Bike Lanes and junctions

Gegerty

If I'm cycling in a bike lane and the lane crosses over a junction where a car is turning into who has the right of way (see bad drawing for clearer picture)?

The bike lane is up on the kerb, I think motorists think that this gives them the right of way even though the bike lane continues across the road and there is no yield sign on the bike lane either. I've nearly been hit on numerous occasions. Funny thing is if I use the road and stay off the bike lane then the cars give me the right of way.

I'm fairly new to cycling (well after a 10 year gap) and as far as I'm concerned the bike lanes in Dublin are a serious health hazzard and should be avoided at all cost....

seamus

If there is no yield sign where the cycle path joins the road (or a marking/line on the cycle path itself), then you have right of way.

Of course, having right of way doesn't avoid the laws of physics. Ultimately there's no use in being in the right, if you're dead.

The current rules of the road has almost zero in it as regards cycle paths.

Gegerty

seamus wrote:

If there is no yield sign where the cycle path joins the road (or a marking/line on the cycle path itself), then you have right of way.

Of course, having right of way doesn't avoid the laws of physics. Ultimately there's no use in being in the right, if you're dead.

The current rules of the road has almost zero in it as regards cycle paths.

I know there's not much I can do about it, it's just so infuriating that these people would actually hit me and possibly kill me just because they have a chip on their shoulder over cyclists. It happens 9 times out of 10 at this particular junction I started wondering if maybe I was the one in the wrong here.

robfitz

Now who uses or knows the design manual? Cycle Track Design Guidelines Manual, Chapter 2

2.4 Priority
...
Where a cycle route runs along a major road for motorised traffic, it has the same priority as the motorised traffic.
...

What I am sure is that if you cyclied on the roadway you would have priority.

arrietty

You've got right of way. Just have a damn good look around before you cross! Which junction is that, BTW?

Gegerty

arrietty wrote:

You've got right of way. Just have a damn good look around before you cross! Which junction is that, BTW?

It's in the Stillorgan business park, heading down towards the LUAS from the Beacon clinic. There's 2 T-junctions, one into the motor park place and the other into atlantic homecare. I'm just going to use the road it's plenty wide enough for cars to overtake me so they shouldn't get too p*ssed

MrPudding

On a similar note, how about when both cyclist and driver are travelling in the same direction. Cyclist is travelling straight on but driver is taking a turn left. 2 weeks ago I saw a driver almost a girl on a bike on the N11. The girl was in the cycle lane travelling straight on and the driver was turning left off the N11 towards the Horse & Hound pub. He turned left and forced her to swerve into the pavement to avoid being run over.

I went and had a chat with him as he was stopped at the lights outside the hound. I asked him if he realised he had almost ran someone over. His rely was that you were not supposed to go straight on there you had to turn left so if he did hit someone they were in the wrong. I explained that this was wrong, cyclists are perfectly entitled to go straight there but, even if they weren’t it is not really an excuse to run them over. His response to this was “are you for real?” Perhaps it was not my place to point out his near miss but I think he needed to hear it. I don’t think it made any difference TBH but maybe next time he might take a bit more care there.

MrP

robfitz

Gegerty wrote:

It's in the Stillorgan business park, heading down towards the LUAS from the Beacon clinic. There's 2 T-junctions, one into the motor park place and the other into atlantic homecare.

I know the junctions I only live up the road, here are photos
Blackthorn Drive and Maple Avenue and
Blackthorn Drive and Birch Avenue.

This cycle track did have an upside-down white triangles painted on the red dash at one point but that is worn away now.

So far I haven't been able to find a legal defintion of what the upside-down white triangle road marking means, a yeild sigh is defined in Road Traffic (Signs) Regulations, 1997, Section 8.

jman0

It seems natural enough for a motorist to presume right of way if a cyclist is on a footpath. If there were a zebra crossing it may be different. (does that give anyone ideas?)
Judging from those photos, as i cyclist i would ignore that particular hazard and take to the road.

