Turning left in car with cyclist behind you

evolving_doors

meeeeh wrote: »

That's like saying the car in the other lane was going too fast and that's why you crashed into them changing lane. It's up to the driver turning to check if someone is in their blind spot, not just look into the mirrors, that is basic requirement when driving (and one of main reasons why people failed driving test when I was learning to drive.).

Sure ya it's up to the driver to be considerate and check, but it's also up to the cyclist to assume they don't. If they don't know if the person isn't going to turn left or not they need to slow down and go at an appropriate speed. Anytime I cycle and I see a left turn coming up and I'm going straight I always slow down and don't presume that just cos they don't indicate that it means they aren't going left.

meeeeh wrote: »

And by the way the cyclist was going very slowly and was able to stop but that was seriously bad and dangerous driving.

I dunno what the 'dangerous driver' did or didn't see, maybe they checked and there was a blind spot or maybe they just didn't look and take due regard. But everyone has to assume that the driver WILL turn left without indicating.

Who's at fault? I dunno I think we'd need to assess the exact distance the bike was away from the car (at back left bumper... Or 2 car lengths away). And even then we all have our degrees of personal space.

Stark

evolving_doors wrote: »

Who's at fault? I dunno I think we'd need to assess the exact distance the bike was away from the car (at back left bumper... Or 2 car lengths away). And even then we all have our degrees of personal space.

I know. The driver was at fault.

I think we'd need to assess the exact distance the bike was away from the car (at back left bumper... Or 2 car lengths away). And even then we all have our degrees of personal space.

completely squeezed the cyclist in their blind spot.

Sounds pretty close to me.

evolving_doors

Stark wrote: »

Try reading the post you replied to again. You wouldn't consider it okay to change lanes without looking or indicating on a motorway and nearly causing a crash so why is it okay to do it to a cyclist?

I'm not saying it is ok (read my posts again). If I'm going down a motorway and approaching with a car on my right (as we assume the cyclist was) then I need to slow down and take due regard. That's why undertaking is bad.

Are you maintaining that on the motorway both cars are moving at the same speed? You'll need to be specific.

Stark

evolving_doors wrote: »

You'll need to be specific.

No I don't. There's no need for me to have to explain why changing road position without looking or indicating is bad. It's up to you to re-familiarise yourself with the RotR and basic driving practices.

evolving_doors

Stark wrote: »

I know. The driver was at fault.

An indication is simply that, it's not a contract.
I know I'm being a bit George Hookish but what do some cyclists expect when they need an indication to know whether to slow down or not. If they can't adjust their speed then they are going too fast.

But ya go ahead and zoom up the inside undertaking all the way and then blame the driver while you're on your hospital bed out of work for weeks and have a lifelong injury.

meeeeh

evolving_doors wrote: »

Sure ya it's up to the driver to be considerate and check, but it's also up to the cyclist to assume they don't. If they don't know if the person isn't going to turn left or not they need to slow down and go at an appropriate speed. Anytime I cycle and I see a left turn coming up and I'm going straight I always slow down and don't presume that just cos they don't indicate that it means they aren't going left.

I dunno what the 'dangerous driver' did or didn't see, maybe they checked and there was a blind spot or maybe they just didn't look and take due regard. But everyone has to assume that the driver WILL turn left without indicating.

Who's at fault? I dunno I think we'd need to assess the exact distance the bike was away from the car (at back left bumper... Or 2 car lengths away). And even then we all have our degrees of personal space.

It's not about being inconsiderate it's about basic driving skills. Turning right requires you to indicate and check your blind spot. No ifs buts or maybes.

Btw this didn't happen in Ireland but my almost 70 years old mum wasstopped for not indicating correctly in the roundabout, fined and breathalyzed (she was completely sober). While I think that was a bit overly eager policing you can't behave like a complete moron in junctions.

Stark

evolving_doors wrote:

An indication is simply that, it's not a contract.
I know I'm being a bit George Hookish but what do some cyclists expect when they need an indication to know whether to slow down or not. If they can't adjust their speed then they are going too fast.

But ya go ahead and zoom up the inside undertaking all the way and then blame the driver while you're on your hospital bed out of work for weeks and have a lifelong injury.

