Undertaking in traffic

aldark

often wondered about that too - I bet that the taxi was stopping to let passenger out, passenger was then paying etc. but the taxi just didn't bother pulling in. Perhaps he then changed his mind as passenger promised a tip and started fumbling through his pockets!

So, when someone indicates on the run up to a junction, does it confer sole right of way and if he subsequently pulls in or does a corner hugging turn, your estate would be unable to get paid.

Similar thing could happen if you're passing on the left coming up to a junction and traffic suddenly takes off - leaving you at a junction with a car who had been indicating maybe, having sped up to take a turn.

I think that you should be able to argue that an indicator by itself doesn't confer right of way, ie. just because you intend to turn at sometime in the future doesn't mean that everyone should stay behind?

magicbastarder wrote: »

yep, i had an interesting lesson in such the other day. cycling up the inside of stopped traffic; there was a taxi indicating left, but stopped and several cars back from the red light (at which there's a left turn a lot of cars take), so i went up the inside. however, as i did so, he pulled in to the kerb, i assume because the fare decided they'd gotten close enough to their destination to get out.

that would have been an interesting one - the taxi driver would have legitimately been able to claim that he'd indicated in plenty of time. i assumed the left he was intending was not the one he actually took.

Weepsie

And what of those vehicles who indicate for about a kilometre in a bus lane while passing about 5 turns?

07Lapierre

Weepsie wrote: »

And what of those vehicles who indicate for about a kilometre in a bus lane while passing about 5 turns?

And buses that indicate that they are pulling out from a bus-stop as soon they pull in to pick up passengers!

magicbastarder

aldark wrote: »

I think that you should be able to argue that an indicator by itself doesn't confer right of way, ie. just because you intend to turn at sometime in the future doesn't mean that everyone should stay behind?

i don't think the second half of your statement logically flows from the first half - no, having your indicator on does not confer right of way. but that does not mean that someone behind has any right to pass you on the side you're indicating on.

What Username Guidelines

07Lapierre wrote: »

And buses that indicate that they are pulling out from a bus-stop as soon they pull in to pick up passengers!

I think that’s a trick that most drivers pull, they indicate while still accepting fares to speed things along, hoping that a car will stop and flash them out eventually. On one hand I understand how it could save time when you count up every stop over the course of a route, but on the other hand when you’ve built up a bit of speed on the bike and there’s a clear opportunity to overtake, it’s infuriating to end up stopping behind the bus and see 3 or 4 passengers still waiting to get on.

steamsey

C3PO wrote: »

I agree with Cramcycle on this one - I would rarely pass on the left of cars, particularly when they are moving slowly or stopped and even more so when there are cars parked on the left. Just too much chance of doors opening in front of me! Much prefer to take my chances on the right of the traffic where I have more control of the risks!

I'd constantly be on the left. if blocked, I'd jump up on the path if it's clear (I know) rather than take up what I consider a motorbike overtaking position on the right which leaves you massively exposed to someone deciding to do a u turn out of traffic. On a motorbike, you have brighter lights, a bigger road presence and an indicator, all of which might make it that little bit safer when overtaking on the right. On a bike, you're very exposed in this position. I do it for one 100m piece of my journey because there is no other way, other than wait in traffic.

In and out of town everyday, I see some, but pretty few, cyclists taking the right to move through traffic.

IMO drivers are not expecting cyclists on the right which makes left the safer option.

So I overtake on the right only if I have to and I'd be really. really careful when doing it. Left is no walk in the park either, but that's what I finds works best.

CramCycle

Most motorists think you are a motorcycle in my estimations, probably helped by my decent light, and treat you as such. I am not sure what the risks or chances are of one position over another, I just feel and find myself able to progress faster and safer. Pull into line when traffic is coming against you, pull back out when it is clear, same as a motorbiker.

I am not saying people should do it, and sometimes it is slower than the inside line, where you can progress constantly if space allows but I find it more predictable and that I estimate that many motorists use their right mirror for motorbikes more than their left, but it still requires a decent light so that they see what they expect.

tomasrojo

The only problem I have with passing on the right is when traffic is totally stalled in one direction only. You get people who suddenly have had enough, and hurl the car to the right without looking, to start a u-turn to go back and try a different route. That's the only scenario I've ever had a problem with it.