Gegerty

robfitz wrote:

I know the junctions I only live up the road, here are photos
Blackthorn Drive and Maple Avenue and
Blackthorn Drive and Birch Avenue.

This cycle track did have an upside-down white triangles painted on the red dash at one point but that is worn away now.

So far I haven't been able to find a legal defintion of what the upside-down white triangle road marking means, a yeild sigh is defined in Road Traffic (Signs) Regulations, 1997, Section 8.

Yeah that's the road. AS with what Mr pudding was saying its also hazardous when cars are coming in the same direction and turning left. I think my rule of thumb from now on is to avoid cycle lanes whenever possible unless its obviously safe or to some advantage. An upside down triangle is a yield sign. Maybe people turning at these junctions know there used to be a yield so therefore think they can just knock cyclists down at get away scot free. I don't understand the mentality of some people, it's road rage to the extreme.

Zaph0d

In an ideal world, what would be the best way to design this kind of car/bike junction? Has anyone seen it done well in another country?

kenmc

Yeah I adopt that same philosophy when travelling from dundrum to Leopardstown up the kilmacud road. there's too many roads to the left that ppl use as rat runs. Too many times I've had close calls on the junctions. And ppl park/walk/put wheelie bins in the bike lane there. It's the road all the way as far as Loreto(?) school at the roundabout for me. Then I take the bike lane.
It's just not worth the risk.

Gegerty

Zaph0d wrote:

In an ideal world, what would be the best way to design this kind of car/bike junction? Has anyone seen it done well in another country?

I think it's fine the way it is. The problem is not the layout the problem is the ignorant motorists. Ideally it would be better if the cycle lane was on the road rather than up on the kerb, that way cars would give way. There's plenty of room on the road for a cycle lane.

In Amsterdam the cycle lanes are in between the footpath and the road and they have their own kerb seperating them from the road. In the rest of the country the cycle lanes are mostly on the road. The difference in Amsterdam is people are educated and know to look out for bikes.

dalk

Have to agree with the above post... I use the cycle lanes i consider 'safe', otherwise I stay on the road with the rest of the traffic.

I found the political hoohaa a month or so ago about how all the extra cycle lanes in Dublin were saving lives annoying, considering the infrastucture they were trumpeting....

jman0

Gegerty wrote:

.... Ideally it would be better if the cycle lane was on the road rather than up on the kerb, that way cars would give way. There's plenty of room on the road for a cycle lane.

It certainly looks like it.
Which suggests that the off-road design is for some reason favored by the council, or DTO or whoever is responsible for this descision. Personally i believe this is intentional, they are trying to force cyclists out of cars way.
Relegating cyclists 2nd class.
Not only does it create more danger to cyclists, but also to pedestrians. But maybe i'm only negative, on the positive note: cars can move about with more freedom. :rolleyes:

Zaph0d

What about a cycle lane at road level with a ramp on either side at junctions?

gobdaw

Gegerty wrote:

In Amsterdam the cycle lanes are in between the footpath and the road and they have their own kerb seperating them from the road. In the rest of the country the cycle lanes are mostly on the road. The difference in Amsterdam is people are educated and know to look out for bikes.

This is the design of the cycle lane now at Memorial Road, Custom House. If this design was used universally it would also solve the problem of car parking on cycle lanes.

Gegerty

Zaph0d wrote:

What about a cycle lane at road level with a ramp on either side at junctions?

Or how about they invent a bike with four wheels, a roof and an engine!

jman0

What about some additional road markings?
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/898039/2005-05-28_114228_9793.new.jpg (it's says YEILD, under the arrow)

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/898039/2005-05-28_114258_9794new.jpg

Edit: oops i thought the first picture was a road with 2 lanes coming toward the camera..

