Hit by a car while in the cycle lane.

martyc5674

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Not entirely correct.

You may not stop in a yellow box (unless you intend to turn right and your exit on that right is clear). That is, if traffic is backed up on your right turn, you may not enter the box.

I’m not sure where the difference lies between our two descriptions really.
What I was trying to bring attention to though was that he would have entered the yellow box to turn left therefore the onus would have been on him that his exit was clear on entry - but it wasn’t and the collision is proof of that.

07Lapierre

punisher5112 wrote: »

On a side note, been so vulnerable on a bike there is a good saying, no point in been right and dead either.... If you can stay safe do so whether in the right or wrong.
This is in no way a dig by the way it's more self preservation.

Bike lane design also contributes to these type of incidents. I suspect the OP was in the drivers "blind spot" at the very moment the driver decided to turn left. If the drivers passenger side mirror was folded in, then the driver should have looked over his shoulder before turning. My guess he didn't (whether the mirror was folded in or not makes no odds,as I suspect the driver didn't look anyway)

The reason the OP was in the drivers blind spot is because the bike lane directs cyclist into car blind spots. In my view, the cyclist would have been better off cycling on the road as the driver would have had to overtake the cyclist earlier / before reaching the left turn and so would have been aware of his presence.

Sometimes, even the nicest/smoothest bike lane surface is useless if it means using it puts you in danger at junctions.

Strumms

stevencn88 wrote: »

I came up on the left while he was stopped waiting for cars to clear from the entrance to the carpark he was trying to turn into, I was nearly clear of him when he started his maneuver. Should have mentioned above that after the accident I noticed his wing mirror on the passenger side was closed in. So there was no way he was ever going to see me

Did you point the folded mirror to the Gardai ? As far as I know and from what I’m reading all mirrors need to be correctly positioned, in place and in good condition in order for the vehicle to be considered legal and roadworthy.

Rodin

If I were a cyclist Id be less worries about the law and more worried about my bodily integrity. It's just stupid/dangerous to cycle in a vehicle's blindspot.

I wouldn't drive into a HGV's blindspot if it was turning.

Wishbone Ash

martyc5674 wrote: »

I’m not sure where the difference lies between our two descriptions really.....

Apologies for being pedantic but you definition would imply that one may stop in a yellow box if turning right. That also seems to be the belief of many motorists. The 'unless your exit is clear' is specifically for right turns.

Wishbone Ash

punisher5112 wrote: »

...The Dublin bikes opened the flood gates to thickness....

....as has cheap car finance.

shivermetimber

07Lapierre wrote: »

Bike lane design also contributes to these type of incidents. I suspect the OP was in the drivers "blind spot" at the very moment the driver decided to turn left. If the drivers passenger side mirror was folded in, then the driver should have looked over his shoulder before turning. My guess he didn't (whether the mirror was folded in or not makes no odds,as I suspect the driver didn't look anyway)

The reason the OP was in the drivers blind spot is because the bike lane directs cyclist into car blind spots. In my view, the cyclist would have been better off cycling on the road as the driver would have had to overtake the cyclist earlier / before reaching the left turn and so would have been aware of his presence.

Sometimes, even the nicest/smoothest bike lane surface is useless if it means using it puts you in danger at junctions.

Yep, terrible cycle lane design is usually the underlying issue in this country. So many bad examples everywhere.

It's for this very reason that when cycling in the city in a bike lane to the side of a line of traffic waiting to turn, if I'm proceeding straight ahead and if possible I'll leave the cycle lane early and enter the road / go up their outside as it's just safer. Too often I've had the lights go green at the last second and someone shoot off and turn / cut across the cycle lane without checking if a cyclist is right beside them and not turning. Ultimately it's a combination of bad, old cycle lane and junction+lights design that leads to this being possible.

07Lapierre

Rodin wrote: »

If I were a cyclist Id be less worries about the law and more worried about my bodily integrity. It's just stupid/dangerous to cycle in a vehicle's blindspot.

I wouldn't drive into a HGV's blindspot if it was turning.

Agreed...that's why I always jump the red light so I can get a "head start" on the driver behind me. It gives me time to cross the junction and move out of the way of cars following me.

stop

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Maybe some are badly designed or maintained, however the ones I pass on my commute every day are perfect cycle lanes but are rarely used by cyclists. Here are three of them, from the N81 at Jobstown up to the New Nangor Road at Grange Castle.

This one goes the whole way to the N7, but 8/10 cyclists still use the old suspended "Bus Lane" (see one of the numerous signs along the way showing it suspended, so it's just another traffic lane). There's absolutely no excuse.

