he had right of way thus thinking the car is not allowed to turn. Unfortunately there are many cyclists who mistakenly think a cycle track gives them right of way. TBH I don't blame them for thinking this but it is very dangerous belief to hold. Even if the cyclist did believe he had right of way he showed terrible safety awareness by assuming the car was not going to cross the cycle track or somehow stop the manoeuvre as the bike approached. Once a car turns like that their side mirrors are no longer of use to see the approaching cyclist and their view is probably partially or fully obscured by the part of the car between the front and rear doors.

ittakestwo

cython wrote: »

So the below bolded section of Statutory Instrument might as well not exist then?



The video literally does not provide enough information (we can't see how long the indicator was on for) to pin this on the car driver (equally it can't be blamed on the cyclist for the same reason), but your assertion is completely at odds with the written law.

What you highlighted shows the driver is in the wrong lol. Only turn left if it is clear and won't cause a collision.

cython

ittakestwo wrote: »

What you highlighted shows the driver is in the wrong lol. Only turn left if it is clear and won't cause a collision.

Clearly there is either no talking to you, or you haven't bothered reading the extract. None of the passage that I quoted puts any obligation on drivers of mechanically-propelled vehicles in the context of cyclists passing on the left. If you think otherwise, please quote the section that you are interpreting in that manner, and your interpretation of it as well, as perhaps something is getting lost along the way.

ittakestwo

cython wrote: »

Clearly there is either no talking to you, or you haven't bothered reading the extract. None of the passage that I quoted puts any obligation on drivers of mechanically-propelled vehicles in the context of cyclists passing on the left. If you think otherwise, please quote the section that you are interpreting in that manner, and your interpretation of it as well, as perhaps something is getting lost along the way.

''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''

Did you read the above?

Basically means don't turn left if you will cause a collision.

cython

ittakestwo wrote: »

''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''

Did you read the above?

Yes, and it's pretty straightforward that a cyclist may not pass on the left in that scenario. If a car is indicating left and slows down at an entrance that constitutes a reasonable expectation that they are going to turn left. In no way does that place a burden on the driver, unless you have a very warped world view?

greenspurs

Any "COP ON" ?

If I see a car turning left while I'm coming up behind it, I would slow down and leave them turn.
No point trying to take moral high ground, Cyclist was in the wrong.

Try posting that video on one of the Motoring threads and see what response you would get, The OP is only getting some sympathy because it is a cycling thread. Bias sometimes helps those that use it.

Chips Lovell

Personal abuse and name calling isn't on and will be sanctioned.

Be nice please.

ford2600

Two images attached 15:02:18 & 15:02:20

Car moves forward before 15:02:18 but you cannot be certain of a turn before then. Indicator is not visible at that point.

Cyclist is at impact at 15:02:20.

That's 2-3 seconds allowing for split seconds either end, which only a frame by frame examination could determine.

As we don't know distances, and time isn't exact we don't know speed of cyclist.

We do know, had driver looking in mirror at 15:02:18 cyclist would have been visible approaching and 2-3 seconds from impact. He is a vulnerable road user, passing an entrance not a junction.

There is a huge onus on driver to ensure it is safe for him to do so irrespective of quoted SI

He either
*didn't check his mirror
*checked his mirror and didn't see
*checked his mirror and saw and said fcuk it I have SI xyz on my side

As to whether indicator was on before 15:02:18 is a swearing match between both drivers on basis of information available; i.e. no other witness cctv etc

In nearly any civil court in this country if cyclist was to sue driver he would at least to some degree win his case. He's an idiot and should have known better but the uninjured party with insurance will pay all day

ittakestwo

ford2600 wrote: »

Two images attached 15:02:18 & 15:02:20

Car moves forward before 15:02:18 but you cannot be certain of a turn before then. Indicator is not visible at that point.

Cyclist is at impact at 15:02:20.

That's 2-3 seconds allowing for split seconds either end, which only a frame by frame examination could determine.

As we don't know distances, and time isn't exact we don't know speed of cyclist.

We do know, had driver looking in mirror at 15:02:18 cyclist would have been visible approaching and 2-3 seconds from impact. He is a vulnerable road user, passing an entrance not a junction.

