Who has Priority here? Almost Fatal Accident

ConorBobFinn13

I use this cycle way almost every morning and never had a major incident until this morning. I was cycling as normal at around 8am. Fully, visible with lights, hi-viz etc. I was coming up to this junction/ entrance to a factory. As I approached the dropped kerb (just past the bollard) a car was approaching from my right at almost exactly the same time. It was unfortunate timing that the both of us were there at the exact same time. I was under the impression that I could just keep cycling as I thought the cycle lane continues and the single broken yellow line meant that drivers could only cross that line if it is safe to do so and if there were no pedestrians or cyclists there. Anyway the car cut me off almost hitting me if I hadn't breaked. Can someone tell me in an area/setup/situation like this who has priority? PS I hope my sketch makes sense. I also have this whole thing captured on my Action Cam.

cml387

If I were the driver I would have let you go through the junction (provided I saw you, of course).

As an occasional cyclist I'd also be aware of the possibility of traffic turning into that junction.

And I'm not suggesting that this is so in your case, but the tendency for pedestrians and cyclist to be in a world of their own listening on airpods is a contributory factor

28064212

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119974653#Comment_119974653

Is that what that sign means?

It's not, the poster is incorrect. A white arrow like that on a blue background just means "Keep Right" - it applys to users on the road, not the cycle lane. In this case it's likely to prevent motorists cutting the corner too tightly.

But even though that is an entrance to a factory not a road, am I still at fault?

Completely irrelevant.

Does that single broken yellow line mean you can only drive over it if it is safe to do so?

No, a broken yellow line simply marks the edge of the carriageway.

The most important element here is that the cycle lane is not on the road. If the cycle lane had been part of the road, the motorist would have been required to allow you to proceed before performing their turn. In this case, you are attempting to join the roadway: you must give way to traffic already on the road.

KrisW1001

I’m pretty sure the “keep right” bollard here, circled, is for cyclists (it’s too small for cars, and makes no sense for them, as they are already on the road). In that case, you should not have passed it, and your correct path would be what I marked in dashed blue lines. However, that’s a bit of a mess, as you cannot get from the “cycle lane” onto the road without hopping down over a kerb - there should be a dropped kerb to the right here, just ahead of this bollard. But even so, it is telling you to move right, back onto the road, if you want to pass the junction.

That said, you’re right that as a car driver, I cannot turn left here unless I know the way is clear and it is safe to do so - that’s the general rule. I (the car) am leaving my road, so I automatically lose right of way and can’t continue until it’s safe. Whether or not I am using an indicator doesn’t matter (it’s amazing how many drivers think that just flashing an amber light allows them to leap into a road in front of other people) - I cannot just move if there are other people crossing or coming alongside me, and I should not try to turn until I am sure that any pedestrians or cyclists who could cross my path are not going to try it.

But I think you were also incorrect to assume you could sail through, though. Would you chance this if you were a pedestrian? If not, being on a bike gives you no extra rights (the opposite, in fact). If both you and a car come to the area at the same time, you’re both supposed to stop, and one or other of you can go once you have. The car has to stop anyway to make its turn, so you should have been waved through, but as the path you took meant that you were about to cross traffic, you really should have slowed down and been prepared to stop: I don’t see how you would have right of way in this situation. If the timing was really unlucky, you would have approached the car in the driver’s blind-spot as they made the turn.

If you followed the direction of the keep-right sign, and moved out onto the road, then I think you would definitely have had right of way, because now you’re on the same road as the car, and moving forward, while they need to cross your path in order to leave. The car driver is more likely to have seen you coming up on the inside too, as you’d be in their side-mirror just before they made the turn.

But honestly, “He Had Right Of Way” makes a lousy epitaph. Whenever your path changes or crosses another, It’s best not to assume you automatically retain the right of way just because you are going forwards. When I drive, or walk, I don’t ever leave a path I’m on without being sure I won’t get hit by something else . The same should apply to a cyclist.

JMcL

I think this is yet another example of a rubbish box ticking "cycle lane" that's all too common in this country. They're at best unfriendly, at worst death traps, and almost always poorly maintained.