This one is further north, after the N7 and all the way to Grange Castle. A perfect cycle lane fully separated from traffic by a wall, hedge and armco barrier, yet people still choose to use the Bus Lane. This is especially tricky when transiting through the roundabout, when they're on the inside traffic lane.

This one bates all, though. A perfect, spanking new lane on both sides (perfectly marked and cleaned since this Streetview shot), yet these idiots still choose to cycle on the only traffic lane there, slowing traffic down. Please explain why you guys choose to act in this manner?

Regarding the OP, I'm not sure exactly which spot the incident took place. Was the driver turning left into Lidl?

N81-N7
Not too much of an issue but northbound I'd prefer to be out in the bus lane for the 2 turns into Jobstownto avoid left hooks. Also tend to make sure I'm well into bus lane at the Pedestrian crossing between the two - locals seem to love dashing out or otherwise waiting in the cycle lane! Southbound on approach to Roadstone I make sure I'm in the 'bus' lane so I'm not caught from behind by a truck taking the turn into the Quarry too fast.

N7-Grange.
Cycle lane loses priority at every junction. Southbound at Corkagh the pavement dips are frequently blocked by illegally parked cars. I tend to use the cycle path for the most part but return to the road at every roundabout.

Nangor road new section.
Lovely cycle lane.. for the brief new section. The old bit from grange to R136 is a shambles, lose priority at every roundabout, and somewhat out of view at roundabouts also behind hedges.
For what it's worth the new section of road (cycle path and main traffic lanes) must not yet be on the Councils road sweeping list, they are both littered with gravel. Baldonnel Road in particular is very very bad. Was last out there about two weeks ago and still in a bad way.

Perhaps don't brand people idiots if you can't understand why they do something, try to walk, or cycle a few miles in their shoes.

punisher5112

07Lapierre wrote: »

Bike lane design also contributes to these type of incidents. I suspect the OP was in the drivers "blind spot" at the very moment the driver decided to turn left.
If the drivers passenger side mirror was folded in, then the driver should have looked over his shoulder before turning. My guess he didn't (whether the mirror was folded in or not makes no odds,as I suspect the driver didn't look anyway)

The reason the OP was in the drivers blind spot is because the bike lane directs cyclist into car blind spots.

In my view, the cyclist would have been better off cycling on the road as the driver would have had to overtake the cyclist earlier / before reaching the left turn and so would have been aware of his presence.

Sometimes, even the nicest/smoothest bike lane surface is useless if it means using it puts you in danger at junctions.

Oh I fully appreciate that, cycle lane doesn't always be suitable, no issues there at all, I give cyclists room and a wide gap, as driving larger vehicles I understand the reason too.


I had cyclist years back go over the bonnet, he damaged the car, he came down a hill, through a red and over as I was already half way into the drive, he mounted the footpath.

dubrov

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Apologies for being pedantic but you definition would imply that one may stop in a yellow box if turning right. That also seems to be the belief of many motorists. The 'unless your exit is clear' is specifically for right turns.

It looks to me that it is specifically excluded for right turns.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/si/182/made/en/print

29. (1) Subject to sub-article (2), where traffic sign number RRM 020 [yellow box] is provided at a junction (whether controlled by traffic sign number RTS 00I, RTS 002 or RTS 004 [traffic lights], or otherwise], and notwithstanding any indication to the contrary that may be given by such traffic signs, a driver of a vehicle shall not enter, either partly or wholly, the crosshatched area unless the vehicle can clear the area without stopping.

(2) Sub-article (1) shall not apply where a driver of a vehicle intending to make a right-hand turn at a junction enters the crosshatched area for that purpose.

07Lapierre

punisher5112 wrote: »

I had cyclist years back go over the bonnet, he damaged the car, he came down a hill, through a red and over as I was already half way into the drive, he mounted the footpath.

It wasn't me!

martyc5674

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Apologies for being pedantic but you definition would imply that one may stop in a yellow box if turning right. That also seems to be the belief of many motorists. The 'unless your exit is clear' is specifically for right turns.

Sorry now but your completely wrong on that.
You can enter if turning right if your exit isn’t clear, however you must not do so if this would block other users from using the yellow box who could otherwise have completed their manoeuvre.
If turning left or driving straight through, then you may not stop on the box and the onus is on you to make sure your exit is clear.

