Turning left in car with cyclist behind you

07Lapierre

meeeeh wrote: »

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.

I don't have a definitive answer on that one, but this is Ireland. We are a carcentric country and my guess is if this went to court, the car/motorist would win. The cyclists would be found to be at fault is some way or another.

Lord Nikon

As someone who has driven and cycled in the city, regardless of whether I am in the right or not, I tell myself that whatever happens, be safe. It is all well and good being in the right, but who is cgoing to come out of it worse, me on a bike or someone driving a car/van/truck/bus?

beauf

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.

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.

You are thinking about this wrong. Both from a legal and a safety point of view. You are thinking that having right of way, makes something safe.
But undertaking will never be safe in certain situations. So the dogma of "right of way" is dangerously flawed.

(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.”,

JustAThought

Just cos you're bigger and sitting inside and safer dosn't give you the right to mash some poor cyclist . You may only turn either left or right after you have indicated, and checked that you have a clear safe way to progress. Driving oversomeone doan't make it safe for you or them-plus you have might and power on your sode and with thos comes more responsibility not to crush and maim. Google that idiot pedestrian who was walking aling the wrong sode of the road,zig zagging, in the dark, pissex with no footpath on the arong sode of the road rentlently. He did everything wrong but the judge ruled in favour of a 1.8 million settlement /payout for him because he was mashed and the driver - although in the right in every way - was in a car. Precedent.

Spook_ie

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 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.

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.

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?

Spook_ie

meeeeh wrote: »

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.

Dunno how many times this going to need repeating

SI332/2012
Section on overtaking on the left specifically for cyclists.

“(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.”,

meeeeh

Spook_ie wrote: »

Dunno how many times this going to need repeating

SI332/2012
Section on overtaking on the left specifically for cyclists.

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.

Spook_ie

JustAThought wrote: »

Just cos you're bigger and sitting inside and safer dosn't give you the right to mash some poor cyclist . You may only turn either left or right after you have indicated, and checked that you have a clear safe way to progress. Driving oversomeone doan't make it safe for you or them-plus you have might and power on your sode and with thos comes more responsibility not to crush and maim. Google that idiot pedestrian who was walking aling the wrong sode of the road,zig zagging, in the dark, pissex with no footpath on the arong sode of the road rentlently. He did everything wrong but the judge ruled in favour of a 1.8 million settlement /payout for him because he was mashed and the driver - although in the right in every way - was in a car. Precedent.

Can't find it, more details for google search or a link please.

Spook_ie

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.

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

meeeeh

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

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.

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....