Most of the similar ones I've seen will have a yield before every junction, there's nothing at all clear in this case, but since you're coming off the pavement, I'd imagine there's a de-facto yield there. Even if you do have right of way, were it me I'd be looking over my shoulder to make sure some bell-end isn't going to left hook you. The driver doesn't get off the hook here either I'd think - they should be sufficiently situationally aware that a) they saw you in the first place - which they should have but humans have a trait of often only seeing what they expect to see, and b) they should expect that you might continue to go straight ahead and make allowances.

Personally I tend to stay on the road where such "cycle lanes" exist. I did try using one for a while, but found it too dangerous as I was having to come to a stop at a series of roundabouts with poor visibility, risking getting t-boned by drivers coming round carrying too much speed, then having to stop/start again in the traffic island in the middle before continuing. On the road you have the same priority as other traffic, no matter how much the Journal commentator brigade might want to protest otherwise, plus you've better visibility as you're less of a peripheral object. I'd really recommend it if you're confident enough on the bike

CramCycle

Weird interpretatins of the law and some wild misunderstanding of it on this thread already.

Start with the facts until the OP puts it up on youtube (you can just drop a link).

The actual layout if the junction is in bits and if there was a fatality there, the council would undoubtedly be brought in as a contributory party by the coroners court due to the lazy half assed job done here. The cycle lane (which according to the signage is actually on the inside, so they weren't even arsed getting the right way round signage up). should be clearly demarcated through the junction as a reminder to road users. The Stop sign on the road at the T junction actually is to far forward for some bizarre reason blocking both pedestrians and cyclists. If the cycle lane is not part of the road way and loses priority it should have a yield sign but this doesn't give a car the right to take the corner if someone is about to cross.

If the motorist was ahead of you and indicated well before the turn then they have the right of way, this does not absolve them of their duty to not proceed when it would endanger them or others. It would leave you partially to blame. If on the other hand they overtook you right before and hooked you, they are fully to blame.

The blue arrow is not telling cyclists to get on the road, it is too stop motorists cutting the corner and to keep out of the cycle lane, pedestrian area. Anyone who thinks it is telling people to join the road before it should hand in their license.

If you could upload it to youtube and share a link it would be easier to see who is at fault but most of this lays with the council and potentially the driver, although I'd always be expecting it and let a roar to wake them up before the corner. A large friendly "Good Morning" to stop tyhem gazing at their phone usually wakes the sleepy early morning motorists up.

Smee_Again

You're not part of the road so the vehicle, same as if you were a pedestrian.

I just wouldn't use that "cycle lane" and stick to the road.

Trigger Happy

I think it depends on whether that is an offical cycle lane or not.

If that is a cycle lane then the car should not have crossed your path and he is at fault.

If that is not a cycle lane then you should not have been cycling on the footpath and exiting on to the road there as the car had right of way.

Allinall

To me it looks like it is an official cycle lane, bit the sign with the arrow means you need to re-join the road at that point.

You can see after the junction where the cycle lane markings are back on the footpath.

ELM327

There is no cycle lane marked on the road.

Generally when that happens there is a yield marked at the end of the cycle road but for me you/cyclist are at fault.

ConorBobFinn13

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119974588#Comment_119974588

As far as I know this is an official cycle lane. It's a shared path. Pedestrians and Cyclists. It is signed throughout the lane. It's on N27 Road in Cork. From the Kinsale Road Roundabout to the Airport. If you check Google Street View you can clearly see the signs. It's very difficult to know who's in the right or wrong in a situation like this

ConorBobFinn13

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119974616#Comment_119974616

Is that what that sign means? Okay that's grand so thanks. But even though that is an entrance to a factory not a road, am I still at fault? Like the car blatantly just drove in front of me and cut me off. No regard. Does that single broken yellow line mean you can only drive over it if it is safe to do so?

ConorBobFinn13

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119974626#Comment_119974626

It is a cycle lane though. It just stops at that entrance and continues after.

ConorBobFinn13

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119974576#Comment_119974576

But I thought if a cyclist doesn't use a cycle lane, if there is a cycle lane there, the cyclist is at fault.

ELM327

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119974661#Comment_119974661

Its not painted on the road, so it's not on the road.

