Turning left in car with cyclist behind you

magicbastarder

The Enbalmer wrote: »

No they ****ing won't! People are all out to use the roads safely and they want to arrive at their destination in one piece. This paranoid idea that car drivers are all out to mill cyclists is devisive,dangerous nonsense.

Now I'm confused. Cyclists are dangerous assholes, but car drivers are all well intentioned and safety conscious?

magicbastarder

TriFirst wrote: »

bfa1509 wrote: »

Google didn't understand my question so I'll ask it here:

I always yield to cyclists when I am turning left and they are travelling straight on whether they are beside me or behind me (sometimes in traffic when you need to turn left, a bicycle can be travelling quite fast from behind, so I always let them pass before I turn. But I read somewhere (can't remember where) that it is actually the car that has the right of way in the case of a cyclist being behind and the cyclist should slow down and let the car turn.

So what is the rule exactly? Do I have the right to go ahead and turn left even if a cyclist is approaching from behind me? (Doesn't seem right to me and even if correct, I can't imagine getting much sympathy if the bike ran into the side of the car)

Legally whoever reaches the junction first has the right of way. So if the cyclist is nearing the junction before the car , the cyclist has right of way and the car must wait. If the car arrives at the junction before the cyclist and can safely turn across the path of the cyclist in time then the driver is correct to do so, at saying that the cyclist must also give way to the car in this instance.

It's not just about getting there first, it's about giving clear and timely indication too.

beauf

The Enbalmer wrote: »

Of course it does..i've had these people fly up the inside of me when i'm turning left and have indicated in good time. They seem to think they'll be able to shoot through the ever-closing gap and if they don't make it they can start shouting...especially when they have a camera on their helmet.



I anticipate a "wagon-circling" of the usual suspects from the cycling forum whereby they deny that cyclist ever cause problems on the roads and that all motorists are bloodthirsty maniacs out to kill a quota of "2-3 people a week".

Nope it's just general ranting.

It the same as someone complaining about BMW drivers or white vans or taxis in any thread remotely about a car. Likewise setting up an intentionally misrepresented proposition like a sweeping generalisation.

beauf

TriFirst wrote: »

Legally whoever reaches the junction first has the right of way. So if the cyclist is nearing the junction before the car , the cyclist has right of way and the car must wait. If the car arrives at the junction before the cyclist and can safely turn across the path of the cyclist in time then the driver is correct to do so, at saying that the cyclist must also give way to the car in this instance.

You are right of course.

Problem is a lot of cyclists don't realise this, or don't care. Do you have to be careful and not assume they will stop.

This is really what the op was asking about. There is the legal position then the practical application of it.

Mjolnir

You being in front have right of way its simple as.
However that won't stop cyclists coming up your inside.
Mirror, indicate, manoeuvre to the left so no one can come up beside you and complete the turn.
That's what we do on motorbikes leave a gap so small no one can squeeze in

The Enbalmer

magicbastarder wrote: »

Now I'm confused. Cyclists are dangerous assholes, but car drivers are all well intentioned and safety conscious?

Well let's put it this way. In order to be LEGALLY allowed to drive a motorist must (in no particular order)



Take a Theory test


Display "L" or "N" plates



Receive lessons from a qualified instructor


Pass the driving test


Display up to date insurance policy


Display up to date tax disc


Have a valid NCT for the vehicle


Have a visible registration plate


Be subject to occasional intoxication tests


Hold a valid driving licence.




What are the legal requirements for a cyclist?

antix80

The Enbalmer wrote: »

Well let's put it this way. In order to be LEGALLY allowed to drive a motorist must (in no particular order)

Awesome. What has that got to do with "Turning left in car with cyclist behind you"?


Honestly, threads can go a little OT but this isn't interesting to anyone.

magicbastarder

Mjolnir wrote: »

You being in front have right of way its simple as.
However that won't stop cyclists coming up your inside.
Mirror, indicate, manoeuvre to the left so no one can come up beside you and complete the turn.
That's what we do on motorbikes leave a gap so small no one can squeeze in

Again - you need to indicate. It's not as simple as just bring in front.

beauf

Mjolnir wrote: »

You being in front have right of way its simple as.
However that won't stop cyclists coming up your inside.
Mirror, indicate, manoeuvre to the left so no one can come up beside you and complete the turn.
That's what we do on motorbikes leave a gap so small no one can squeeze in

Same here driving.