Heat_Wave

This story is making me think of the junction at the 5 Lamps. When driving to work every day, I used to take the left turn to drive down Sheriff street (coming from Fairview), and I’d always carefully watch my left wing mirror because cyclists would come flying by on the inside to continue straight, even if the traffic light filter was green to turn left.

This is a very confusing one, as it doesn’t sound like there was a filter to turn left. I’m trying to put myself in both the motorists and the cyclists shoes, and I think (my own personal opinion), the onus is more on the motorist to keep an eye on their left wing mirror if they plan on turning left where there’s no left traffic light filter. Can’t believe the motorist’s wing mirror was turned in. Surely that in itself is worthy of a fine?

Having said that, if a motorist was a good bit ahead of me and they were signalling to turn left, I’d slow down and stop (as the cyclist). No way would I speed up to undertake them.

You’d love to see dash cam footage here wouldn’t you.

On a side note, I’m hope you’re okay OP. You must feel quite shook up.

Jimmy Bottlehead

Rodin wrote: »

If I were a cyclist Id be less worries about the law and more worried about my bodily integrity. It's just stupid/dangerous to cycle in a vehicle's blindspot.

I wouldn't drive into a HGV's blindspot if it was turning.

^This.

I'm not a cyclist, but I'm a motorcyclist and well used to a serious increase in risk on the road compared to driving my car.

I'd agree on the 50/50 point; unobservant cyclist and driver. You both learned a potentially expensive lesson cheaply, or I hope you both did.

As for being right, etc, it's been said already. There's no point being right and dead. Being right won't save your life, or your bones from breaking or your brain from being damaged.
Play it safe and conservative. Assume other drivers WILL make that ridiculous, stupid mistake. Assume they're blind, dumb, and out to kill you. Don't nip up the inside of a vehicle turning left.

You got off lightly enough on this one. Next time might be a game changer or a game ender, so learn, improve and enjoy the two wheel freedom.

07Lapierre

Heat_Wave wrote: »

This story is making me think of the junction at the 5 Lamps. When driving to work every day, I used to take the left turn to drive down Sheriff street (coming from Fairview), and I’d always carefully watch my left wing mirror because cyclists would come flying by on the inside to continue straight, even if the traffic light filter was green to turn left.

I used to commute into town along there. At that junction I used to move out to,the right side of the left lane to avoid that very scenario. Once I crossed the junction, I moved back over to the left side of the road.

But then I was a fit 20 year old. Not so easy to do this if your not fit and maybe cycling one of those heavy dublin bikes!

Wishbone Ash

martyc5674 wrote: »

....You can enter if turning right if your exit isn’t clear...

But then you won't be able to complete your manoeuvre when there's a gap in oncoming traffic and as a result, you will block the junction. If your exit is clear when you enter the box, you can complete the right turn when you get a gap in oncoming traffic.

(I've passed the driving test in all vehicle categories. This issue is specifically focussed on when driving large vehicles).

dubrov

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

But then you won't be able to complete your manoeuvre when there's a gap in oncoming traffic and as a result, you will block the junction. If your exit is clear when you enter the box, you can complete the right turn when you get a gap in oncoming traffic.

(I've passed the driving test in all vehicle categories. This issue is specifically focussed on when driving large vehicles).

But the legislation says otherwise.

Also, I don't see how you block the junction in a car.

Johnny Jukebox

I am very familiar with that junction as a rider and its one where I am hyper vigilant as I've had a few near misses. I think drivers switch focus to the car park and the outbound traffic and forget that they have to cross a cycle lane and a path.

Any left turning vehicle here needs to take the utmost care that both the cycle lane and the path are clear before proceeding. If, as OP states, he collided with the front of the vehicle, I'd be handing it over to my solicitor.

JustAThought

pretty expensive high risk - to go to court and incur all those legal costs and be told you were to blame or half to blame and costs awarded against you. Did the OP leave 1.5m while undertaking the cars to ensure his own safety at every point? And if the drivers solicitor checks footage from cctv will they see the cyclist cycling with due caution, observing the rules of the road and wearing high vis jackets with mandators lights on front and back? Not to mention undertaking a turning car . Got off lightly with a fright & sore arm and no sympathy from the gaurds.

martyc5674

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

But then you won't be able to complete your manoeuvre when there's a gap in oncoming traffic and as a result, you will block the junction. If your exit is clear when you enter the box, you can complete the right turn when you get a gap in oncoming traffic.

(I've passed the driving test in all vehicle categories. This issue is specifically focussed on when driving large vehicles).