I don't have a lot of choice these days, as filtering is too hard on the bakfiets, so I end up waiting a bit. At peak time, some junctions are a bit of a conundrum, as motorists signal they're turning, but also wait to let cyclists pass. So my usual rule of not passing an indicating vehicle on the inside can leave the motorist waiting, and annoy cyclists behind me,. but at the same time, there's always the chance I've misjudged the intentions of the motorist.

tomasrojo

It's kind of funny the way "overtake" went in Britain and Ireland. In the USA, they often still use it in the original sense of "catch up with". Like: "I stayed out walking too late, and the storm overtook me." They don't seem to use it to mean "to pass" much. At least, not that I noticed.

punisher5112

Is it too much to compute that when a bus stops at a bus stop that people are going to alight and it's not the brightest thing to burst ones way up the footpath....

Wishbone Ash

punisher5112 wrote: »

Is it too much to compute that when a bus stops at a bus stop that people are going to alight and it's not the brightest thing to burst ones way up the footpath....

If you are referring to a scenario where the cycle track is on the right hand side of footpath, I think that the bus driver shouldn't open the bus doors until the cyclists has passed. Unfortunately many bus drivers don't do this allowing their passengers to get into potential danger.

When I drove buses, I always considered it a fairly basic thing to do.

CramCycle

Many have yield signs on the ground, not that they should be needed, in shared space you should always yield to pedestrians.

If I am there at the same time or just ahead of the bus, provided there is no one getting on, I keep going. If I arrive after, I stop to let the passengers alight.

The other thing I see a tiny minority of cyclists do that irks me, if your cycling past a bus stop, and it's crowded, slow the **** down, also, don't cycle through people, pushing through like an arseface, it's really bad manners.

punisher5112

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

If you are referring to a scenario where the cycle track is on the right hand side of footpath, I think that the bus driver shouldn't open the bus doors until the cyclists has passed. Unfortunately many bus drivers don't do this allowing their passengers to get into potential danger.

When I drove buses, I always considered it a fairly basic thing to do.

A cyclist must yield to any foot traffic (pedestrians)

This includes people alighting from a bus.

I've had people hit by those flying up off the road onto the footpath.

punisher5112

I've been hit twice recently by a hats in the city centre.

One fella hit the wall as he cycled into me but it didn't work for him and the other was similar but he hit my shoulder and went flying off the bike.

Was quite funny.

Fighting Tao

punisher5112 wrote: »

I've been hit twice recently by a hats in the city centre.

One fella hit the wall as he cycled into me but it didn't work for him and the other was similar but he hit my shoulder and went flying off the bike.

Was quite funny.

You’re very unlucky. I’ve never been hit by a bike anywhere. Maybe you should wear hi-viz to be seen.

CramCycle

Fighting Tao wrote: »

You’re very unlucky. I’ve never been hit by a bike anywhere. Maybe you should wear hi-viz to be seen.

I see near misses daily, most are cars going through pedestrian crossings. A small number are cyclists going through as people get on or off buses, or at pedestrian crossings. I'd say the percentage of one's I observe are equivalent in regards number of commuters in each mode.

Basically, it's not a motorist or cyclist thing, it's an asshat thing.

Fighting Tao

CramCycle wrote: »

I see near misses daily, most are cars going through pedestrian crossings. A small number are cyclists going through as people get on or off buses, or at pedestrian crossings. I'd say the percentage of one's I observe are equivalent in regards number of commuters in each mode.

Basically, it's not a motorist or cyclist thing, it's an asshat thing.

Yep, we have all agreed that many times here before.

punisher5112

Fighting Tao wrote: »

You’re very unlucky. I’ve never been hit by a bike anywhere. Maybe you should wear hi-viz to be seen.

They expectede to jump out of the way but no I didn't and they shouldn't have been cycling on the path anyway.

Yes of course I could have stepped aside but no not happening.

Ray Palmer

punisher5112 wrote: »

A cyclist must yield to any foot traffic (pedestrians)

This includes people alighting from a bus.

I've had people hit by those flying up off the road onto the footpath.

Do you have a law for that. You seem to suggest pedestrians have right of way in all areas so they can walk out in the middle of the road and everyone including cars don't have right of way?

Not suggesting people should be mowed down but surely a pedestrian walking in a cycle lane whether on the road or path is in the wrong.

punisher5112

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Do you have a law for that. You seem to suggest pedestrians have right of way in all areas so they can walk out in the middle of the road and everyone including cars don't have right of way?

Not suggesting people should be mowed down but surely a pedestrian walking in a cycle lane whether on the road or path is in the wrong.

If it's a bus stop cyclists must yield.

If a pedestrian is crossing one must let them do so.

A cyclist actually has a lot of responsibility and must take care of what and who are around them.

Fighting Tao

punisher5112 wrote: »

They expectede to jump out of the way but no I didn't and they shouldn't have been cycling on the path anyway.

Yes of course I could have stepped aside but no not happening.