Segregated cycle lanes make this impossible. So you have to just sit and wait for the cyclist to clear or gap to appear.

meeeeh

I did my driving test in another country and you would fail for not checking right (left in this country) if a cyclist is approaching on the cycling track. They had the right of way because drivers were cutting accross their path. If a cyclist was behind the car on the same lane then the car had a right of way. Basically the bike was treated just like another vehicle and frankly I think that's the most common sense approach.

The Enbalmer

antix80 wrote: »

Awesome. What has that got to do with "Turning left in car with cyclist behind you"?


Honestly, threads can go a little OT but this isn't interesting to anyone.

It has to do with how do cyclists KNOW anything about the rules of the road or driving etiquette when they can simply jump on a bike without knowing the first thing about either.


So why are untrained people allowed to use public highways?

Seth Brundle

The Enbalmer wrote: »

It has to do with how do cyclists KNOW anything about the rules of the road or driving etiquette when they can simply jump on a bike without knowing the first thing about either.


So why are untrained people allowed to use public highways?

Just cyclists or would you also include pedestrians, people on horseback, people with animals, etc?

Also people can't get a driving licence until their 16 or whatever. Should thia then apply to cyclists? What about school kids?

The Enbalmer

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Just cyclists or would you also include pedestrians, people on horseback, people with animals, etc?

What is the top speed of "pedestrians,people on horseback,people with animals etc" on a public road?

beauf

#1 Because it hasn't caused any issues.

#2 Statistics in lot of different studies in many different countries all show that the vast majority accidents (between cars and cyclists) are caused by cars not cyclists.

...drivers were responsible for the actions preceding the incident in 87% of cases...

Tombo2001

The Enbalmer wrote: »

In that they cycle without due care and attention..are usually aggressive and often deliberately try to provoke other road users.

I cycle myself and I absolutely hate these clowns,they seem to think sole ownership of the road was conferred in the bike to work scheme.

I love it.....had to come out at some point...;

"I cycle myself but".....as sure as sunrise.

Write into the Indo, they love this stuff.

Tombo2001

beauf wrote: »

#1 Because it hasn't caused any issues.

#2 Statistics in lot of different studies in many different countries all show that the vast majority accidents (between cars and cyclists) are caused by cars not cyclists.

There is absolutely no point in quoting this sort of information to people who don't want to know.

beauf

Tombo2001 wrote: »

There is absolutely no point in quoting this sort of information to people who don't want to know.

True, I'm applying logic where none exists...:D

07Lapierre

The Enbalmer wrote: »

No they ****ing won't! People are all out to use the roads safely and they want to arrive at their destination in one piece. This paranoid idea that car drivers are all out to mill cyclists is devisive,dangerous nonsense.

I'm not saying cyclist are deliberately targeted, but there is a lot of ignorance/lack of awareness displayed by motorosts towards cyclists, pedestrians and even other motorists.

What's devisive is this assumption that some cyclists are more expendable than others.

Tombo2001

The Enbalmer wrote: »

It has to do with how do cyclists KNOW anything about the rules of the road or driving etiquette when they can simply jump on a bike without knowing the first thing about either.


So why are untrained people allowed to use public highways?

There has never been a legal requirement in any country, ever, for people to be 'trained' to use public highways.

There has been a legal requirement for people to be trained and licenced and insured to use heavy, mechanically propelled vehicles that have capacity to cause very severe damage due where there is driver error.

Cars, trucks, planes, buses.

Duckjob

The Enbalmer wrote: »

No they ****ing won't! People are all out to use the roads safely and they want to arrive at their destination in one piece. This paranoid idea that car drivers are all out to mill cyclists is devisive,dangerous nonsense.

Right so, cyclists are the only agressive ones and aggressive motorists don't exist. Gotcha.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GT0AEdWJ3FQ

Seth Brundle

The Enbalmer wrote: »

What is the top speed of "pedestrians,people on horseback,people with animals etc" on a public road?

Why? Have you a point or do you just want to have an ill-informed argument against cyclists?

The Enbalmer

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I love it.....had to come out at some point...;

"I cycle myself but".....as sure as sunrise.

Write into the Indo, they love this stuff.

So you refuse to engage my points but instead revert to idiotic mudslinging?


I anticipated this reaction several posts back..i'm sad to say i havn't been disproven.