And by the way the cyclist was going very slowly and was able to stop but that was seriously bad and dangerous driving.

You're not great at this whole reading lark are you?

Going back to motorway driving, if you were in the overtaking lane overtaking someone and the driver you're overtaking decides at the last minute he wants to change lane and pulls in front of you while you're in his blind spot without indicating, who is in the wrong? Him for changing lanes without looking or indicating or you for driving too fast?

evolving_doors

Stark wrote: »

No I don't. There's no need for me to have to explain why changing road position without looking or indicating is bad. It's up to you to re-familiarise yourself with the RotR and basic driving practices.

The rules of the road book are just guidelines, not laws. Each case on its own merits.

And actually I have been behind a car who was in the right lane of a motorway who cut in without indicating.

What did I do??

I slowed down, because I was able too and I wadnt going to fast, and I assume every car will always cut in without indicating. So I drive accordingly.

If you are going behind someone and at the same speed in the left lane then there's something wrong with that situation from the outset. (That's assuming there are no other cars in front).

Stark

The rules of the road book are just guidelines, not laws. Each case on its own merits.

Good luck trying that line on a traffic cop.

evolving_doors

Stark wrote: »

You're not great at this whole reading lark are you?

Going back to motorway driving, if you were in the overtaking lane overtaking someone and the driver you're overtaking decides at the last minute he wants to change lane and pulls in front of you while you're in his blind spot without indicating, who is in the wrong? Him for changing lanes without looking or indicating or you for driving too fast?

Hold on, if someone cuts in from the left lane while you are overtaking then it's obvious they are going faster than you. Something wrong there... Slow down and see what they're at, no need to be a martyr for being first!

Stark

evolving_doors wrote: »

Hold on, if someone cuts in from the left lane while you are overtaking then it's obvious they are going faster than you. Something wrong there... Slow down and see what they're at, no need to be a martyr for being first!

Okay. You're going on my ignore list. Your reading comprehension skills are just way too poor for you to be worth arguing with.

evolving_doors

Stark wrote: »

Good luck trying that line on a traffic cop.

I will never need to and don't hang on whether someone will be indicating or not. I assume everyone doesn't bother to indicate when they should and drive accordingly. Ya sure they should indicate but I doubt you could report not indicating to a traffic cop as careless/dangerous driving.

Somedaythefire

As a cyclist, I always slow down for the car. They're bigger and would cause a lot more damage to me, than me to them. It can cause an awkward couple of moments where I slow down for the car, but the car slows for me as well. I'm quite a defensive cyclist though. There are a few nutcases out there inside their cars.

evolving_doors

Stark wrote: »

Okay. You're going on my ignore list. Your reading comprehension skills are just way too poor for you to be worth arguing with.

Well if that's your only reply then your argument falls down and your scenario given is at best wishy washy.

evolving_doors

Somedaythefire wrote: »

As a cyclist, I always slow down for the car. They're bigger and would cause a lot more damage to me, than me to them. It can cause an awkward couple of moments where I slow down for the car, but the car slows for me as well.

Exactly, this was my point. You drive/cycle accordingly and don't assume that the person will indicate.

So... Would you say the driver is 100% at fault. Or is it a shared responsibility with grey areas in between

Somedaythefire

evolving_doors wrote: »

Exactly, this was my point. You drive/cycle accordingly and don't assume that the person will indicate.

So... Would you say the driver is 100% at fault. Or is it a shared responsibility with grey areas in between

Driver is at fault, yes. If they aren't aware of their surroundings, they're going to cause accidents. But I'm still not taking the chance, personally.

Lord Nikon

If you are well ahead of the cyclist then yes it's save to turn left before they get to the junction, However, the speed of the cyclist may remain constant, while the motorist is slowing down to turn left, and with that the cyclist actually gains on the motorist, thus minimizing the distance between the two. This makes it more difficult to make the turn without causing an obstruction for the cyclist.

Markcheese

And how many check their blind spot when crossing over a bike lane (or turn across one), I know I've been guilty on occasion...

evolving_doors

Lord Nikon wrote: »

If you are well ahead of the cyclist then yes it's save to turn left before they get to the junction, However, the speed of the cyclist may remain constant, while the motorist is slowing down to turn left, and with that the cyclist actually gains on the motorist, thus minimizing the distance between the two. This makes it more difficult to make the turn without causing an obstruction for the cyclist.