There is a huge onus on driver to ensure it is safe for him to do so irrespective of quoted SI

He either
*didn't check his mirror
*checked his mirror and didn't see
*checked his mirror and saw and said fcuk it I have SI xyz on my side

As to whether indicator was on before 15:02:18 is a swearing match between both drivers on basis of information available; i.e. no other witness cctv etc

In nearly any civil court in this country if cyclist was to sue driver he would at least to some degree win his case. He's an idiot and should have known better but the uninjured party with insurance will pay all day

The reason why the cyclist would win in nearly every court is because if a car is turning off the road they have to make sure it is clear and safe to do so. This is common sense guys. Whether indicators are on or not makes no difference.

If a car was turning left off a road over a path into a driveway and there was a jogger on the path it would be the same thing, whether the car was at the driveway before the jogger on the path they still MUST wait for the jogger to pass if they cant make the turn into the drive without causing a collision. Even if they had their indicators on for an hour before hand.

ForestFire

ittakestwo wrote: »

The reason why the cyclist would win in nearly every court is because if a car is turning off the road they have to make sure it is clear and safe to do so. This is common sense guys. Whether indicators are on or not makes no difference.

If a car was turning left off a road over a path into a driveway and there was a jogger on the path it would be the same thing, whether the car was at the driveway before the jogger on the path they still MUST wait for the jogger to pass if they cant make the turn into the drive without causing a collision. Even if they had their indicators on for an hour before hand.

If a car is turning off a main road to the left and a second car tries to undertake them on the hard shoulder on the left, who is at fault?

The point is the cyclist is technically in the same lane as the car and it is his responsibility if he undertakes the cars ahead.

Cyclenutter

axer wrote: »

While I agree if the car had just indicated just as it came into shot then it might have been tight time-wise but either way the car was indicating, it started a slow turn into the entrance and the bike appears not to have even tried to brake. There was enough time to brake hard and maybe just end up touching the car - not wacking into it like it did. There is no evidence to show the driver did anything wrong - all the evidence points to the cyclist being 100% wrong.

It looks to me that the cyclist thought he had right of way thus thinking the car is not allowed to turn. Unfortunately there are many cyclists who mistakenly think a cycle track gives them right of way. TBH I don't blame them for thinking this but it is very dangerous belief to hold. Even if the cyclist did believe he had right of way he showed terrible safety awareness by assuming the car was not going to cross the cycle track or somehow stop the manoeuvre as the bike approached. Once a car turns like that their side mirrors are no longer of use to see the approaching cyclist and their view is probably partially or fully obscured by the part of the car between the front and rear doors.

As a matter of fact the cyclist does have the right of way. Read page 98
https://www.nationaltransport.ie/downloads/archive/provision_of_cycling_facilities_ch4_2006.pdf
On road cycle lanes - legal status - traffic crossing the cycle lane must yield to traffic in that lane.

Cyclenutter

It’s absolutely incredible that bike lane law still needs to be clarified to so many. So many variations of dumb made up rules. Ask yourself would you cut across a bus in a bus lane? No . Then why would you think it’s alright to do it to a bicycle?

cython

Cyclenutter wrote: »

As a matter of fact the cyclist does have the right of way. Read page 98
https://www.nationaltransport.ie/downloads/archive/provision_of_cycling_facilities_ch4_2006.pdf
On road cycle lanes - legal status - traffic crossing the cycle lane must yield to traffic in that lane.

Why are you quoting a design manual from 6 years before the most recent legislation on this subject??

Cyclenutter wrote: »

It’s absolutely incredible that bike lane law still needs to be clarified to so many. So many variations of dumb made up rules. Ask yourself would you cut across a bus in a bus lane? No . Then why would you think it’s alright to do it to a bicycle?

I don't believe anyone is necessarily suggesting it's "alright" to do it, but you and many other posters are missing a key point that cycle tracks are not afforded the same status as bus lanes and other traffic lanes within the legislation, i.e. they are delineated by different markings, which in turn have different meanings. Cycle tracks are primarily an exercise in trying to reserve space for cyclists on the roads (and of course to claim that same has been done by the powers that be), and many people are confusing this with affording right of way.

GreeBo

Cyclenutter wrote: »

It’s absolutely incredible that bike lane law still needs to be clarified to so many. So many variations of dumb made up rules. Ask yourself would you cut across a bus in a bus lane? No . Then why would you think it’s alright to do it to a bicycle?