Have you anything to actually add to the discussion?

Utter Consternation

Utter Consternation wrote: »

I cycle every day in Dublin city centre and i'm constantly amazed at the amount of cyclists that shoot up the inside of traffic turning left. They even do it to fellow cyclists who have indicated that they are turning left.

When you do the IBT for motorbikes they teach about proper lane positioning.
I use all my motorbike training when cycling,should be mandatory imo.

The Enbalmer

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Why? Have you a point or do you just want to have an ill-informed argument against cyclists?

You asked if the law should apply to "pedestrians,horse riders and people with animals",correct?


So what's the top speed of these road users? I know cyclists can and do hit speeds in excess of 30kph...can you see the difference??

07Lapierre

The Enbalmer wrote: »

Well let's put it this way. In order to be LEGALLY allowed to drive a motorist must (in no particular order)

Take a Theory test

Display "L" or "N" plates

Receive lessons from a qualified instructor

Pass the driving test

Display up to date insurance policy

Display up to date tax disc

Have a valid NCT for the vehicle

Have a visible registration plate

Be subject to occasional intoxication tests

Hold a valid driving licence.

What are the legal requirements for a cyclist?

All these requirement to drive and yet we're still trying to decide how a car should turn left?... scary isn't it?

Tombo2001

The Enbalmer wrote: »

So you refuse to engage my points but instead revert to idiotic mudslinging?


I anticipated this reaction several posts back..i'm sad to say i havn't been disproven.


Have you anything to actually add to the discussion?

Nothing to say - based on longstanding experience of these online debates, I can see that your views are absolutely entrenched.

Moreover, you have turned what was an unusually civil discussion about a point of traffic law into an anti-cyclist rant.

beauf

The Enbalmer wrote: »

So you refuse to engage my points but instead revert to idiotic mudslinging?


I anticipated this reaction several posts back..i'm sad to say i havn't been disproven.


Have you anything to actually add to the discussion?

Your aim was to derail with general rant. You've achieved your aim.

Almost none of your post are to do with left turning.

beauf

Tombo2001 wrote: »

...Moreover, you have turned what was an unusually civil discussion about a point of traffic law into an anti-cyclist rant.

Some good discussion until that point.

Tombo2001

beauf wrote: »

Your aim was to derail with general rant. You've achieved your aim.

Almost none of your post are to do with left turning.

Snap!

07Lapierre

The Enbalmer wrote: »

So what's the top speed of these road users? I know cyclists can and do hit speeds in excess of 30kph...can you see the difference??

Oh please! I hit 84kph on my bike on Sunday! :P

The Enbalmer

07Lapierre wrote: »

All these requirement to drive and yet we're still trying to decide how a car should turn left?... scary isn't it?

The "X-Factor" being the fact that cyclists don't need to learn the rules of the road and as such can be unpredictable.


What qualifies a cyclist to be on the road in the 1st place,given they don't require any training or need to display any documentation?

Duckjob

The Enbalmer wrote: »

You asked if the law should apply to "pedestrians,horse riders and people with animals",correct?


So what's the top speed of these road users? I know cyclists can and do hit speeds in excess of 30kph...can you see the difference??

Maybe take your little "register and tax them all" crusade up with your local TD ?

Let us know how you get on

beauf

The Enbalmer wrote: »

The "X-Factor" being the fact that cyclists don't need to learn the rules of the road and as such can be unpredictable.


What qualifies a cyclist to be on the road in the 1st place,given they don't require any training or need to display any documentation?

The law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_law

Bicycle law is the parts of law that apply to the riding of bicycles.

Bicycle law varies from country to country, but in general, cyclists' right to the road has been enshrined in international law since 1968, with the accession of the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic. Under that treaty, bicycles have the legal status of vehicles, and cyclists enjoy the legal status of vehicle operators.[1] There are over 150 contracting parties to the treaty, including the United States, Canada, Mexico, the United Kingdom, Ireland, almost all of Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and China. In countries that are contracting parties, the treaty has the force of law, and its provisions have been incorporated into national law.