Smee_Again

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119974684#Comment_119974684

No obligation to use a cycle lane unless it is through a pedestrianized street or is a contraflow lane.

Having looked at the road on google maps I wouldn't use the road, I'd stick to the cycle lane but I'd be giving way at junctions.

ConorBobFinn13

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119974754#Comment_119974754

Well man, You made a lot of sense there and I appreciate you going into so much depth and analysis. That entire cycle lane is a mess you're right. If there was a way to attach my video I would but not sure how to. I think embedding it or something. The video shows a lot more details obviously. Well anyway, thanks a million. I think we're good here. I'll make sure to drive on the road at that point in future. It's too dodgy there anyway. Even cars coming out of the factory too.

ConorBobFinn13

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119974698#Comment_119974698

I agree. I'm with you on this one. But I am always wary of what's goin on around me. I even have a side mirror on my bike. I drive as well so I know exactly how a cyclist feels around cars and how a driver feels around bikes. If I plan on turning left I would always let the cyclist/walker past no matter what. Maybe it's just good manners I don't know. It is scary on a bike out there these days. Very scary indeed. Much scarier than in a car.

vandriver

As a professional driver(taxi),I would always yield to a cyclist in this situation .

I don't care if I might theoretically have right of way,because my right of way doesn't trump your right to life.

Furze99

Surely this is a common case where both parties should be careful and neither have an automatic right of way. Since as a cyclist, the OP will generally come off worse, it behoves them to be aware and take that bit extra care at this junction in the practical world. I certainly wouldn't sail across.

baldbear

If i was on a bike I'd be wary of a gobsh*te killing me in this scenario so I would always assume the safe side and wait for them to go.

adunis

Hmmmmm

Here's a wild thought.

I'm on a bicycle

Everybody and everything on the road is out to kill me.

IE the same mindset everybody on a motorbike who isn't dead hads at all times......

ConorBobFinn13

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXnw6ZMWNyA

This is the video. Any feedback I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks everyone. No sound because I'm letting out some f'n's and blindin's

cruizer101

Its a terrible junction. I would have thought cycle lane ends as there are no markings for it going across the road, as such cyclist should yield to cars.

That said if I was in a car approaching with a cyclist close to the junction I'd be slowing ready to stop depending on how they proceed.

The blue arrow tbh I don't really know what its for, some have said to stop car cutting junction, why would car be driving over the path and cutting the junction anyway, and if it was for that would it not be right at the bend instead of back from it?

Also is there something strange going on with this thread for others or is it just me? there is multiple posts listed as #1 and initial posts aren't in correct time order. There was also a reply I read from cramcycle I think which has disappeared.

CramCycle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119975231#Comment_119975231

Motorist is in the wrong but, and this gauls me to say it, you should have seen it coming. He had his indicator on and overtook you right before the junction. 99.9% of the time if they are letting you go, they will hang back. So the motorist was 100% in the wrong but, and this sounds like victim blaming because it is, as soon as he came by at 19 seconds, you should have either let a roar as loud as you could or you should have started to stop. This said, you had less than 2 seconds to work that out but after awhile of cycling on Irish roads it should be a natural reflex for your own safety. My father was a great believer of the "I'll have them write how I was right on my headstone", I on the other hand, while I'd have followed and being an absolute confrontational c**t, I'd not have risked going under the wheels to prove I was in the right.

Forgetting the legal aspect, you should start looking around you before you come to any junction, I didn't see your head move much before the junction, get used to looking around. It gives you more info but it also, oddly, helps people recognise you. Once you seen he was coming up, raise your hand to wave if your planning on going on through, so you can see he has recognised you. Once he makes it clear he is still going by going past, accept that he is and you can then decide to either report him to the gardai (who will do nothing) or his employer (Ferrero, Cork).

ConorBobFinn13

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXnw6ZMWNyA

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119975069#Comment_119975069

Here is the video

ConorBobFinn13

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119975344#Comment_119975344

Thanks for all this man. You cleared it up. I should have expected she was going to do it tbh. I didn't turn my head because I have a side mirror on the bike. I saw the car approaching me alright but never in a million years thought they would have cut me off and did such a carless maneuver. Cork is dodgy enough place to cycle so be careful out there. About 5 minutes before this very incident I had another close call with a taxi driver nearly driving me off the road for some reason but that's for another day. Anyway, I learned my lesson. I think I messed up this thread too. I was answering 'yes' to most answers. New on boards.ie. I just wanted someone like yourself to point out the problems. Difficult to find on Google. Cheers

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119975231#Comment_119975231

Feedback? You are/were mad to think that you could/ can just fly across that junction. Bonkers.

