Who has Priority here? Almost Fatal Accident

CramCycle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119985375#Comment_119985375

I see your point but where should they have stopped? I mean, in all my years walking, cycling or driving, no one has told me where I should stop to give way to what is effectively someone turn into their driveway on the same note, years of not being 'not an absolute c*nt' have let me realise I shouldn't cut across a more vunerable road user. Oddly it's never cost me time either.

magicbastarder

one thing is clear - approaching that junction, there is no signage visible to motorists or cyclists about priority, or whether the cycle lane continues through the junction or not. there's nothing to tell the motorist that the cyclist must yield to them or not; as far as the motorist was concerned, the cyclist may have had the right of way, or none at all.

we're here poring through google street view imagery trying to figure out what whoever designed that junction intended, and how badly it's been maintained since. obviously none of this was available to cyclist or motorist at the time.

so what happened? the cyclist did check - later than they should have, probably - but they checked, and managed to brake in time. the motorist proceeded anyway, and did *not* stop.

so the fact that there was not a collision was mainly a) down to luck; and b) the actions of the cyclist. a motorist proceeding on the assumption they have right of way - especially over another road user they've approached from behind - should not be allowed drive a car.

magicbastarder

i think we've scared the OP off.

standardg60

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119985688#Comment_119985688

And people who would argue that overtaking anything on their left just prior to turning left and not ascertaining their whereabouts or intentions prior to making the turn is not a dick move

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119985716#Comment_119985716

Nobody was overtaken. The cyclist was not on the road.

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119985743#Comment_119985743

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

...

Brendan Bendar

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119985670#Comment_119985670

One thing is absolutely clear to any sensible person.

The cycle lane does NOT continue through the junction.

The cyclist should have ensured the way was clear before crossing the road, just like a pedestrian.

Let’s not go “poring “ over anything to establish that simple situation which is the key to all this.

We don’t need to go back to Viking cartography to establish that surely.?

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119985743#Comment_119985743

Is this some kind of Schrödingers cyclist thing, where the cyclist ceases to exist when using the cycle lane?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119985954#Comment_119985954

You forget to mention about the driver checking where the cyclist that they passed one second earlier had gone.

Surely we don’t need to go back to Viking cartography to establish that?

Seth Brundle

One thing is absolutely clear to any sensible person.

The cycle lane does NOT continue through the junction.

Fair enough. What we do know is that the road edge is defined with the orange paint. According to our Traffic Signs Manual, what exactly defines the end of the cycle path which should not be a big ask given how "absolutely clear" it is?

The cyclist should have ensured the way was clear before crossing the road, just like a pedestrian.

The cyclist was the only one who altered their speed because of the other person.

However, let's just say that a school kid was the one on the bike and they didnt realise how "absolutely clear" it is that the cycle lane ended and ended up getting hit by the driver.

1. How would the drivers insurance have assigned responsibility?
2. How would the gardai have assigned responsibility?

Brendan Bendar

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119986009#Comment_119986009

If the cycle lane ‘continued’ through the junction one would suggest there would be hatched lines delineating that situation.

Bearing that in mind and the position of the stop lines at the exit ,one would assume a sensible cyclist would check the clearance before crossing .

Would it be too much to expect a sensible person to assess the signage or indeed, lack of it before taking part in a risky manouvre .

Bringing other scenarios in to this is a different kettle of fish and in my opinion not really relevant.

Of course there needs to be better signage at this junction but given the situation it behoves the cyclist or other pathway user to ensure clearance before crossing.

Sometimes we need to think for ourselves as adults rather than trying to deflect to others.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119986059#Comment_119986059

So I believe that you're saying that because your opinion on where the cycle lane ends is not based on actual standards contained wihtin the TSM but is based on suggestions, assumptions and a "Would it be too much to expect " then it must not be "absolutely clear" - have I got that right?

As for other scenarios, why not consider them - surely our infrastructure is designed for all so should it not make a difference to the decision on whether ot not to slow down for someone else? Go on, have a go at answering my questions.

Brendan Bendar

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119986074#Comment_119986074

No problem, my point is that sometimes we have to make decisions as adults and not expect everything to be perfect.

I already eXplained why the cycle lane is interrupted at the crossing, check the positioning of the stop lines at the other side.

Sometimes folk try to make a big deal of things and throw out chaff to try to disguise their mistake.

Lets act like adults and hold our hands up as it appears this cyclist should do.

Its very simple be careful crossing a road.

magicbastarder

do you not realise that we are saying that the motorist has zero visual clues as to whether the cycle lane continues uninterrupted or not?

and that a large part of the problem is that he (assuming it's a he) proceeds as if it does not. which would be fine if the cycle path was empty. but he cut across a cyclist he'd had plenty of opportunity to see.

so regardless of what you think of the actions of the cyclist, the motorist was in the wrong. the motorist being in the wrong does not have a bearing on whether the cyclist was in the wrong or not.

and i'll repeat (again) that the collision did not occur, not because the motorist saw the approaching hazard, but because the cyclist did.

another way of looking at it; if you're driving, say on an R road, and you see someone in a car pulling out of a minor road a short distance in front of you - do you a) brake to avoid a collision, or b) continue on as you have priority and are 'in the right'?

you bet your ass you brake. your primary duty is to avoid collisions. everything else about priority is secondary.