The position of British cyclists was first established by the Local Government Act in August, 1888. It removed the right of local councils to treat cyclists among the "nuisances" it could ban and defined them as "carriages"."[2]

Tombo2001

vandriver wrote: »

Check your mirror,let cyclists go.Its the only safe thing to do.
If you and a cyclist collide,and the cyclist is injured, you're on a loser trying to convince the insurance company or the police that you were technically in the right.
One trick I do all the time though,in heavy traffic with lots of bikes,is to pull in almost to the pavement if I'm turning left,so that cyclists can't go up your inside.

Going to try to get this discussion back on track.

Vandriver

As a cyclist (and driver and pedestrian) I would can sympathise that the really tricky situation is where you are turning left - and there is a long line of cyclists to your left.

You could be a long time waiting for them to pass.

Its a tricky situation - for example if I am a cyclist and I stop to let you turn in front of me - there could be 6 cyclists behind me. How do they know I am stopping.

I would be wary of taking your approach of encroaching into cycle lane to turn left, so as to block cycle traffic behind you.

bobbyss

cdaly_ wrote:

Without seeing the junction in question it's hard to say.

cdaly_ wrote:

I'll make an assumption here that you were emerging from a side road, into a yellow box and turning left into the third lane thereby crossing two lanes. As a driver/cyclist crossing lanes the onus is on you to ensure that it is safe to cross.

cdaly_ wrote:

As a driver/cyclist travelling on the main road, they may cross the yellow box if their way is clear.

cdaly_ wrote:

In the tailback situation you describe, the way is not clear for a car but is clear for a bike filtering between lanes of cars.

cdaly_ wrote:

I would say the cyclist was allowed to do that but should have been aware of the possibility of a crossing vehicle and should have adjusted their speed.

cdaly_ wrote:

I would say that you, crossing lanes, should have been doing so slowly and been ready to stop if necessary.

cdaly_ wrote:

It's a classic case of assuming that since the cars are stopped that there are no other vehicles moving. This gets motorcyclists injured/killed also.

Thanks. I feel you are right. I entered slow enough but the cyclist came at speed ( despite being aware that the lights ahead were red and woukd hsv5e to stop) .

Just to be clear. Is it ok ( ie lawful) for a cyclist to be cycling BETWEEN two lanes as traffic is stopped at lights? Sometimes the space is tight and side mirrors could be clipped?

07Lapierre

The Enbalmer wrote: »

The "X-Factor" being the fact that cyclists don't need to learn the rules of the road and as such can be unpredictable.


What qualifies a cyclist to be on the road in the 1st place,given they don't require any training or need to display any documentation?

X-Factor? I'm more a "Britain's got talent" kinda person myself :P

Why shouldn't PEOPLE be allowed on the road? It's only Motorised vehicles that need licenses taxes etc. As for the Rules of the road.. i learnt the ROTR when i was in Primary school. I assume that hasn't changed?

If you don't like the fact that People are on the road... only drive on Motorways? Motorways are the only roads that are "Motorised vehicles ONLY".

meeeeh

Tombo2001 wrote: »

There has never been a legal requirement in any country, ever, for people to be 'trained' to use public highways.

That is not true. I come from Slovenia and children under 15 or 14 have to pass cycling test to cycle unaccompanied on main roads.

Tombo2001

meeeeh wrote: »

That is not true. I come from Slovenia and children under 15 or 14 have to pass cycling test to cycle unaccompanied on main roads.

That's interesting, thanks.

EDIT: And to your point Enbalmer - I would absolutely agree with what Meeh has said being introduced in Ireland.

MEEH - can you qualify - how does this work.

When you say kids 'Under 14' - there must be a minimum age as well?

Have you any links - as I couldn't see anything on google about it?

Also - how do the cycle lanes compare there to here - would you say all things being equal that cycling infrastructure is more suited towards kids.

Its a bit of a lament in Dublin that kids just cant cycle anywhere safely.

The Enbalmer

07Lapierre wrote: »

X-Factor? I'm more a "Britain's got talent" kinda person myself :P

Why shouldn't PEOPLE be allowed on the road? It's only Motorised vehicles that need licenses taxes etc. As for the Rules of the road.. i learnt the ROTR when i was in Primary school. I assume that hasn't changed?

If you don't like the fact that People are on the road... only drive on Motorways? Motorways are the only roads that are "Motorised vehicles ONLY".

I rest my case.


:rolleyes:

beauf

bobbyss wrote: »

...Just to be clear. Is it ok ( ie lawful) for a cyclist to be cycling BETWEEN two lanes as traffic is stopped at lights? Sometimes the space is tight and side mirrors could be clipped?

its called filtering. I don't think there is a specific filtering law for cyclists in Ireland.