At the same time though it's incumbent on the cyclist to notice the speed of the car so they should slow down.

07Lapierre

Lord Nikon wrote: »

If you are well ahead of the cyclist then yes it's save to turn left before they get to the junction, However, the speed of the cyclist may remain constant, while the motorist is slowing down to turn left, and with that the cyclist actually gains on the motorist, thus minimizing the distance between the two. This makes it more difficult to make the turn without causing an obstruction for the cyclist.

In that situation, the cyclist should anticipate the car will turn left (assuming the cars indicators are on and the brake lights come on?) and the cyclist should plan* to move out into the middle of the lane and pass the car on the right as the car is turning left.

* By plan i mean look behind and if it's clear signal their intention to move.

meeeeh

07Lapierre wrote: »

In that situation, the cyclist should anticipate the car will turn left (assuming the cars indicators are on and the brake lights come on?) and the cyclist should plan* to move out into the middle of the lane and pass the car on the right as the car is turning left.

* By plan i mean look behind and if it's clear signal their intention to move.

How that does work when car crosses segregated cycling line? It's a genuine question because as said previously where I passed my exam the cyclist would have the right of way if there is a cycle lane.

Seth Brundle

meeeeh wrote: »

How that does work when car crosses segregated cycling line? It's a genuine question because as said previously where I passed my exam the cyclist would have the right of way if there is a cycle lane.

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).

beauf

meeeeh wrote: »

How that does work when car crosses segregated cycling line? It's a genuine question because as said previously where I passed my exam the cyclist would have the right of way if there is a cycle lane.

If the cyclist ignores the driver and goes up the inside it's undertaking. Which is a dumb thing to do.

If the driver is far enough ahead to cross into the cycling lane with causing you to emergency brake then they are simply in front.

If you leave space for left turning car to turn left then that makes everything work smoothly and safely. Facilitating your fellow road users so that it avoids conflict is simple courtesy and good road etiquette.

Seth Brundle

beauf wrote: »

If the cyclist ignores the driver and goes up the inside it's undertaking. Which is a dumb thing to do.

If the driver is far enough ahead to cross into the cycling lane without causing you to emergency brake then they are simply in front.

If you leave space for left turning car to turn left then that makes everything work smoothly and safely. Facilitating your fellow road users so that it avoids conflict is simple courtesy and good road etiquette.

I presume you meant to say "without"?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

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

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

beauf wrote: »

If the cyclist ignores the driver and goes up the inside it's undertaking.

No it's not. Not in the same sense that a car undertakes. The cyclist should be free to proceed and the driver turning left should stop.

Ireland is far far too car centric. Bicycles should always have the right of way when going forward and should only proceed with their turn when safe to do so.

meeeeh

Dominique Fresh Tween wrote: »

No it's not. Not in the same sense that a car undertakes. The cyclist should be free to proceed and the driver turning left should stop.

Ireland is far far too car centric. Bicycles should always have the right of way when going forward and should only proceed with their turn when safe to do so.

No not always. But for me if there is a separate cycle line that you need to cross then it's up to driver to wait for traffic to clear. If they are both on the same lane than whoever is in front should have the right of way.

I have no problem with stopping and letting car by but this kind of situation shouldn't be left to whatever someone is prepared to do.

07Lapierre

meeeeh wrote: »

How that does work when car crosses segregated cycling line? It's a genuine question because as said previously where I passed my exam the cyclist would have the right of way if there is a cycle lane.

Cars shouldnt cross segregated bike lanes? I know they do but as a cyclist you'd have no option but to take evasive action to avoid a collision with the car?

Self preservation trumps right of way?

meeeeh

07Lapierre wrote: »

Cars shouldnt cross segregated bike lanes? I know they do but as a cyclist you'd have no option but to take evasive action to avoid a collision with the car?

Self preservation trumps right of way?

I get that but what is in the rules of the road? Does the car have a right of way in junctions turning left despite cycling lane and cyclists going straight? I'm just curious.

Stark

Well you're expected to yield to pedestrians who are crossing when turning onto a side street so I imagine the same principle applies.