There is nothing to show that the car cut across the cyclist, all we can see from the video is a cyclist cycling into a turning car.

axer

cython wrote: »

Why are you quoting a design manual from 6 years before the most recent legislation on this subject??

Not only is a design manual not law but they are rarely followed - especially when it comes to cycling infrastructure. Just read the excellent articles on irishcycle.com and you will see that even the most recent plans don't follow the design manuals.

cython wrote: »

Cycle tracks are primarily an exercise in trying to reserve space for cyclists on the roads (and of course to claim that same has been done by the powers that be), and many people are confusing this with affording right of way.

I don't even think cycle tracks are an exercise to reserve space for cyclists - I think it is about keeping cyclists to one side thus out of the way of motor traffic - boxed away but in a box that cars can drive and park on. In the good old days making it mandatory for cyclists to use the tracks backs this up i.e. give cyclists a space that they must stay in but also which everyone else can park in and make the traffic lanes so narrow that its impossible to not to be forced to drive in them also. Cycle tracks (as in road markings on the edge of the road) offer more than danger than safety for cyclists.

Cyclenutter

cython wrote: »

Why are you quoting a design manual from 6 years before the most recent legislation on this subject??

Well if the national transport agency who’s job it is to plan and build our road network don’t know the law regarding cycle lanes then we’re all f#%^*d.

I don't believe anyone is necessarily suggesting it's "alright" to do it, but you and many other posters are missing a key point that cycle tracks are not afforded the same status as bus lanes and other traffic lanes within the legislation, i.e. they are delineated by different markings, which in turn have different meanings. Cycle tracks are primarily an exercise in trying to reserve space for cyclists on the roads (and of course to claim that same has been done by the powers that be), and many people are confusing this with affording right of way.

“Not afforded the same status” - are there classes where you can be trained to make up stuff like that. The only legislation being quoted in posts here is in respect of cyclist undertaking in the same lane (I.e. no cycle lane present)

Cyclenutter

ForestFire wrote: »

If a car is turning off a main road to the left and a second car tries to undertake them on the hard shoulder on the left, who is at fault?

The point is the cyclist is technically in the same lane as the car and it is his responsibility if he undertakes the cars ahead.

A hard shoulder is not a lane a cycle lane is

amcalester

Cyclenutter wrote: »

A hard shoulder is not a lane a cycle lane is

Can you back up that claim?

droidus

The thing that worries is me is that there's cyclists out there who think they have the legal right to travel up the inside of a turning vehicle just because they are in a cycle lane.

I commute 100 miles a week through Dublin City Centre, the rule I follow is simple enough.

If Im approaching a junction and there is a car indicating or turning ahead of me I either go round the right of him, stop, slow down and let him turn, or (occasionally) slow right down and see if he'll let me go on the inside.

Thinkingaboutit

Cyclist clearly seems at fault there, judging from imperfect evidence, which could mean the opposite with fuller evidence. A motorist should show extra regard over and above right of way if another on the road is vulnerable, but that won't always happen. Anyhow if a powered road vehicle indicates, I try never, ever go on their left. I slow right down usually. Given how good few motorists aren't looking even, ahead at the road, instead it's the phone or something else, I can never, ever take it that someone has checked their mirrors. A lot only put on indicators as they turn.

Cyclenutter

droidus wrote: »

The thing that worries is me is that there's cyclists out there who think they have the legal right to travel up the inside of a turning vehicle just because they are in a cycle lane.

I commute 100 miles a week through Dublin City Centre, the rule I follow is simple enough.

If Im approaching a junction and there is a car indicating or turning ahead of me I either go round the right of him, stop, slow down and let him turn, or (occasionally) slow right down and see if he'll let me go on the inside.

The problem is not the cyclists who think they have right of way , because the HAVE (this is the question being asked in original post) .

The problem is how many people and drivers out there that THINK they (cyclists) dont.

This fact makes it prudent to approach the situation the way you do (and I also)

But then doesnt that negate the point of the lane in the first place. If we cant count on it it just becomes a space to keep out of the way of cars, which is wahat that space was before they made it a cycle lane

droidus

Cyclenutter wrote: »

But then doesnt that negate the point of the lane in the first place. If we cant count on it it just becomes a space to keep out of the way of cars, which is wahat that space was before they made it a cycle lane

Now you're getting it.