Turning left in car with cyclist behind you

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