Turning left in car with cyclist behind you

The Enbalmer

07Lapierre wrote: »

Do you wear Lycra while cycling? if you do you'll be considered aggressive apparently.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110774439&postcount=47

You're quoting yourself now?


Good stuff that man!


But then you think everybody on the road is out to run you over..perhaps a psychological test should be added to the list of things a cyclist should undergo before being allowed into traffic.

07Lapierre

"You're quoting yourself now?" -

Yes I am...sorry..im too lazy to look up @vandrivers original post.


"Good stuff that man!"

thanks


"But then you think everybody on the road is out to run you over".

Ah no... its not intentional. It's just a lot of people seem to think that you need a license to use our roads? They think that people shouldn't or are not allowed on our roads unless they are on or in a vehicle of some sort? This line of thinking only applies to Motorways.

The Enbalmer

07Lapierre wrote: »

"But then you think everybody on the road is out to run you over".

Ah no... its not intentional. It's just a lot of people seem to think that you need a license to use our roads? They think that people shouldn't or are not allowed on our roads unless they are on or in a vehicle of some sort? This line of thinking only applies to Motorways.

How about a proficiency exam to use a pedal cycle? Given that it can travel much faster than any pedestrian and you are allowed drive on the roads like a car?

07Lapierre

The Enbalmer wrote: »

How about a proficiency exam to use a pedal cycle? Given that it can travel much faster than any pedestrian and you are allowed drive on the roads like a car?

I think cycling should be part of the driving test. IMO All drivers should be experienced cyclists before they can drive a car.

The Enbalmer

07Lapierre wrote: »

I think cycling should be part of the driving test. IMO All drivers should be experienced cyclists before they can drive a car.

How about disabled people who cannot cycle but may use a specially adapted car or other vehicle?


You think the world revolves around cyclists?

07Lapierre

The Enbalmer wrote: »

How about disabled people who cannot cycle but may use a specially adapted car or other vehicle?


You think the world revolves around cyclists?

Unfortunately the world does seem to revolve around cars, but that doesnt mean its right.

What kind of disability we talking about? these people seem to manage OK?


https://www.google.com/search?q=disabled+cyclist&rlz=1C1EJFB_enIE696IE696&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiL9cn_xc3jAhVpSxUIHZ9zCFQQ_AUIECgB&biw=1671&bih=907#imgrc=_

The Enbalmer

07Lapierre wrote: »

Unfortunately the world does seem to revolve around cars, but that doesnt mean its right.

What kind of disability we talking about? these people seem to manage OK?


https://www.google.com/search?q=disabled+cyclist&rlz=1C1EJFB_enIE696IE696&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiL9cn_xc3jAhVpSxUIHZ9zCFQQ_AUIECgB&biw=1671&bih=907#imgrc=_

Well there's a man i work with who had polio as a youth and he walks with a cane and his leg is in calipers so he can't cycle.



Are you saying he should be FORCED to cycle because you googled disabled cyclists?

07Lapierre

The Enbalmer wrote: »

Are you saying he should be FORCED to cycle because you googled disabled cyclists?

I'm sorry to hear your friend has a disability.

I'm saying anyone who wants to drive a car should have to pass a cycling test, yes. He could use a bike like this one: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi92bbAyc3jAhWKUBUIHaOmCxMQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.getyourselfactive.org%2F2017%2F08%2F25%2Fdisabled-man-hand-cycled-the-coastline-of-england-in-29-days-the-robert-groves-story%2F&psig=AOvVaw39Di8IouUf-WjQJh0l9cbc&ust=1564058035522341


Once he passes the test, he can then proceed to the next level and drive a car. He only has to cycle to pass the test.

bobbyss

antix80 wrote:

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.

antix80 wrote:

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.

Ok.

The point I am making is this.

If a cyclist is filtering at speed between two lanes of traffic which has stopped or is going slowly there is a chance that said cyclist could scrape or hit side mirror of car if the gap between the cars is too tight and the cyclist has misjudged that space between the cars.

The cyclist may be liable for damage but what's to stop the cyclist continuing on? If another car scraped you in these circumstances at least you can get reg number etc.

average_runner

07Lapierre wrote: »

I think cycling should be part of the driving test. IMO All drivers should be experienced cyclists before they can drive a car.

Define experience? Because the way cyclists behave at the moment, less than 10% would count as experience in Dublin

jimmycrackcorm

bfa1509 wrote: »

Does all this still apply if there is a cycle lane? In all the cases I mentioned above, there was a cycle lane.

Imagine if it was a bus lane, with a bus travelling up it.
and you decide to cut in for a left turn ...

The Enbalmer

07Lapierre wrote: »

I'm sorry to hear your friend has a disability.