I found this.

http://www.cyclelaw.co.uk/overtaking-and-filtering-whilst-cycling

antix80

bobbyss wrote: »

Just to be clear. Is it ok ( ie lawful) for a cyclist to be cycling BETWEEN two lanes as traffic is stopped at lights? Sometimes the space is tight and side mirrors could be clipped?

It's legal. In such a situation, the cyclist is using the same lane as a car but is not in the primary position in the lane.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make about side mirrors getting clipped.. obviously the cyclist shouldn't try to squeeze through such a space.

07Lapierre

The Enbalmer wrote: »

I rest my case.


:rolleyes:

You don't have a case.

antix80

beauf wrote: »

its called filtering. I don't think there is a specific filtering law for cyclists in Ireland.

I didn't know the name for it. Good to know!
Motorists can get so annoyed to see cyclists filtering. Some seem to think it's against the law and that cyclists should wait behind cars when traffic isn't moving.

"Taking the lane", or adopting the primary position, also annoys motorists. To safely make a right turn, a cyclist needs to give a hand signal and move from the secondary position on the road (the left hand side), into a primary position (which means motorists can no longer use the lane), and towards the right-hand side of the road. Some idiotic drivers trip over themselves to prevent a cyclist changing lane or making a right turn. It can be particularly dangerous at roundabouts, in fact I often use pedestrian crossings at (signal-controlled) roundabouts because some drivers are so shocking with regards to the lane they should be in, right of way, observance, etc.

The Enbalmer

07Lapierre wrote:

You don't have a case.

Nor do you pal. You left the circle jerk of the cycling forum to try and shut down any negative discussion on cycling.
That's what you people do.
Quite sad really when all you're doing is making people hate cyclists all the more .

bobbyss

antix80 wrote:

I have no idea what point you're trying to make about side mirrors getting clipped.. obviously the cyclist shouldn't try to squeeze through such a space.

If a cyclist tries to filter at speed through a space between stationary cars and he or she misjudges ( space wasn't wide enough) there is a chance side mirrors will be clipped or car scraped.

The Enbalmer

bobbyss wrote:

If a cyclist tries to filter at speed through a space between stationary cars and he or she misjudges ( space wasn't wide enough) there is a chance side mirrors will be clipped or car scraped.

And typically no way of identifying the cyclist to pay for the damage as well as no insurance from which the driver can claim.

antix80

I still have no idea what point you're making. They shouldn't proceed and if they caused damage they'd be liable for it.

It would be like a motorist in a carpark, seeing a very small space and deciding to squeeze in, at speed, and taking the side off a parked car. Some people are idiots. It doesn't mean it should be illegal to park.

07Lapierre

The Enbalmer wrote: »

Nor do you pal. You left the circle jerk of the cycling forum to try and shut down any negative discussion on cycling.
That's what you people do.
Quite sad really when all you're doing is making people hate cyclists all the more .

I'm not trying to close anything down. See that's another "assumption" you've made which is also incorrect.

The phrase highlighted above clearly shows that you are not capable of a rational discussion. You are set in you ways and will never change. Nothing I (or anyone else i suspect) say will change your ill-informed opinions.

scamalert

that's a bit stupid question, cyclists have to abide road rules like rest, if it was motorbike or lorry they would have to slow down and let you turn, cyclists should be aware of those rules simple.

Thou witnessed different situations few years back, two lane road with clear white line and further away split off for those turning right, once approached split off person was indicating right and turned into lane right hand lane nearly getting bashed by fckn motocyclist who decided to drive over white line on opposing traffic to skip. theoretically minute motorbike crossed white line he was breaking rules, but doubt that would hold in court, yet i see it everyday motorbikes taking on opposing lane to pass traffic, with no consequences - total pi$$ take, as most would do 60km/h easily.

so better question who would be at fault if say such situation occurred and one splashed into car that decided to turn given that most drivers would only look at incoming traffic ?

07Lapierre

bobbyss wrote: »

If a cyclist tries to filter at speed through a space between stationary cars and he or she misjudges ( space wasn't wide enough) there is a chance side mirrors will be clipped or car scraped.

This also happens on narrow roads when two vehicles approach each other and mis-judge the width of the road.