Turning left in car with cyclist behind you

beauf

meeeeh wrote: »

So does that include segregated cycling track like the one in Phoenix Park for example? Grass is between the road and the track and left (or right) turn cuts accross the cycling track.

I'm well able to read but you reposting the rules does not answer my question.

I'm open to correction but I seem to remember this is not marked as cycle lane as per legal signage. It's also off road, and it's a park subject to park bylaws.

Even if that was not the case there are yield signs for the cyclists, as you are usually merging with pedestrians. Right of way doesn't come into it. Common sense does.

beauf

meeeeh wrote: »

...I'm coming from the cyclist would have the right of way and that's why I am asking.

If even you had right of way, and thus far you don't.

Assuming you do as you are is a very bad mindset for a cyclist.

beauf

Spook_ie wrote: »

See what I mean, though the legislation has been linked to and highlighted, there are still people on this thread that don't know the law. Is it the RSA's fault or someone else's fault?

RSA. Unless they are misnamed.

Dravokivich

As a cyclist I've been hit by a car turning left, right on me. As a driver, I'd rather let them through before I proceed, or at least make sure they've seen I'm turning left and stopped. Right or wrong, the finger is always pointed at drivers in this country. I'm not having anyone pointing theirs my way.

magicbastarder

Dravokivich wrote: »

Right or wrong, the finger is always pointed at drivers in this country. I'm not having anyone pointing theirs my way.

there's a saying - if you want to kill someone, do it in a car.

e.g. a very recent example, a woman who ran a light at double the speed limit, and hit a pedestrian causing permanent injury; she got a suspended sentence.

Spook_ie

meeeeh wrote: »

So there is the stop there but what is the general rule since you like quoting them? Obviously you are supposed to obey stop sign but can you confirm that all the tracks have stop signs or is tgere a general rule? Since segregated tracks are golden standard one would assume rules would deal with it. (And just to make it clear where I'm coming from the cyclist would have the right of way and that's why I am asking.

To be fair, there is an SI relating to cycle tracks marked by RRM022 and that says vehicles are prohibited from driving along them but that they may cross them to access buildings for example, the fact that it prohibits driving along them would seem to infer the right of way is along the track, but without seeing a particular junction you might be referring to would be difficult to express an opinion.

I used to have an example, not sure if it's been corrected, where there was a left turn where they forgot to change the RRM022 marking (solid white line) to an RRM023 ( dashed white line ) in theory prohibiting an otherwise legal left turn, but I forget now where it was.

Dravokivich

magicbastarder wrote: »

there's a saying - if you want to kill someone, do it in a car.

e.g. a very recent example, a woman who ran a light at double the speed limit, and hit a pedestrian causing permanent injury; she got a suspended sentence.

Not everyone in a car kills people that arent in cars. Its tiresome seeing such ill thought out crap like what you posted recited time and time again. All drivers arent killers, nor are we potential killers. I've even given my experience as a cyclist. But you decide to just push this nonsense agenda.

What are you looking for with that?

meeeeh

beauf wrote: »

If even you had right of way, and thus far you don't.

Assuming you do as you are is a very bad mindset for a cyclist.

I'm asking as a driver not as cyclist. Where I cycle this situation doesn't arise and frankly even if it did I'm usually with kids and would stop just to be sure.

You can be rude if you want but neither you or the poster above managed to show how this is dealt in rules of the road or confirm that it's not dealt with at all. I'm not coming at this from an anti driver or anti cyclist perspective but because I am curious what the rule is.

Stark

Dravokivich wrote: »

magicbastarder wrote: »

there's a saying - if you want to kill someone, do it in a car.

e.g. a very recent example, a woman who ran a light at double the speed limit, and hit a pedestrian causing permanent injury; she got a suspended sentence.

Not everyone in a car kills people that arent in cars. Its tiresome seeing such ill thought out crap like what you posted recited time and time again. All drivers arent killers, nor are we potential killers. I've even given my experience as a cyclist. But you decide to just push this nonsense agenda.

What are you looking for with that?

Driver hat on here. I've no issue with being called a potential killer as it's perfectly accurate. All it takes is a moment's inattention.