I'm saying anyone who wants to drive a car should have to pass a cycling test, yes. He could use a bike like this one: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi92bbAyc3jAhWKUBUIHaOmCxMQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.getyourselfactive.org%2F2017%2F08%2F25%2Fdisabled-man-hand-cycled-the-coastline-of-england-in-29-days-the-robert-groves-story%2F&psig=AOvVaw39Di8IouUf-WjQJh0l9cbc&ust=1564058035522341


Once he passes the test, he can then proceed to the next level and drive a car. He only has to cycle to pass the test.

He has been driving without an accident for over 50 years. I'm sure he,like most disabled motorists will embrace your "idea" and not one of them will consider it to be ill-thought out claptrap.

I'm saying anyone who wants to drive a car should have to pass a cycling test, yes.

Absolute drivel. How you can say that with a straight face is beyond me.

meeeeh

Tombo2001 wrote: »

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.

Minimum age is 10. Under 10 you are not allowed to cycle on main roads without adult present. I think you are allowed on segregated cycle paths but I could be wrong. Part of primary school education is that you have to pick an extra curricular activity, it's usually sports, art, languages or whatever. One of the options is also cycling course. Kids are thought practical cycling, how to behave in traffic and do a small theoretical test on rules of the road (basic stuff). It was free in my time and I presume it still is.

Cycling infrastructure is lights ahead but the roads are much busier, often narrower and population density is a lot higher. So the road safety stats wouldn't be that great. As a by the by a lot more people cycle. That being said rules around cycling are a lot stricter, if there is cycling path (always segregated as far as I know) you have to use it, you can't cycle two in a row, group club cycles as far as I know have to have car escort and you can be breathalyzed and fined for cycling drunk (600 Euro for over 0,50). Drunken cycling is one of the main reasons for accidents caused by cyclists.

My nieces live in a village about 2km from the school and like we used to they cycle to school on combination of local roads and cycle lanes. Where my parents live there is very busy road with pedestrian side walk and used by less proficient cyclists without major issues (kids and cycling is very common among older people), the rest would be on the road.

Ljubljana as capital is cycle friendly city with segregated cycling lanes and car free center.

This is the link. Reading it things changed a bit and it's more comprehensive now. It's only in Slovene but you can do google translate to get the idea.
https://www.avp-rs.si/preventiva/prometna-vzgoja/programi/kolesarski-izpiti/

Cycling helmets for kids are mandatory.

Spook_ie

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Imagine if it was a bus lane, with a bus travelling up it.
and you decide to cut in for a left turn ...

But we're not talking about buses, we're talking about cyclists and it's covered in SI332/2012.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Getting back on topic, the primary legislation for left turns and overtaking on the left by cyclists is covered by SI 332/2012 which says

“(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.”,

There also seems to be some confusion between the different road markings.
1 A traffic lane is marked by a dashed white line RRM003
2 A mandatory cyle lane is marked by a solid white line RRM022
3 An ADVISORY cycle lane is marked by a dashed white line RRM023

A cycle lane denoted by RRM023 is NOT a traffic lane and advice given that cyclists are in traffic lanes where RRM023 is used is erroneous and probably dangerous advice.

Tombo2001

meeeeh wrote: »

Minimum age is 10. Under 10 you are not allowed to cycle on main roads without adult present. I think you are allowed on segregated cycle paths but I could be wrong. Part of primary school education is that you have to pick an extra curricular activity, it's usually sports, art, languages or whatever. One of the options is also cycling course. Kids are thought practical cycling, how to behave in traffic and do a small theoretical test on rules of the road (basic stuff). It was free in my time and I presume it still is.

Cycling infrastructure is lights ahead but the roads are much busier, often narrower and population density is a lot higher. So the road safety stats wouldn't be that great. As a by the by a lot more people cycle. That being said rules around cycling are a lot stricter, if there is cycling path (always segregated as far as I know) you have to use it, you can't cycle two in a row, group club cycles as far as I know have to have car escort and you can be breathalyzed and fined for cycling drunk (600 Euro for over 0,50). Drunken cycling is one of the main reasons for accidents caused by cyclists.

My nieces live in a village about 2km from the school and like we used to they cycle to school on combination of local roads and cycle lanes. Where my parents live there is very busy road with pedestrian side walk and used by less proficient cyclists without major issues (kids and cycling is very common among older people), the rest would be on the road.

Ljubljana as capital is cycle friendly city with segregated cycling lanes and car free center.

This is the link. Reading it things changed a bit and it's more comprehensive now. It's only in Slovene but you can do google translate to get the idea.
https://www.avp-rs.si/preventiva/prometna-vzgoja/programi/kolesarski-izpiti/

Cycling helmets for kids are mandatory.

That's very interesting.