That said the driver must have seen you and was also reckless. But from now on, always slow down there, look over yer shoulder, be prepared to stop and proceed with caution.

ConorBobFinn13

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119975274#Comment_119975274

Yeah sorry that was me. Not sure how boards.ie worked. Sorry about that. But all good now. CramCycle helped me out.

hans aus dtschl

This specific road and junction have recently been resurfaced, using "sustainable infrastructure funding". This is TII jurisdiction (N27). In case anyone needs more proof that TII are incompetent and should not be allowed to be involved in sustainable infrastructure.

For the OP:

This junction is very dangerous. If you do use the "cycle infrastructure" here, be sure to cede priority at that junction for your own safety. I have personally made formal Part8/Section38 and other submissions about this junction more than once.

For clarity, the cycle infrastructure ceases to exist at the private entrance. It's an informational vacuum and a "fudge" to avoid inconveniencing motorists to any degree whatsoever. Cyclists do not have right of way across this private entrance. This is obviously against Irish road and Cycle infrastructure designs. If anyone has a collision here, be sure to make the Council party to any legal proceedings. Worth knowing that the same council and TII have literally just finished creating another one of these "fudged priority" death traps in Dunkettle as party of the multi-million euro Dunkettle Interchange Upgrade scheme.

As others have said:

• That blue arrow is for motorists.
• The driver should have stopped (a better motorist would have) but there is no clear direction for them to do so and by law they are not required to.
• The cycle infrastructure here is worse than useless and is dangerous.

What I do when cycling here, and as others have suggested: take the lane instead. Uncomfortable as that may be. This "cycle infrastructure" is designed only to get you out of the way of motorists, it affords you no additional protection or comfort, and puts you in danger at junctions and private entrances.

hans aus dtschl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119974964#Comment_119974964

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119975010#Comment_119975010

It's not entirely the OP's fault. We know from hindsight that the car is coming, but the OP had no way of knowing that a car was coming from behind to make the turn. The OP assumed that the cycle infrastructure gave them priority across the private entrance (as it should have done, according to all design manuals). It's an easy mistake to make: to not realise that the infrastructure is putting you in harm's way.

The OP was going straight on, the car was turning. It's clear who SHOULD have been given priority in the design. But the design team deliberately abdicated responsibility at this entrance.

And what's the OP's alternative? To use this "cycle infrastructure" he OP must stop at every private entrance, and cede priority to anyone else on the road. In that circumstance the cycle infrastructure quickly becomes unusable and pointless. And it's for that reason many people here are saying the same thing: "don't use that cycle infrastructure, and if you do use it, make sure to stop at every entrance and side road".

Seth Brundle

Firstly, and thankfully, it wasn't an "Almost Fatal Accident". It's a classic left hook but thankfully wasn't too close (compared to what it could have been).

As others have said, the driver is in the wrong here for not reading the road ahead when prepoaring to turn but you as a vulnerable person should be checking every junction and making the fairly safe assumptiuon that every driver out there is a moron who has not seen you. If a car is approaching a junction then they probably might turn down it. Also remember that a flashing indicator on a car only tells you that the bulb works - whether or not someone is going to turn is not dependent on a flashing indicator.

Like others, I'd agree that you should yield to road traffic when on a path like that. It's unfortunate but that is the way the infrastructure here has largely been designed. Unless you are on a road then you must assume that you will never have priority over someone who is on a road regardless of whether they're in a car, on a bike or whatever.

Princess Calla

In this set up I would have assumed you needed to yield the same way a pedestrian does. That's the way the cycle lanes that share a footpath near where I live are all set up. I thought that would be an universal thing obviously not.

If a car was coming from the factory and you were coming from the other direction would you have cycled Infront of it thinking you had right of way? Their stop line is at the end of the road. If the cycle lane had priority would the stop line not be further back, behind the cycle lane?