07Lapierre

Spook_ie wrote: »

Do you mean like the bit with Stop signs on the track or somewhere else?
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3529618,-6.3086841,3a,60y,202.77h,83.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFkQrDmBGo_3te5mWj56b_A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

A lot of bike lanes end with a yield or stop sign. It's a good example of why bike lanes are not used much. Anytime I've cycled through the Phoenix park, I've never used those bike lanes and I've stayed on the road. By staying on the road, cyclists have the same right of way as cars. It makes for a much quicker commute, as you don't have to yield at each and every junction.

u140acro3xs7dm

This happens me everyday, I generally make a desicion in a case by case basis. I find the "serious" cyclist's more likely to keep going and look for confrontation. By serious, I mean a bike worth north of a grand, wearing all the gear, and cycling at full speed. Commuters in their suits and work gear are normally easier to read, possibly as they are moving a lot slower.

beauf

07Lapierre wrote: »

A lot of bike lanes end with a yield or stop sign. It's a good example of why bike lanes are not used much. .....

That doesn't make much sense without context.

If you said many cycle lanes are unnecessarily fragmented constantly interrupting their progress. You might have a point. But that is not the case in the park, they are there for a reason. Also they are used a lot in the park.

But yes if you want fast progress cyclist are better off on the road, in many situations.

Dravokivich

Stark wrote: »

Driver hat on here. I've no issue with being called a potential killer as it's perfectly accurate. All it takes is a moment's inattention.

A moment's inattention has nothing to do with driving. And with magicbastarders comment, it's not about being a potential killer, the suggestion is that it's only a matter of time and pretty much always on the driver. And he chewed that one out, by spinning my own comments to suit it.

beauf

meeeeh wrote: »

I'm asking as a driver not as cyclist. Where I cycle this situation doesn't arise and frankly even if it did I'm usually with kids and would stop just to be sure.

You can be rude if you want but neither you or the poster above managed to show how this is dealt in rules of the road or confirm that it's not dealt with at all. I'm not coming at this from an anti driver or anti cyclist perspective but because I am curious what the rule is.

You can be rude and not read what has been posted. But the law and more importantly the practicalities have been quoted. If you have links to the law, or other recognized studies or official bodies to say otherwise please post them.

beauf

Dravokivich wrote: »

A moment's inattention has nothing to do with driving. And with magicbastarders comment, it's not about being a potential killer, the suggestion is that it's only a matter of time and pretty much always on the driver. And he chewed that one out, by spinning my own comments to suit it.

Its a bit of tired argument alright. The odds are against a driver for a number of reasons. No need use all the hyperbole.

Dravokivich

beauf wrote: »

Its a bit of tired argument alright. The odds are against a driver for a number of reasons. No need use all the hyperbole.

But it's not just hyperbole, its incitfull bullsh!t. I always post on these threads with open feedback from a range of experience as a commuter, pedestrian, cyclist as well as driver and he always responds back, challenging the driver. Even when I've made a point of awareness, he's still raging on about how drivers kill other people.

meeeeh

beauf wrote: »

You can be rude and not read what has been posted. But the law and more importantly the practicalities have been quoted. If you have links to the law, or other recognized studies or official bodies to say otherwise please post them.

I don't have them. Why would I be asking otherwise? Not all of us use this thread to soaobox about cars or cyclists or whatever.

Stark

Driver hat on again, I'm never bothered by people posting ill informed inciteful rants against drivers. No-one's going to run me off the road after getting incensed by the rants. Or if they do, I have the same level of protection they have. Anti-cyclist rants like those propogated though boards and through the media (Hook et al) do affect me as it means noticeably more aggressive and dangerous behavior towards me from people getting incensed by anti-cyclist sentiment.

beauf

meeeeh wrote: »

I don't have them. Why would I be asking otherwise? Not all of us use this thread to soaobox about cars or cyclists or whatever.

You asked for the law.
It was given.

Not entirely sure where the soapbox is.

I thought it was useful and instructional for everyone myself included.

beauf

There's really only one rule don't hit anything... And don't be hit by anything....

magicbastarder

Dravokivich wrote: »

What are you looking for with that?

i was calling attention to your 'right or wrong, the finger is always pointed at motorists in this country'.
i was using a recent and relevant example that drivers frequently get away with near murder.

my own motoring experiences clearly don't gel with yours, anyway. and i'm quite bemused at being accused of hyperbole when i was trying to puncture your hyperbole with a counter argument.

Spook_ie

07Lapierre wrote: »

A lot of bike lanes end with a yield or stop sign. It's a good example of why bike lanes are not used much. Anytime I've cycled through the Phoenix park, I've never used those bike lanes and I've stayed on the road. By staying on the road, cyclists have the same right of way as cars. It makes for a much quicker commute, as you don't have to yield at each and every junction.

And as such I assume if a vehicle looks like it's turning left, indicators whatever, that you don't overtake on the left.

Chiparus

Dravokivich wrote: »

Not everyone in a car kills people that arent in cars. Its tiresome seeing such ill thought out crap like what you posted recited time and time again. All drivers arent killers, nor are we potential killers. I've even given my experience as a cyclist. But you decide to just push this nonsense agenda.