Re the point in bold above - I think this is relevant as the population density in Dublin doesn't lend itself to cycling in my view.
- people live further from city centre
- people have their own driveways, its easier to manage car ownership
- you are saying more cars on the road - but not in the city centre....and that's fine for cyclists. In Dublin - compared to other cities - there is a huge amount of cars in the actual city centre (and by City Centre I mean roughly speaking between the canals.

The flip side is that in Dublin, the traffic is so bad and also the public transport is so incoherent that cycling - despite the lack of facilities - is still by far the easiest way to get around for anyone who lives within 5k of the city.

beauf

Tombo2001 wrote: »

...still by far the easiest way to get around for anyone who lives within 5k of the city.

Why 5k?

10k is 30 mins cycles. Can you walk 30 mins?

10k is Tallaght.

https://www.doogal.co.uk/Circles.php?lat=53.347310049984365&lng=-6.259159354309276&dist=10&units=kilometres

I'm not saying its for everyone. But the difficulty is completely overstated.

meeeeh

Tombo2001 wrote: »

That's very interesting.

Re the point in bold above - I think this is relevant as the population density in Dublin doesn't lend itself to cycling in my view.
- people live further from city centre
- people have their own driveways, its easier to manage car ownership
- you are saying more cars on the road - but not in the city centre....and that's fine for cyclists. In Dublin - compared to other cities - there is a huge amount of cars in the actual city centre (and by City Centre I mean roughly speaking between the canals.

The flip side is that in Dublin, the traffic is so bad and also the public transport is so incoherent that cycling - despite the lack of facilities - is still by far the easiest way to get around for anyone who lives within 5k of the city.

What I mean is that there are quite a few segregation cycling lanes around but local roads among villages and towns are narower and a lot busier. But after second world war a lot of urban planning especially in Ljubljana did include cycling paths.

Traffic in central Europe is a bit different because it's not just local traffic you have to take into account but also transient traffic, either trucks going to Italian ports or especially in summer turists going to the coast, mostly Croatia. Traffic management in Irish cities is not great when you take into account that those are just local commuters. While population density in Ireland is definitely an issue in providing infrastructure a lot of it is just poor planning. Especially car free town and city centres shouldn't be that hard to achieve. Another issue is parking at the side of the road, it's much better to build dedicated underground car parks and reclaim that part of the road.

cdaly_

bobbyss wrote: »

The cyclist may be liable for damage but what's to stop the cyclist continuing on? If another car scraped you in these circumstances at least you can get reg number etc.

Like the car driver who scraped my car in a car park and left a note on my windscreen* with their contact details?


*Oh wait, no they didn't. They just f*cked off without a care...

meeeeh

beauf wrote: »

Why 5k?

10k is 30 mins cycles. Can you walk 30 min.

In fairness, I am quite fit and while I manage 10k in 30 minutes, it wouldn't be relaxed cycling (I run a bit but my cycling is more pedestrian). It's definitely doable but cycling infrastructure in cities should be built for those who don't cycle 10k in 30 minutes. Otherwise you will never significantly increase numbers of people cycling.

Seth Brundle

Tombo2001 wrote: »

That's very interesting.

Re the point in bold above - I think this is relevant as the population density in Dublin doesn't lend itself to cycling in my view.
- people live further from city centre
- people have their own driveways, its easier to manage car ownership
- you are saying more cars on the road - but not in the city centre....and that's fine for cyclists. In Dublin - compared to other cities - there is a huge amount of cars in the actual city centre (and by City Centre I mean roughly speaking between the canals.

The flip side is that in Dublin, the traffic is so bad and also the public transport is so incoherent that cycling - despite the lack of facilities - is still by far the easiest way to get around for anyone who lives within 5k of the city.

We have allowed our country to become heavily car dependent. This led to urban sprawl, poor bus and train services, etc. Also people now need space outside their house to accommodate their cars, which despite the size will spend most of their time carrying only one person. It is a (and I say this as a petrolhead) completely stupid approach that cannot continue.
Dublin is a great city to cycle in, if it is allowed. It is largely flat which suits cycling.
The problem is that the car has been allowed to dominate and options such a the bycicle were given the Thatcher treatment. This has led to poor cycling infrastructure. Our councils spend large amounts of money on something that cyclists won't use because, had they been consulted, the councils would have been told that it was more dangerous or whatever.

However, moving back towards our topic, this attitude that cyclists are all kamakazi muppets out to scratch your car or whatever is an ignorant one.
Not all of us charge up behind a car that looks to be turning left. Personally, I probably would have been further right on the road (1m from left) and so will have the option to move in behind the car. Therefore should the driver be checking their mirrors, they know what I'm planning.

cdaly_

meeeeh wrote: »

In fairness, I am quite fit and while I manage 10k in 30 minutes, it wouldn't be relaxed cycling (I run a bit but my cycling is more pedestrian). It's definitely doable but cycling infrastructure in cities should be built for those who don't cycle 10k in 30 minutes. Otherwise you will never significantly increase numbers of people cycling.