The motorist to have taken the corner fairly fast so I do think they may have "thought" they had enough clearance to get through the junction.

Personally if it was me driving coming behind a cyclist and wanting to turn right I slow down and pass behind them, same way if a pedestrian is on a corner I don't just plough through the turn.

The car was indicating well before the junction certainly from the time you caught it on camera if I was in your position I would have reduced my speed.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119975406#Comment_119975406

I have to say I disagree with the other poster.

The cycle lane markings don't continue through the junction. The footpath has a textured surface, similar to that to help visually impaired identify the edge of a footpath, from where the white cycle lane marking ends at the bollard. I would consider that the end of the cycle path.

A cyclist continuing though the junction without stopping and looking would be no different to a pedestrian stepping off the footpath without looking.

Both yourself and the motorist should have been more observent.

Whoever designed the cycle lane / junction should be shot. I don't think they could have got it more wrong and confusing if they had tried. It's an almost perfect example why many cycle lanes are not used - it's disjointed, hazardous, inconsistently marked, confusing and dangerous.

Jim_Hodge

As a motorist I would have yielded to the bike out of manners and safety concerns but, as a cyclist, I wouldn't plough through when the cycle path clearly ends for the junction just at the start of the ramp. Legally? 50/50

Apiarist

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119975886#Comment_119975886

The OP "needed to yield the same way a pedestrian would" to a car turning left? What nonsense.

This is a non-regulated junction. The car turning left must allow pedestrians/cyclists to go straight (crossing the road).

It does not matter if there is a bicycle lane or not.

Of course, pedestrians and cyclists must exercise caution even if they have the right to cross the road since they risk more.

Sono Topolino

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119975406#Comment_119975406

You are cycling to the left of a car that has indicated its intention to turn left. Cyclists are not allowed to intake cars that have indicated the intention to turn left. Accordingly, you do not have priority. The driver did nothing wrong here as it was mid turn before you reached the junction which is hardly reckless driving.

The main issue here is that there is no compulsory "rules of the road" training for cyclists.

Princess Calla

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119976444#Comment_119976444

Well when it comes to crossing roads I tend to follow the safe cross code....ya know stop and wait, let all the traffic pass you...Regardless if it's a non regulated junction or not.

If you consider that nonsense then fair enough.

Apiarist

....

walterking

Cyclists need to know that they don't have right of way in every scenario and this assumption that they do is what antagonises motorists.

I don't know how on earth any cyclist could think that they had even a smidgen of right of way here.

You are on a shared PATH. A motorist should be able to assume a cyclist (or pedestrian) will stop before entering the roadway.

CramCycle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119976487#Comment_119976487

This is incorrect in the extreme, there has to be a reasonable expectation the motorist can complete the maneuvre before the cyclist is there. It is actually worrying that you think that getting ahead and cutting someone off is either legal or safe. Apparently the compulsory rules of the road training for motorists has done S.F.A. for some.

Scenario 1. The motorist has been ahead of the cyclist, has indicated in good time and can complete the maneuvre before the cyclist arrives. The cyclist should yield.

Scenario 2. The motorist is behind coming upto the junction that the cyclist is also approaching, the cyclist is ahead of the motorist this time. They should not overtake before turning as there is no reasonable expectation they can complete the maneuvre in time. The motorist should yield to the cyclist.

This is basic road craft and is covered under legislation. Indicating does not give you right of way, it is merely an indication of your intention. This said, as a motorist, you should never cut someone off, even if it was legal (and it's not), it is very definition of sh1tty driving. On the same note, as a cyclist, if someone is going for the turn and its obvious they will do it, just slow or stop, being right is little consolation when you are in an ambulance or a wooden box.

On another note, while its hard to tell, the windows are not fully cleared of ice, and I suspect the front one isn't fully clear either, car shouldn't have been driving until it was cleared.

jelutong

Lots of condensation on the side windows of the car. Maybe the windscreen wasn’t clear either.

walterking

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119976611#Comment_119976611

The cyclist is not on the road.

Yes it is covered by legislation - the cyclist needs to stop.

For anyone to think you can simply cycle from a shared path onto a roadway and have right of way over users of that roadway is simply ridiculous.