What are you looking for with that?

Yes we are.

magicbastarder

Spook_ie wrote: »

And as such I assume if a vehicle looks like it's turning left, indicators whatever, that you don't overtake on the left.

myself, i never* go up the inside of any vehicle while going through a junction; i always tuck in between the vehicle in front and the one behind.
i'm a reasonably fast cyclist though, so probably have the fitness/moxie to do that where other people may not feel comfortable doing it.

*i guess there might be a caveat where the vehicle is stuck/stationary, already in the junction, and clearly not moving.

dashcamdanny

I will not give way to a cyclist turning left unless it is unsafe. Or its going to give them undue inconvenience .

If the cycle has room to stop safely and without jamming on, I will indicate and turn left in front of them. Its my right of way. Not theirs.

I would give way to them on hill as its harder for them to stop if going down and very hard for them to start up again going up.

If there is a constant stream that refuse to give way( which they will do in Dublin rush hour), I will slowly edge in till one has to stop.

I think I am giving them proper consideration and I am lawful in my actions. I am open to correction though.

tjhook

As a general rule, I assume the cyclist will always do whatever they want regardless of other road users. I try to allow for that. Right or wrong isn't really important, compared with avoiding an accident. Plus (as we see in this thread), it's not always immediately obvious how the law works in some of these situations.

Turning left, regardless of whether or not there's a cycle lane, I check for cyclists approaching from behind, and stop until they either pass or stop for me. To be fair, quite a few do stop/slow down.

A bus stopped in the bus lane, with a bike approaching it from behind. I'll assume the bike will swerve out of the bus land in front of me. More often than not, they do.

It's like the RSA wisely says to drivers, "expect the unexpected". Maybe some day they'll start encouraging cyclists to do the same. Or maybe not.

Seth Brundle

I mentioned this yesterday...

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I pass by a new one each day on the junction of Nangor Rd and Adamstown Rd.
The footpath is dual path and cycle path. However, the cycle path merges with the road at the junctions (and is painted a different colour).
At this junction (from Canal to Newcastle), you have cycle path (for turning left and going straight, then you have a normal traffic lane that turns left (effectively crossing the cycle route going straight ahead. On the right then you've a traffic lane for going straight.
The cyclist would have priority but that's no use when there's an artic to your right with a flashing indicator!

I'll try and get a photo of the junction for reference (too new for Google Maps).

As per the photo below, the road does not seem to factor in cyclists that want to travel straight on, only turn left (based on the solid line).
The cycle path behind me is a shared footpath but splits just in front of me so cyclists are on the road.
So hypothetically (and ignoring the kamakazi suggestions), is a cyclist that wants to travel straight on supposed to yield to traffic or is traffic turning left to yield to the cyclist?

Stark

Good old death by junction design.

Wouldn't surprise me if the designers obnoxiously expected the cyclist to continue round left and then try to use the pedestrian lights to cross.

Spook_ie

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I mentioned this yesterday...


As per the photo below, the road does not seem to factor in cyclists that want to travel straight on, only turn left (based on the solid line).
The cycle path behind me is a shared footpath but splits just in front of me so cyclists are on the road.
So hypothetically (and ignoring the kamakazi suggestions), is a cyclist that wants to travel straight on supposed to yield to traffic or is traffic turning left to yield to the cyclist?

Where is that?

Forget that question, just read your original post about getting a photo

Podge_irl

dashcamdanny wrote: »

I think I am giving them proper consideration and I am lawful in my actions. I am open to correction though.

You may be right on the latter, but hardly on the former. There is about zero consideration in edging into a cycle lane and forcing them to stop.

Would you employ a similar tactic to turn left across a bus lane if there was a succession of buses?

tjhook

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I mentioned this yesterday...


As per the photo below, the road does not seem to factor in cyclists that want to travel straight on, only turn left (based on the solid line).
The cycle path behind me is a shared footpath but splits just in front of me so cyclists are on the road.
So hypothetically (and ignoring the kamakazi suggestions), is a cyclist that wants to travel straight on supposed to yield to traffic or is traffic turning left to yield to the cyclist?

I don't know that road... is it one of those where the "main" road bends to the left, and the "straight ahead" is actually a separate (possibly more minor) road? If so, then yes, the road is a left-bending road, and going straight ahead is actually considered to be a right turn. It would be the same for all traffic including cars.


It's hard to see for sure from the photo though. And google maps appears to show the junction as a construction site (if I've located it correctly that is).

Seth Brundle

Spook_ie wrote: »

Where is that?