I was joking in reference to the hi-vis culture In Ireland where blame is getting shifted to victims for not wearing head to toe hi-vis at all times.

Ray Palmer

punisher5112 wrote: »

If it's a bus stop cyclists must yield.

If a pedestrian is crossing one must let them do so.

A cyclist actually has a lot of responsibility and must take care of what and who are around them.

Law please your interpretation doesn't sound sound complete. There certainly a case where the bus driver was held responsible for letting passengers out into a cycle lane. It isn't as basic as you are suggesting

tomasrojo

I think if there is a yield triangle on the cycle track before the bus stop -- and there usually is -- the cyclists definitely has to yield to the pedestrians.

tomasrojo

punisher5112 wrote: »

If a pedestrian is crossing one must let them do so.

My recollection, as it's come up here before, is that if a driver (which includes cyclists) comes upon a pedestrian already on the road, they have to yield to the pedestrian. It doesn't mean a pedestrian can walk out in front of a cyclist or motorist, but I don't think you're saying that.

punisher5112

tomasrojo wrote: »

My recollection, as it's come up here before, is that if a driver (which includes cyclists) comes upon a pedestrian already on the road, they have to yield to the pedestrian. It doesn't mean a pedestrian can walk out in front of a cyclist or motorist, but I don't think you're saying that.

Correct.

I'm in no way say ah sure I'll just step out etc for the craic.

If someone is already crossing yes you must let them do so.

Here we have so many crossing types people don't have a clue what does be happening.

Example the orange lights flashing after a red light for traffic.
Pedestrian arrives well after this has started and proceed out or start screaming abuse at drivers which are fully entitled to proceed.

The case where the person on a bike hit pedestrians sued and got a pay out.
These pay outs happen unfortunately even when the person is wrong.

She stated I believe that there was no warning to yield.

Ray Palmer

punisher5112 wrote: »

Correct.

I'm in no way say ah sure I'll just step out etc for the craic.

If someone is already crossing yes you must let them do so.

Here we have so many crossing types people don't have a clue what does be happening.

Example the orange lights flashing after a red light for traffic.
Pedestrian arrives well after this has started and proceed out or start screaming abuse at drivers which are fully entitled to proceed.

The case where the person on a bike hit pedestrians sued and got a pay out.
These pay outs happen unfortunately even when the person is wrong.

She stated I believe that there was no warning to yield.

Law please, your interpretation doesn't sound complete. As far as I know a bus can't just pull up to a cycle lane with a cyclist in it and let passengers out. The bus driver should yield to the traffic i.e. the cyclist and wait till they pass.

You may agree or disagree but what is the law you are talking about rather than me have to ask what you mean.

CramCycle

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Law please, your interpretation doesn't sound complete. As far as I know a bus can't just pull up to a cycle lane with a cyclist in it and let passengers out. The bus driver should yield to the traffic i.e. the cyclist and wait till they pass.

You may agree or disagree but what is the law you are talking about rather than me have to ask what you mean.

It really depends on the situation, road markings, relative position etc. Some cycle tracks have yield signs, who was there first, had passengers started to disembark before you arrived. There are loads of laws in relation to this but all are situation dependent.

The long and short of it though is simple, if you don't act like a dick, you are unlikely to be breaking the law. Even if you are, so long as no one there could call you a dick with good reason, your unlikely to get in trouble.

Ray Palmer

That is pretty much the point I am making there isn't anywhere near a blanket statement as pedestrian have right of way which seemed to be what was being said.

punisher5112

http://irishcycle.com/2017/02/07/timeline-mandatory-use-of-cycle-tracks/


A cyclist must take care of pedestrians and be prepared for them to change direction.

A cyclist must yield to pedestrian intending to board or get off a bus.

There are many cycle lanes that pass on the same level as the path and pass exactly at the same point of the doors which to be honest is ridiculously bad.

All stops should have a cyclist removed from that area and have them go behind the bus shelter or create a buffer zone.

Looked more into this and in August the rules changed so the in limbo part has been fixed although it's taken many years for clarification.

One must use a cycle track in pedestrian zones and also on contra flow sections of road where they must follow directions shown.

tomasrojo

CramCycle wrote: »

The long and short of it though is simple, if you don't act like a dick, you are unlikely to be breaking the law. Even if you are, so long as no one there could call you a dick with good reason, your unlikely to get in trouble.

If I were called upon, in the manner of Rabbi Hillel and the Torah, to explain Irish traffic law to someone while they stood upon one leg (as in, quickly, before they had to put their foot down) I would say: "Don't be a dick. The rest is commentary."