You can enter the box (turning right)if your exit isn’t clear- for example oncoming traffic could be preventing you from entering and exiting without stopping.
But once the oncoming traffic presents a gap you can proceed from your stopped position.
The reason the focus on this is with larger vehicles is that entering the box in such a large vehicle and stopping would potentially block other users from using the box and this is not permitted.

dubrov

JustAThought wrote: »

pretty expensive high risk - to go to court and incur all those legal costs and be told you were to blame or half to blame and costs awarded against you. Did the OP leave 1.5m while undertaking the cars to ensure his own safety at every point? And if the drivers solicitor checks footage from cctv will they see the cyclist cycling with due caution, observing the rules of the road and wearing high vis jackets with mandators lights on front and back? Not to mention undertaking a turning car . Got off lightly with a fright & sore arm and no sympathy from the gaurds.

That 1.5m refers to motorists overtaking cyclists not the other way around. It's not even a law.
Lights are not mandatory during the day and high viz is irrelevant.

magicbastarder

JustAThought wrote: »

Did the OP leave 1.5m while undertaking the cars to ensure his own safety at every point? And if the drivers solicitor checks footage from cctv will they see the cyclist cycling with due caution, observing the rules of the road and wearing high vis jackets with mandators lights on front and back?

1.5m is not required for cyclists. it's not even required for motorists.
as you know, hi-vis is not required.
lights are not mandatory during the day.

though you're probably right, it seems that based on previous cases, a few judges have been quick to jump on irrelevant details to rule against cyclists.

edit: beaten to it.

secman

JustAThought wrote: »

pretty expensive high risk - to go to court and incur all those legal costs and be told you were to blame or half to blame and costs awarded against you. Did the OP leave 1.5m while undertaking the cars to ensure his own safety at every point? And if the drivers solicitor checks footage from cctv will they see the cyclist cycling with due caution, observing the rules of the road and wearing high vis jackets with mandators lights on front and back? Not to mention undertaking a turning car . Got off lightly with a fright & sore arm and no sympathy from the gaurds.

OP said the car was stopped as he passed it on the cycle lane , had all but cleared it when he was hit by front of the turning car.
Guards admitted to OP they were unsure of the rules pertaining to the cycling path, its there in black and white, moving goalposts eh !

Rodin

07Lapierre wrote: »

Agreed...that's why I always jump the red light so I can get a "head start" on the driver behind me. It gives me time to cross the junction and move out of the way of cars following me.

You jump the red light?
You do know it is illegal to pedal through a red light? Not to mention very stupid...

07Lapierre

Rodin wrote: »

You jump the red light?
You do know it is illegal to pedal through a red light? Not to mention very stupid...

Well I'm usually wearing headphones as well!

By the way... yesterday, I was approaching a junction. The light turned amber. There were 4 lanes to cross, so knowing I wouldn't be able to,cross all 4, before the other light turned green, I stopped.

The guy in the SUV behind me didn't stop. Instead he floored it and almost took me out of it with his passenger side mirror!

TheChizler

Rodin wrote: »

If I were a cyclist Id be less worries about the law and more worried about my bodily integrity. It's just stupid/dangerous to cycle in a vehicle's blindspot.

I wouldn't drive into a HGV's blindspot if it was turning.

With properly adjusted mirrors* you should be able to see down the side of your car, i.e. exactly where the cycle lane is. The only way you should be in the blind-spot in a cycle lane is in line when you're in line with the centre of the car or if the lane is particularly wide.

*Not that this is relevant when your mirrors are folded in.



Of course this only works if the driver actually looks. But I disagree that cycling in a cycle lane is putting yourself in a blind spot.

Sheep breeder

Just wondering what type of Land Rover that was involved in the accident

stevencn88

Sheep breeder wrote: »

Just wondering what type of Land Rover that was involved in the accident

Would the type of Landrover make much of a difference?

And just to address the "cyclng without due care" debate, as stated already I was passing a stopped vehicle while traveling in a cycle lane. The junction ahead was clear at that point. I always cycle with lights on the bike, I had a helmet on my head but no I didn't have a hiviz on, but none of that in relevant

Yes I was a little shook, and I do apologise that I can't say for 100% fact if the driver had his indicator on or not.

Yes I was very lucky not to have been killed or seriously injured, but I am sore from the incident and find myself wondering if I'll get on the bike again.

whippet

stevencn88 wrote: »

Yes I was a little shook, and I do apologise that I can't say for 100% fact if the driver had his indicator on or not.

Yes I was very lucky not to have been killed or seriously injured, but I am sore from the incident and find myself wondering if I'll get on the bike again.

That is the main thing to be fair