Forget that question, just read your original post about getting a photo

Newly completed redesign of the junction at Adamstown Rd & Nangor Rd. (Google Maps not yet up to date)

Overall that upgrade is a lot better than what was there before but as they had the opportunity to get it right without any additional significant cost, its a pretty crap effort. Too many manholes in the cycle paths, some cycle path lead right into traffic, lamppost right in the middle of a painted cycle lane
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.31805,-6.4406859,3a,75y,70.46h,83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZQwLa425SiT1fCvHZa0qIg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Seth Brundle

tjhook wrote: »

I don't know that road... is it one of those where the "main" road bends to the left, and the "straight ahead" is actually a separate (possibly more minor) road? If so, then yes, the road is a left-bending road, and going straight ahead is actually considered to be a right turn. It would be the same for all traffic including cars.


It's hard to see for sure from the photo though. And google maps appears to show the junction as a construction site (if I've located it correctly that is).

The "old" road was is actually still visible (my photo is a completely new junction) at what is marked as Titanium Motor Company (the old Polly Hops pub).
The road to the left is the Nangor Road (R134). Striaght ahead in my pic is the Nangor Rd/Newcastle Rd (R120). Behind me is the Adamstown Rd (R120).
R120 is the dominant road.
However, in the old layout (which had the same idea, traffic coming from the left had to yield regardless of whether it was turning left or right.

Chiparus

A lot of roundabouts where I live have changed so if you want to go straight you have to get into the outside lane , this seems to really annoy drivers.

Spook_ie

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Newly completed redesign of the junction at Adamstown Rd & Nangor Rd. (Google Maps not yet up to date)

Overall that upgrade is a lot better than what was there before but as they had the opportunity to get it right without any additional significant cost, its a pretty crap effort. Too many manholes in the cycle paths, some cycle path lead right into traffic, lamppost right in the middle of a painted cycle lane
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.31805,-6.4406859,3a,75y,70.46h,83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZQwLa425SiT1fCvHZa0qIg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Is it this project? If so which section of map it is it supposed to look like?
https://sdcc.ie/en/services/transport/road-infrastructural-projects/adamstown-road-r120-and-nangor-road-r134-improvement-scheme/proposed-road-markings-signage-r120-adamstown-road-improvement-scheme-2015.pdf

dashcamdanny

Podge_irl wrote: »

You may be right on the latter, but hardly on the former. There is about zero consideration in edging into a cycle lane and forcing them to stop.

Would you employ a similar tactic to turn left across a bus lane if there was a succession of buses?

OK. I do see your point. A bus is different though. A bus in a bus lane still has the right of way . A far as I can see from the law.
But a cycle may not. Both a car and a cycle must yield to each other. Both are under an obligation not to create a collision. But sometimes you simply have to muscle in of be left sitting there. Dublin road users are not a very friendly bunch.

The bus lane inbound at Swords rd Santry is a good example of how cars do try their best to nudge into the left lane. Blocking lines of buses.

Seth Brundle

Spook_ie wrote: »

Is it this project? If so which section of map it is it supposed to look like?
https://sdcc.ie/en/services/transport/road-infrastructural-projects/adamstown-road-r120-and-nangor-road-r134-improvement-scheme/proposed-road-markings-signage-r120-adamstown-road-improvement-scheme-2015.pdf

It is that project but all of those design images are north of the junction with the Nangor Rd (R134).

I found that right through the project, much of the documentation for the peroject was absent from the SDCC website. I emaied them and was told that it would be put up (it wasn't).

gmacww

dashcamdanny wrote: »

OK. I do see your point. A bus is different though. A bus in a bus lane still has the right of way . A far as I can see from the law.
But a cycle may not. Both a car and a cycle must yield to each other. Both are under an obligation not to create a collision. But sometimes you simply have to muscle in of be left sitting there. Dublin road users are not a very friendly bunch.

The bus lane inbound at Swords rd Santry is a good example of how cars do try their best to nudge into the left lane. Blocking lines of buses.

I think there is another element at play here as well that is often overlooked. A lot of cycle lanes are dashed lines thrown into the left hand side of a single pre-existing lane. A lane often just wide enough for a vehicle.

A road I cycle home each day has sections where the lane is just wide enough for a car and then they went and painted a cycle lane down the inside. Cars/vans etc... have no choice but to drive in the cycle in some sections and when stopped be right over at the curb. So while it may seem like a car blocking a cyclist it can be lack of choice. I have no issue at all with it in this situation. It's just poor road design.

07Lapierre

Bike lanes in Dublin... I mean WTF? Who designs this crap?

https://twitter.com/mairenihuigin/status/1154831119751286786?s=21

magicbastarder

i suspect she addressed that tweet to the wrong twitter account.

