Who has Priority here? Almost Fatal Accident

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

victor8600

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.

victor8600

....

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?

magicbastarder

that's not a road on which i'd suggest to a novice cyclist that they should take the road; IIRC it's fast and busy, and there are two lanes with zero hard shoulder. it's a mess for cycling.

Mrs Dempsey

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119976801#Comment_119976801

I'm tempted to be drawn into debate on this but I decline. Putting it figuratively; why wrestle with a pig? both will get dirty but the pig will enjoy it.

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119976801#Comment_119976801

you say the cyclist was legally obliged to stop; there is no yield sign, and they are not changing direction.

if you think that a motorist seeing a cyclist in this context, and braking or slowing to avoid what would appear to be an obvious hazard, constitutes 'mind reading' then i fear we are not going to see eye to eye.

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119976818#Comment_119976818

you are wiser than i am.

Jim_Hodge

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119976804#Comment_119976804

Agreed but the cyclists must stop before crossing that entrance road.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119976801#Comment_119976801

The driver was on the road and was mid turn before the cyclist entered the road.

You're talking about a split second here. The driver made the decision to turn without knowing absolutely sure If their actions would cause the cyclist to brake, etc. (I doubt they cared either.)

The motorist had the right of way in this case and took due care.

But as there is no yield signage it could probably be easily demonstrated in court that it is reasonable to assume that the cyclist would continue straight ahead and by virtue of the poor infrastructure, maintained their right of way.

I would also say that the driver was not driving with due care. They didn't slow down or show any thought that the cyclist might somehow make it through in front of them. That their windows aren't clear also shows that there is a lack of care on display.

I observe what other road users are doing, but I do not make assumptions about what they might do/will do.

You have to make assumptions and have to assume multiple things in order to be prepared for different eventualities. You assume a child on a bike will pull out in front of you. You assume someone could walk out in front of the stopped bus that you plan on overtaking and so on.

If you don't make assumptions when driving then I'll confidently say that your a crap driver!

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119976804#Comment_119976804

what safety do you think experience offers in this situation?

You are relying on people passing you out as you cycle in a straight line

Not much to it really

Like this guy cycles and has cameras and had trouble crossing the road

Still stihl waters 3

There's 2 of ye in it but the driver obviously saw you but failed to slow down to let you on your way, but there's no point being right in the morgue, cycle defensively rather than expecting the driver to do your thinking for you

magicbastarder

Like this guy cycles and has cameras and had trouble crossing the road

he's going in a straight line, maintaining course. it's the motorist who was 'crossing'; over the cycle lane with a cyclist clearly in it.

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119976876#Comment_119976876

there's not even a yield sign, let alone a stop sign though. and as the cyclist is continuining straight on the major road, i'd be curious where the legal basis would be that the cyclist must stop.

again, it's a mess of a junction.

the situation below is one where the planners have made it clear where priority lies, and even with that, it's shoddy; instead of making pub patrons yield to cyclists cycling along a road, the cyclists are expected to yield to pub patrons! at least this is one road where it's safe to ignore the cycle path and take the road.

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.4247404,-6.2295573,3a,75y,301.14h,88.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sopbnHs2BSxP4X5CjNVqFbQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192