If it was a cycleway with clear markings across the junction, that would be different.

There are no markings. There is absolutely no right of way whatsoever for a cyclist or pedestrian coming off the shared path

Whatwicklow

The standard of driving and commentary leaves a lot to be desired.

You can't pass someone out then immediately left hook them, this would be open closed insurable event with the driver at fault and a hurt cyclist.

CramCycle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119976603#Comment_119976603

As a motorist, you should never assume anything like the above. I'm starting to think few if any here have done a driving test or any formal training. It is the reason we must drive slower in built up areas or when there are obstructions on the road. If you are turning left and you see a human being heading for what might be crossing the road, you slow down and stop if they haven't. Anything less is just getting up there with Patrick Bateman style detachment from humanity (or the evil robots in Bill and Ted 2 for a more humourous slant).

Yes as a cyclist, you should always be looking arounfd and ready for such behaviour but it really shouldn't happen. It does, therefore a cyclist should act as if it will.

Long story short though, the council need to be hauled over the coals for that whole junction. The number of things wrong with it, from the obvious to the not so much is amazing, no matter what they were trying to achieve, they managed to it wrong either way. Is it a road or a private drive, why is the only proper signage on the private driveway if they wanted to make it a proper turn.

I'd love the road engineers notes on this but I would be calling the roads department in the county council, maybe report here: https://www.yourcouncil.ie/MyServices

walterking

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119976686#Comment_119976686

Cyclist was not on the road.

The cyclist must stop and see if the way is clear to enter the roadway.

Next time I'm walking on a path and a cyclist is on a road and about to turn left, maybe I'll just walk onto the road and assume the cyclist would stop and allow me walk onto the road to cross it.

magicbastarder

it's piss poor cycle infrastructure, this appears to be the junction.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.870302,-8.4795295,3a,73.8y,203.15h,86.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPlFPVEuTsTC2vxCWkv1-AA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

the keep right sign is meaningless, there's no 'end of cycle lane' or yield sign, and (not speaking in a legalistic sense here) assuming the motorist was moving faster than the cyclist - the motorist would have had plenty of time to see the cyclist (but not vice versa) so proceeding to turn left across the cyclist was wilfully dangerous driving.

monkeybutter

gotta say as a cyclist I would be taking ownership of the road way before this, same with any turns/roundabouts etc

blue arrow indicates thats what you should be doing anyway

probably would not using the cycle lane at all to be honest when the cycle lane is an afterthought and especially on an icey day

as a driver, i'd be making damn sure to not kill the cyclist and would of course wait but I wouldn't be counting on that

chooseusername

Road users who can do the most harm have the greatest responsibility.

In this case the motorist should be aware of their responsibility, regardless of who has right of way, and assume the cyclist is going to assume they have right of way, which they haven’t.

Mrs Dempsey

Cycle lanes are mostly poorly designed afterthoughts - generally there is a yield triangle painted where any road intersects - In the video I can't see any painted or signed indication that the cyclist should yield.

I see carelessness & thoughtlessness on both sides but the motorist gets 1st prize in both categories.

Carelessness & thoughtlessness are most evident in the junction design - in fact it is stretching it a bit to use the word design in the context of that location.

As a cyclist I have discovered the joys of mountain biking but when the occasional urban cycle is necessary, my preference is to disregard the cycleway & use the road way - it removes the ambivalence as to who yields but I'm fully aware in any conflict, a morgue may be my overnight shelter, an ambulance if lucky.

I'm also aware no matter what you do as a cyclist, it infuriates motorists. Declining to use the cycleway & "clogging up the road" ranks as a hanging offence I'm told.

Sono Topolino

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119976611#Comment_119976611

The driver was on the road and was mid turn before the cyclist entered the road. The motorist had the right of way in this case and took due care. As a motorist, I am not responsible for the bad behaviour of others, and it is unreasonable to expect me to be a mind reader. I observe what other road users are doing, but I do not make assumptions about what they might do/will do. The cyclist was legally obliged to stop, and you appear to be arguing that motorists should expect cyclists to break the rules of the road. So naturally I expect you agree that bicycles should be required to have number plates to make it easy to identify cyclists who break the law - right?