Spook_ie

But there's no left turn there, except for cyclists,, why is it even in this thread?

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote: »

there's a saying - if you want to kill someone, do it in a car.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/man-21-who-buried-car-on-family-farm-after-fatal-hit-and-run-avoids-jail-1.3968778

A man who was involved in a fatal hit-and-run in Co Meath and later used an excavator to bury his car on his parents’ farm has been spared jail.

Q.E.D.

evolving_doors

Dominique Fresh Tween wrote: »

evolving_doors wrote: »

If a cyclist isnt able to stop in time then they're going too fast. Whether the car even indicated or not.

What an idiotic statement.

You clearly do not know the rotr. It's the drivers responsibility to make sure they can make the turn in due time. It has been cited over and over again, yet somehow you have ignored the facts and blame the cyclist for not breaking in time? did you see the video I posted a few pages back? Who was in the right in the first clip?

Besides that I'd still let the cyclist undertake me if they were going too fast. But I'm not waiting all flipping day just to be nice. It's like holding the door for someone when you go in first, if they're a certain distance away then that's your cut off point.
Everyone's cut off point is different.

Also I've seen a cyclist zoom up the inside left and go flying because a passenger opened the door to get out. Sure it's probably the passengers fault but that's little comfort to the cyclist with a broken collar bone.

It is the passengers fault. You are victim blaming here. There's nothing the cyclist did wrong, regardless of your false perceptions

Could you put up the video. I'd like to see it, appreciating that it's not the op's exact scenario of course.

Chiparus

evolving_doors wrote: »

If a cyclist isnt able to stop in time then they're going too fast. Whether the car even indicated or not.

Besides that I'd still let the cyclist undertake me if they were going too fast. But I'm not waiting all flipping day just to be nice. It's like holding the door for someone when you go in first, if they're a certain distance away then that's your cut off point.
Everyone's cut off point is different.

Also I've seen a cyclist zoom up the inside left and go flying because a passenger opened the door to get out. Sure it's probably the passengers fault but that's little comfort to the cyclist with a broken collar bone.

Yea nearly happened to me , in a bike lane , traffic stopped and FS passenger decided to get out .

Similar to this guy in Australia.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/lifestyle/taxi-passengers-abuse-cyclist-after-dooring-crash-in-melbourne-cbd/news-story/b0b9dbf4da3d1609908fe09c2f54def5

Idleater

magicbastarder wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/man-21-who-buried-car-on-family-farm-after-fatal-hit-and-run-avoids-jail-1.3968778

-Q.E.D.-

And on the following page, woman gets 18 months (of 3 years) in prison for defrauding an elderly neighbour.

Q.E.D

Mystery Egg

cdaly_ wrote: »

The legislation says more or less:

"A cyclist may pass to the left of a vehicle unless the vehicle is indicating to turn left and there is a reasonable expectation that the vehicle will commence the turn before the cyclist reaches the vehicle"

Note that the legislation is focussing on passing on the left which is, in general, illegal.

The effect of it is that you can turn left ahead of a cyclist approaching from behind if you will complete the turn in good time. In contrast, if your taking the turn would cut off the cyclist then the cyclist has right of way.

In my experience as a cyclist, it can be difficult to decide if the driver is waiting for me to pass or just not moving off promptly. If I'm fairly sure of them, I'll pass on the left, otherwise I'll move to the right which can leave the driver wondering where I've disappeared to.

When driving, I'll wait for approaching cyclists, probably longer than I need to but I prefer to err on the side of the cyclist rather than squish them...

Apologies if this was already asked, do you have a link to the legislation around this?

TIA

Patrick2010

Idleater wrote: »

And on the following page, woman gets 18 months (of 3 years) in prison for defrauding an elderly neighbour.

Q.E.D

Not sure if you think this is lenient or excessive?

Eric Cartman

get a car that accelerates quick enough to get infant of the cyclist and make the turn so they can't cut you off.

Doop

Chiparus wrote: »

Yea nearly happened to me , in a bike lane , traffic stopped and FS passenger decided to get out .

Similar to this guy in Australia.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/lifestyle/taxi-passengers-abuse-cyclist-after-dooring-crash-in-melbourne-cbd/news-story/b0b9dbf4da3d1609908fe09c2f54def5

Is it not the case that the car driver is responsible? Should the cyclist not be looking for the taxi's details as opposed to the alighting passengers?

ED E

Doop wrote: »

Is it not the case that the car driver is responsible? Should the cyclist not be looking for the taxi's details as opposed to the alighting passengers?

Only for minors.