Hit by a car while in the cycle lane.

Macy0161

TheChizler wrote: »

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.

Do they not teach/ test "check your blindspots" anymore? Part of the standard manourve process when I was taught 25 ( :eek: ) years ago when changing lanes (which you're effectively doing crossing a cycle lane). I should add, particularly when you're crossing a cycle lane or footpath. Cyclist this time, could've been a child on a scooter on the footpath just as easily.

Wishbone Ash

stevencn88 wrote: »

Would the type of Landrover make much of a difference?....

It would if it was a commercial version. The driver can't do an 'over the shoulder' visual check in a vehicle with no side windows in the rear. All the more reason why he would need the mirror.

stevencn88

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

It would if it was a commercial version. The driver can't do an 'over the shoulder' visual check in a vehicle with no side windows in the rear. All the more reason why he would need the mirror.

That's a fair point, no it wasn't a commercial vehicle.

Jonesy101

07Lapierre wrote: »

OP probably wasn't wearing Hi viz!

thats a completely unhelpful comment.

OP shouldnt be undertaking a car if its planning on turning left. Same as you wouldnt if you were in a car. If it was stationary in a junction what else would it be doing besides about to make a turn

MojoMaker

Stuck in a line of traffic.

Patrick2010

stevencn88 wrote: »

To give an idea as to the junction (I hope the link works)

https://maps.app.goo.gl/oyoNLbE6m5qwGNw89

Driver was stopped outside of the yellow box when I started to pass him.

Was the car turning left into the car park where Lidl is?

stevencn88

Patrick2010 wrote: »

Was the car turning left into the car park where Lidl is?

Correct. He turned into the Lidl carpark.

07Lapierre

Jonesy101 wrote: »

thats a completely unhelpful comment.

OP shouldnt be undertaking a car if its planning on turning left. Same as you wouldnt if you were in a car. If it was stationary in a junction what else would it be doing besides about to make a turn

It was a joke! lighten up! :rolleyes:

buffalo

07Lapierre wrote: »

It was a joke! lighten up! :rolleyes:

So lights as well as high viz? :rolleyes:

Patrick2010

stevencn88 wrote: »

Correct. He turned into the Lidl carpark.

You said he was stopped waiting for cars to exit but why would he do that?, its wide entrance, he could have just turned in. See the street view.


https://www.google.com/maps/@53.2773697,-6.2658357,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1someW0guKXeiad76mDLRO0g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DomeW0guKXeiad76mDLRO0g%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D85.91261%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

grogi

Wailin wrote: »

Well, for one thing, a bus wouldn't plough through a junction without stopping.

It wasn't a junction.

grogi

This is a completely clear cut. Motorist entering designated cycle lane need to give way to the cyclists.

There are junstions where the cycling lane ends just before the crossing, but this case isn't that. It is not even a junction, it is a premise entrance.

SteM

Patrick2010 wrote: »

You said he was stopped waiting for cars to exit but why would he do that?, its wide entrance, he could have just turned in. See the street view.


https://www.google.com/maps/@53.2773697,-6.2658357,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1someW0guKXeiad76mDLRO0g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DomeW0guKXeiad76mDLRO0g%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D85.91261%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

That's not what the OP said tbf....

...he was stopped waiting for cars to clear from the entrance to the carpark he was trying to turn into...

From that I take it that cars in front had already gone into the carpark but were backed up because because other cars were reversing out of their spot or pulling into a spot.

Seth Brundle

grogi wrote: »

This is a completely clear cut. Motorist entering designated cycle lane need to give way to the cyclists.

Legaly, isn't a cycle lane (such as the one under discussion) not a actual lane though but merely part of the main carriageway's lane?

buffalo

grogi wrote: »

This is a completely clear cut. Motorist entering designated cycle lane need to give way to the cyclists.

There are junstions where the cycling lane ends just before the crossing, but this case isn't that. It is not even a junction, it is a premise entrance.

Can you show us where the law states what you say above?

stoneill

The bike lane has a broken white line, so it is a shared lane not a cycle lane.

grogi

buffalo wrote: »

Can you show us where the law states what you say above?

There is no direct paragraph, but generic rule for changing lane applies.

In layman terms: if you cross a dashed line, yield. Same applies to any movement on the roundabout.

grogi

stoneill wrote: »

The bike lane has a broken white line, so it is a shared lane not a cycle lane.

It is cycle track - it is defined by either RRM022 (solid) or RRM023 (dashed) lines.

The dashed lane (RRM 023) allows the motor vehicle "driven for the purpose of access to or egress from a place adjacent to the cycle track or from a roadway to such a place".

Check out page 67: https://assets.gov.ie/21647/97642d8c44454b2da7cd6a95c04dbce1.PDF

kirving

It seems possible (if not probable) that the mirror automatically folded in when the driver got out of the car and locked it.

On my previous car, I would manually fold in the electric mirrors to make more room for cyclist at tight roads where I couldn't move any further right in my lane. I've noticed on some cars too that the left hand mirror has a narrower FOV than the right mirror (which would be more important when moving out into traffic, while the left is used after passing traffic).

