Hit by a car while in the cycle lane.

dubrov

cletus wrote:

"Undertaking" is what undertakers do.

cletus wrote:

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

As a cyclist, if you are not willing to undertake stopped/slow moving cars, you may as well retire your bike

cletus

dubrov wrote: »

As a cyclist, if you are not willing to undertake stopped/slow moving cars, you may as well retire your bike

You are not undertaking. You are overtaking on the left

magicbastarder

Everyone understands undertaking as just being overtaking on the left though, so hardly worth arguing the difference.

cletus

magicbastarder wrote: »

Everyone understands undertaking as just bring overtaking on the left though, so hardly worth arguing the difference.

Can't help it, I'm an English teacher. I argue this stuff all the time.

beauf

cletus wrote: »

Can't help it, I'm an English teacher. I argue this stuff all the time.

Are you English and a teacher...

..or a teacher of English...

timeToLive

So if a cyclist is in a cycle lane that goes straight passed a turn to the left, they should stop for a car wanting to turn left?

I've never seen this happen. I thought the driver of the car needs to look before turning and shouldn't turn into the cyclist - just like they shouldn't turn into walking pedestrians, joggers, etc. If there was a stream of cyclists, the car should wait for them all to pass rather than all of them stopping.

Was consensus reached on the actual rules in the last 9 pages?

I am not discounting the fact that a cyclist should always be aware of what might happen and should stop or be prepared to stop to ensure their own safety. I'm just wondering about the actual rules.

cletus

beauf wrote: »

Are you English and a teacher...

..or a teacher of English...

I'm not English.

Both "English teacher", and "teacher of English" are equally acceptable, although there is a little more ambiguity with the former. As with much in life, context is key.

magicbastarder

timeToLive wrote: »

So if a cyclist is in a cycle lane that goes straight passed a turn to the left, they should stop for a car wanting to turn left?

depends on what you mean by 'should'. whether you mean legalistically or casually, but i prefer the casual approach. but there are so many ifs, buts and maybes.

if you approach a car from behind which is already indicating left, you should hold back and let them complete their turn. but if they're eight cars back from a red light, and you'll easily make it past them and up to the junction before they will, go for it.

Vestiapx

I find it hard to believe there is not a easy right answer in this case. I would thibkbathg a cycle lane is a cycle lane and that to cross it you must make sure it is clear of traffic. In the same way as any other lane.
If my assumption is wrong I'm happy that it's probably best practice and so I won't be changing my driving habbits one way or the other but I really think it should be clear in the rules of the road and if it isn't then it needs updating.
I remember noticing a cycle lane that ended for a commercial enterance with a yield triangle before and though that while it was an inconvience for the cyclists it was probably better on that particular case to protect the cyclists from being right and dead.

dubrov

Vestiapx wrote: »

I find it hard to believe there is not a easy right answer in this case. I would thibkbathg a cycle lane is a cycle lane and that to cross it you must make sure it is clear of traffic. In the same way as any other lane.
If my assumption is wrong I'm happy that it's probably best practice and so I won't be changing my driving habbits one way or the other but I really think it should be clear in the rules of the road and if it isn't then it needs updating.
I remember noticing a cycle lane that ended for a commercial enterance with a yield triangle before and though that while it was an inconvience for the cyclists it was probably better on that particular case to protect the cyclists from being right and dead.

The problem is that it is not clear in legislation at all and needs to be clarified.
I guess it must be difficult, probably due to the dodgy cycle lanes painted all over the country.

In my head, a bike lane should be treated as a separate lane for a couple of reasons:

1) Cyclists are the more vulnerable road user and need to be protected
2) Cyclists tend not to hit the break due to the effort required to build up the same speed again. For a motorist, tapping the break is nothing.

timeToLive

magicbastarder wrote: »

depends on what you mean by 'should'. whether you mean legalistically or casually, but i prefer the casual approach. but there are so many ifs, buts and maybes.

if you approach a car from behind which is already indicating left, you should hold back and let them complete their turn. but if they're eight cars back from a red light, and you'll easily make it past them and up to the junction before they will, go for it.

I stated I meant the actual rules

beauf

dubrov wrote: »

The problem is that it is not clear in legislation at all and needs to be clarified.
I guess it must be difficult, probably due to the dodgy cycle lanes painted all over the country.

In my head, a bike lane should be treated as a separate lane for a couple of reasons:

1) Cyclists are the more vulnerable road user and need to be protected
2) Cyclists tend not to hit the break due to the effort required to build up the same speed again. For a motorist, tapping the break is nothing.

Fair enough. But don't cycle if you are oblivious to whats going on around you.

dubrov

No one is suggesting a cyclist should plough on if they see a car turning left in front of them. Being legally correct won't help you if you end up dead.

The question is who is liable if an accident occurs. In my head the system just doesn't work if the motorist has right of way

beauf

dubrov wrote: »

No one is suggesting a cyclist should plough on if they see a car turning left in front of them. Being legally correct won't help you if you end up dead.

The question is who is liable if an accident occurs. In my head the system just doesn't work if the motorist has right of way

Well the system doesn't work because the people who draft up the rules don't seem to have any experience of cycling or driving.