The Danish cycle route 'green wave' timing is based on people commuting at 20kph.

Seth Brundle

cdaly_ wrote: »

Like the car driver who scraped my car in a car park and left a note on my windscreen* with their contact details?


*Oh wait, no they didn't. They just f*cked off without a care...

Yep we're all wa**ers!

Just like the person who I believe reversed into my car's drivers side rear quarter panel in Celbridge and left a month after I got it.
Or ther person who damaged my bumber?

Stop with the biased crap please!

07Lapierre

average_runner wrote: »

Define experience? Because the way cyclists behave at the moment, less than 10% would count as experience in Dublin

We could say the same about drivers!

Maybe i should have said "drivers should have to experience what it's like to be a cyclist before they can drive a car".

The Enbalmer

07Lapierre wrote: »

We could say the same about drivers on theM50!

.

That's not your concern..cyclists are not permitted on motorways.

07Lapierre

The Enbalmer wrote: »

That's not your concern..cyclists are not permitted on motorways.

Correct! we can agree on that one. So i've edited my post, thanks

The Enbalmer

07Lapierre wrote: »

We could say the same about drivers!

Maybe i should have said "drivers should have to experience what it's like to be a cyclist before they can drive a car".

I think most of us have ridden a bicycle at some stage in our lives..usually as children.


It's a lot less complicated to learn than driving a vehicle and in no way relevant to one's skill at driving.

Stark

The Enbalmer wrote: »

I think most of us have ridden a bicycle at some stage in our lives..usually as children.


It's a lot less complicated to learn than driving a vehicle and in no way relevant to one's skill at driving.

I would definitely disagree.

First off you have to take the rules of the road, which were written for motorised traffic which can keep up with main traffic flow and hold an entire lane and figure out to apply them in a way that doesn't get you killed. This thread is a perfect example of that. It's assumed that cyclists will spend most of their time cycling on the left of traffic as that's where the slowest traffic is meant to be, but the rules are quite vague on how to deal with motorised traffic that is moving more slowly or looking to turn left. For the record, they do say that overtaking on the left is legal for cyclists and the cyclist has to give way if a car ahead indicates in good enough time that they want to turn left. On the flip side of that, if you're in the car and you decide to turn left without indicating, leave it till the last second to indicate or overtake and then turn left, then you're the one in the wrong.

Lots of things that cyclists do look like dickish things to someone who has no experience of cycling in traffic but when you get used to cycling yourself, you learn that they are necessary to cycle safely. Knowing when to keep left close to the kerb and when to move out and temporarily hold a lane for instance.

But obviously you would know all that as you're one of the "I'm a cyclist myself ..." people.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Wishbone Ash wrote:

What about doing neither?

Can you explain what you mean by that?

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.

What utter rubbish, you obviously never cycled in ireland. There are some lunatic anti cycling drivers out there, and on this forum.

Seth Brundle

The Enbalmer wrote: »

I think most of us have ridden a bicycle at some stage in our lives..usually as children.


It's a lot less complicated to learn than driving a vehicle and in no way relevant to one's skill at driving.

I would dispute that claim.
Being a cyclist makes you more aware of other road users and how vulnerable you are.
Since I started cycling more, I'm acutely aware of what it takes to prevent myself being bullied by some motorists.
For this, I've been spat on by a motorist recently who disliked me not letting him overtake me dangerously. Frequently I have had cars, vans, busses and lorries drive past at speed within maybe 18 inches - had I swerved to avoid a pothole, i'd probably have been killed.
This morning whilst cycling at ~45km/h in the centre of the lane I had a van overtake me on a bendy road despite the double continuous white line. Had he been a second slower, he would have moved into me to avoid the oncoming car.

As a motorist, I do not do these things. I slow down for vulnerable road users (not just cyclists).

Granted, there are some cyclists who are idiots but these are idiots regardless of their mode of transport. However, it is quite evident that there are more idiots driving than on bicycles!

The Enbalmer

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Granted, there are some cyclists who are idiots but these are idiots regardless of their mode of transport. However, it is quite evident that there are more idiots driving than on bicycles!

Well in terms of numbers there are far more drivers of MPVs on the roads so this is going to stack up.


Unfortunately cyclists are more likely to injure or kill themselves when cycling like idiots because they have none of the protection of a steel-bodied vehicle and no seatbelts.


This is what cyclist forget when they're doing stupid stuff on the roads,..they are the ones who will come off worse with any encounter with a vehicle..far better to stay left and stay away from cars,use signals,stop at lights and all the rest of it.


When i'm cycling i behave exactly as i would when driving,especially when it comes to indicating my intentions...