It's a poor cycle lane design in that the cyclist could be in the vehicles blind spot until a few meters before the junction. The only way to approach a junction like that (I pass it very often) is to assume that every single car is turning left, indicator or not, and avoid undertaking at a junction if at all possible.

Despite not being mandatory, a light in the daytime flashing in the mirror is a great attention grabber.

buffalo

griffin100 wrote: »

I see Nico and Ryan Mullen also down on the start list. Mullen in a breakaway from early on?

Nico and Mullen hit by cars in the cycle lane!? :eek:

stevencn88

kirving wrote: »

It seems possible (if not probable) that the mirror automatically folded in when the driver got out of the car and locked it.

On my previous car, I would manually fold in the electric mirrors to make more room for cyclist at tight roads where I couldn't move any further right in my lane. I've noticed on some cars too that the left hand mirror has a narrower FOV than the right mirror (which would be more important when moving out into traffic, while the left is used after passing traffic).

It's a poor cycle lane design in that the cyclist could be in the vehicles blind spot until a few meters before the junction. The only way to approach a junction like that (I pass it very often) is to assume that every single car is turning left, indicator or not, and avoid undertaking at a junction if at all possible.

Despite not being mandatory, a light in the daytime flashing in the mirror is a great attention grabber.

When I saw the mirror folded in I was a little dumbstruck, so a quick glance at the driver's side and that mirror was in the correct position. Not a case of locking the car and the mirrors folding in (my own car has this feature). I did point it out to the driver who put the mirror into the correct position. Mentioned it to the Gards when they showed up. There is CCTV in the carpark so I'm sure it'll be clear what happened when the Gards get the footage.

buffalo

grogi wrote: »

It is cycle track - it is defined by either RRM022 (solid) or RRM023 (dashed) lines.

The dashed lane (RRM 023) allows the motor vehicle "driven for the purpose of access to or egress from a place adjacent to the cycle track or from a roadway to such a place".

Check out page 67: https://assets.gov.ie/21647/97642d8c44454b2da7cd6a95c04dbce1.PDF

grogi wrote: »

There is no direct paragraph, but generic rule for changing lane applies.

In layman terms: if you cross a dashed line, yield. Same applies to any movement on the roundabout.

So these two things are not compatible from my previous readings of SIs. It is a cycle track, not a traffic lane, therefore the laws regarding changing lanes, etc. do not apply.

Ramasun

Whether on a bike or in a car I'd err on the side of caution before undertaking a vehicle that is stopped without traffic lights.

Expect the worst and be cautious.

fixXxer

I've seen people mention undertaking, but if your in a cycle lane is that the case? Is it not just passing on the left?

Seth Brundle

fixXxer wrote: »

I've seen people mention undertaking, but if your in a cycle lane is that the case? Is it not just passing on the left?

Cyclists are allowed to pass on the left. There isn't a legal term "undertaking" as far as I know.
In short, cars may not pass on the left except in certain circumstances. Cyclists can pass on the left except if there is a car in the process of turning or indicating to turn.

griffin100

buffalo wrote: »

Nico and Mullen hit by cars in the cycle lane!? :eek:

Oops wrong thread

Large bottle small glass

buffalo wrote: »

So these two things are not compatible from my previous readings of SIs. It is a cycle track, not a traffic lane, therefore the laws regarding changing lanes, etc. do not apply.

If this was to run in a civil court the driver would lose to some degree; he has no right answer to the following questions
1. Where you aware of cycle lane/track parallel to your vehicle?
2. What reasonable checks did you make to ensure it was safe and clear before you went to enter junction?

If he answers yes to 1 he can't have the right answer for 2. If he answers no to 1 he's bollixed anyway.

In the real world the exposure is all on one side and I'd be very surprised if it got that far if OP took a case

buffalo

Large bottle small glass wrote: »

If this was to run in a civil court the driver would lose to some degree; he has no right answer to the following questions
1. Where you aware of cycle lane/track parallel to your vehicle?
2. What reasonable checks did you make to ensure it was safe and clear before you went to enter junction?

If he answers yes to 1 he can't have the right answer for 2. If he answers no to 1 he's bollixed anyway.

In the real world the exposure is all on one side and I'd be very surprised if it got that far if OP took a case

I'm not saying anything about right or wrong, just that the law says nothing about a cycle track giving an occupant right of way over anybody else.

fixXxer

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Cyclists are allowed to pass on the left. There isn't a legal term "undertaking" as far as I know.
In short, cars may not pass on the left except in certain circumstances. Cyclists can pass on the left except if there is a car in the process of turning or indicating to turn.

Thanks. Been following this thread as had an incident similar to OP this morning. Two key differences were that the van stopped in time, barely and that there was a sign up saying No Left Turns which he obviously didn't see.

cletus

"Undertaking" is what undertakers do.

You can overtake on the right, or overtake on the left.

I have no specific comment to make on this scenario