Patrick2010

Would a pedestrian be in their rights to cross the road there and expect a car to stop?

magicbastarder

if the pedestrian has their foot on the road surface, they gain ROW over the motorist IIRC. there's no such clarity for cyclists, also IIRC.

though it depends on what you mean by 'expect' - legally expect, or 'expect' in a broader sense? you'd expect a motorist to be aware of a potential hazard they can see up ahead, and be prepared to stop because it's the prudent thing to do.

sydthebeat

the driver was a complete dick

did they think the cyclist was going to completely disappear 2 seconds after they passed them?

John_Rambo

Motorist is either a complete moron or a vindictive idiot.

Anyone that thinks the motorist was correct to do what they did needs to learn to drive properly.

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119986153#Comment_119986153

(2) A driver approaching a road junction shall yield the right of way to another vehicle which has commenced to turn or cross at the junction in accordance with these bye-laws, and to a pedestrian who has commenced to cross at the junction in accordance with these bye-laws.

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1964/si/294/made/en/print

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119986153#Comment_119986153

The cyclist should have dismounted and would then have the same rights as a pedestrian

cruizer101

I think this argument will just go round and round.

One thing I hope everyone can agree on is that it is a terribly designed junction and the local authority or nra or whoever designed and laid it out with its current markings is massively at fault. Junctions with clear indications of who has right of way are essential. No matter what side of the argument you are on you are an idiot if you think this is clear one way or the other, as demonstrated by the debate here.

What I find funny aswell is people saying you shouldn't have passed your test if you don't understand the cyclist has right of way as the lane extends. I sat my test 13ish years ago, don't think there was any cycle lanes on my route, majority of drivers out there are probably similar. I'm not saying that is an excuse for not knowing the rules around them. But if the authorities are going to implement more cycle lanes which they should, they need to very clear to all who has right of way, not like that shambles of a junction.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119985621#Comment_119985621

Knowing how most cyclists behave, I would have held back here.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119986118#Comment_119986118

It's very simple. If you're driving a tonne or two of metal around vulnerable road users, don't forget the vulnerable road users that you passed just one second ago when you're changing direction.

I'd bet the driver never saw the cyclist through their obscured side windows. It's just common sense to make sure your windows are clear before starting your journey.

KrisW1001

To avoid guessing games, the Road Safety Authority website is at RSA.ie. They have a lot of information there, and it's all based on the current law.

There is clarity about cyclists and crossings: Cyclists are road users, and as such they must obey the Rules of the Road, including the rules regarding ceding the right of way when crossing traffic. Remember that unless a rule specifically says what type of road user it applies to, it applies to all types of road user.

It's a good idea to have a read the Rules of the Road regardless of what you travel on or in - it's a free download, there's no excuse. Memorising something to pass a test isn't the same as learning it, and besides, the do rules change over the years.

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119986226#Comment_119986226

yeah, the law was written in 64 by the looks of it, when there was no such thing as a cycle path; so would have assumed the cyclist was on the road and obviously wouldn't take into account that a cyclist could be in a similar position to a pedestrian.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119986293#Comment_119986293

There is clarity about cyclists and crossings: Cyclists are road users, and as such they must obey the Rules of the Road, including the rules regarding ceding the right of way when crossing traffic. Remember that unless a rule specifically says what type of road user it applies to, it applies to all types of road user.

I think the point being made is that through poor design, the cycle lane and road markings do not explicitly cede right of way for the cyclist. This is why the driver in their fogged up car continued to barrell through the junction without thinking about anyone else incuding the cyclst they literally just passed.

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119985375#Comment_119985375

Consideration for the amount of energy it takes to restart from stopped is totally irrelevant to the situation at hand.

As an experience cyclist I would slow down to allow the indicating car to turn and thus avoid the need to stop and restart.

ConorBobFinn13

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119985688#Comment_119985688

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119979005#Comment_119979005

I'm still here don't worry. I'm new to boards and I wasn't expecting so many people to get into it. I am thankful for all the advice from everyone. I'm learning a lot about road layout standards and that a cyclist can never assume anything from a driver. I cycled the same route this morning and took the road instead of the "cycle lane" and lo and behold I got beeped at twice by two passing cars. Unless they were beeping at another car user I'm not sure. And I was only on the road from Lehane Motors Toyota to the other side of that f**ked up junction. No winning is there 😅

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119986293#Comment_119986293

(pedantic hat on) a lot of what's on the RSA site and in the ROTR is not based on law; you can usually tell the difference in the ROTR where if they say 'should', that's advice, not law; but 'must' is based on law.

e.g. they will say 'pedestrians should wear hivis'; this is not based on law but what they think is good practice.

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119986009#Comment_119986009

Ignoring the argument about who is right or wrong, whatever your side, it doesn't change based on the type of people involved. Be that a child, an OAP or something in the middle.

If you are relying on that for your road safety then I recommend a reassessment.

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119986153#Comment_119986153

Maybe the prudent thing to do, as any road user, when you are describing yourself as "a potential hazard" is to remove yourself from that situation rather than rely on others to avoid you?