If it was a car lane, you'd have to merge into to to turn left. But you can't enter a cycle lane to merge into it. Merging into it is exactly like a cyclist taking the lane. You block cyclists from going inside you.

As a cyclist I would go out of the cycle lane and go take center lane to stop drivers from over taking and cutting across me. But then I also give way to drivers turning left ahead of me. Slowing down gets them out my path, and makes no difference to the journey time on a bicycle.

The blindly staying left in cycle lane at junctions doesn't really work.

TheChizler

timeToLive wrote: »

So if a cyclist is in a cycle lane that goes straight passed a turn to the left, they should stop for a car wanting to turn left?

I've never seen this happen. I thought the driver of the car needs to look before turning and shouldn't turn into the cyclist - just like they shouldn't turn into walking pedestrians, joggers, etc. If there was a stream of cyclists, the car should wait for them all to pass rather than all of them stopping.

Was consensus reached on the actual rules in the last 9 pages?

I am not discounting the fact that a cyclist should always be aware of what might happen and should stop or be prepared to stop to ensure their own safety. I'm just wondering about the actual rules.

The law states who gets priority and right of way in this case, but does not say that the person with right of way gets to proceed without first checking the way is clear. They don't basically so need to look first and not be in a collision if they can help it.

No idea how this translates to the result of a court case if it happened.

RacoonQueen

It's a bit of an awkward one, when there is a cycle lane and you are using it I don't think you should have to yield to a car that wants to turn left. You are in a different lane, they wouldn't turn left across another 'traffic lane' without first ensuring there was no traffic there.
If there is no cycle lane it's a different story, but if both lanes are moving, as a driver you can't really be expecting cyclists to all come to a dead stop to facilitate your left turn particularly if there is a stream of them many of whom won't have any visibility of your indicator.

Lots of things to consider in a case like this really, if the indicator was on - did the driver put it on in a timely manner. We all have seen it when driving and cycling someone not putting the indicator on until they have started the manoeuvre. No point putting it on while the cyclist is right behind you or beside you. I've had cars force me into a turn before because they've done this...I've proceeded because they were literally a couple of metres from a turn and didn't have an indicator on but they turned anyway and turn right into you. :rolleyes:
Can never understand people who sit at a red light intending to turn as soon as the light goes green yet don't put their indicator on till they've moved off.

average_runner

RacoonQueen wrote: »

It's a bit of an awkward one, when there is a cycle lane and you are using it I don't think you should have to yield to a car that wants to turn left. You are in a different lane, they wouldn't turn left across another 'traffic lane' without first ensuring there was no traffic there.
If there is no cycle lane it's a different story, but if both lanes are moving, as a driver you can't really be expecting cyclists to all come to a dead stop to facilitate your left turn particularly if there is a stream of them many of whom won't have any visibility of your indicator.

Lots of things to consider in a case like this really, if the indicator was on - did the driver put it on in a timely manner. We all have seen it when driving and cycling someone not putting the indicator on until they have started the manoeuvre. No point putting it on while the cyclist is right behind you or beside you. I've had cars force me into a turn before because they've done this...I've proceeded because they were literally a couple of metres from a turn and didn't have an indicator on but they turned anyway and turn right into you. :rolleyes:
Can never understand people who sit at a red light intending to turn as soon as the light goes green yet don't put their indicator on till they've moved off.

Also depends if a yield sign on the cycle lane and if the cycle lane is joining the road. All a bit messy these things

Breezer

RacoonQueen wrote: »

It's a bit of an awkward one, when there is a cycle lane and you are using it I don't think you should have to yield to a car that wants to turn left. You are in a different lane, they wouldn't turn left across another 'traffic lane' without first ensuring there was no traffic there.
If there is no cycle lane it's a different story, but if both lanes are moving, as a driver you can't really be expecting cyclists to all come to a dead stop to facilitate your left turn particularly if there is a stream of them many of whom won't have any visibility of your indicator.

Lots of things to consider in a case like this really, if the indicator was on - did the driver put it on in a timely manner. We all have seen it when driving and cycling someone not putting the indicator on until they have started the manoeuvre. No point putting it on while the cyclist is right behind you or beside you. I've had cars force me into a turn before because they've done this...I've proceeded because they were literally a couple of metres from a turn and didn't have an indicator on but they turned anyway and turn right into you. :rolleyes:
Can never understand people who sit at a red light intending to turn as soon as the light goes green yet don't put their indicator on till they've moved off.

I agree with all the above, but I believe that is in fact the law.

As regards your last point, I live near a one way street with a light controlled 4 way junction at the end. Traffic coming from the road opposite me has to go left or right, they can’t go straight down the one way street. It’s a long light. Every morning, without fail, I sit there with my right arm stuck out, eyeballing a driver who refuses to put on an indicator to tell me if I’ve to yield to them or not.

average_runner wrote: »

Also depends if a yield sign on the cycle lane and if the cycle lane is joining the road. All a bit messy these things

This is why we need consistency in cycle infrastructure design. But we can’t even do it for general traffic. Unless you know what way a particular junction or roundabout is marked, if there’s a queue of cars covering the road markings, you can easily find yourself in the wrong lane and not know till the last minute. You then piss people off by either being in the wrong lane, or trying to get into the right one.

stoneill

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

That's what I said