Gegerty

jman0 wrote:

What about some additional road markings?
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/898039/2005-05-28_114228_9793.new.jpg (it's says YEILD, under the arrow)

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/898039/2005-05-28_114258_9794new.jpg

Edit: oops i thought the first picture was a road with 2 lanes coming toward the camera..

That would certainly help but I would use a signpost as well for when the paint wears away.

Trojan

Gegerty: my solution is to break the law, and travel on the road. I consider my own safety more important than any law when I'm on a bike - don't ever expect anyone to look out for you, but you.

Take the road, not the lane when in doubt, and if you're approaching a left junction move out further into the centre of the driving lane so that it's difficult for a car to pass you on the right and then swing left across you (some will still try).

--

It's unfortunate, but the incident Mr. Pudding related is exactly the kind of problem we have every day commuting. It makes for cyclists who become more aggressive in their cycling style as they realise that the best way to deal with the majority of motorists is assume that the driver is attempting to deliberately hit them. This does not make for good relations, which is why I think that serious educational programmes are the best way to improve the situation.

We see the Race Against Waste programme receive so much press - why not an environmentally friendly traffic reduction programme like encouraging use of bikes within the city?

Gegerty

Trojan wrote:

Gegerty: my solution is to break the law, and travel on the road. I consider my own safety more important than any law when I'm on a bike - don't ever expect anyone to look out for you, but you.

Is it against the law to cycle on the road when there's a cycle path? That's ridiculous. So if some ar*se hole decides I shouldn't be on the road and takes a swerve for me it'll be my fault cause I shouldn't be on the road in the first place? This country is a joke.

kenmc

Someone told me that in holland if a car and a bike have an accident the car is atleast 50% at fault - even if the cyclist fell out of a window and landed on the bonnet
If that's true, now *thats* a law....

Gavin

If you are both travelling in the same direction and a car is turning left, I believe the law states that you must yield. It's the same for buses in bus lanes, they have to yield to a car turning to the left in front of em.

I generally gage whereabouts the car is, if they are going to turn in just when I'm at the junction, I stop and let them ahead. Otherwise I keep going. As Trojan says, taking the center of the road is usually a good idea.

Gav

murphaph

Zaph0d wrote:

In an ideal world, what would be the best way to design this kind of car/bike junction? Has anyone seen it done well in another country?

It's done exactly the same in germany without incident. German motorists are MUCH more wary of pedestrians & cyclists in general because if they hit one the german law is quite ruthless-the motorist is at fault, always. It's actually a legal requirement to remove your foot from the accelerator when children are on the pavement and place it over the brake, just in case they step out.

In germany a pedestrian would also share priority with road vehicles travelling in the same direction on the priority road, so if a vehicle wishes to turn off the priority road it must yield until the pedestrian/cyclist has cleared the junction. You never feel hurried as a pedestrian when a car is waiting for you to cross because it's quite simple there, pedestrians take precedence over motorists.

A change of motorists' mentality is required, with perhaps some legislation though I don't know enough about it to say for sure.

mackerski

From the relevant Road Traffic Regulations:

Yielding Right of Way
8. (1) Save as otherwise indicated by a traffic sign in respect of which an article in these Regulations refers, a vehicle shall yield right of way where a provision of this article applies.

(2) When starting from a stationary position a driver shall yield the right of way to other traffic and pedestrians.

(3) A driver of a vehicle 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 Regulations and to a pedestrian who has commenced to cross at the junction in accordance with these Regulations.

(4) A driver of a vehicle entering a public road from a place which is not a public road shall yield the right of way to all vehicles and pedestrians proceeding in either direction along the public road.

(5) A driver of a vehicle approaching a road junction by a road which is not a major road shall, notwithstanding that there is no traffic sign indicating that the last mentioned road is a major road, yield the right of way to traffic and pedestrians on the major road.

(6) A driver approaching a road junction to which sub-article (5) does not apply shall yield the right of way to traffic and pedestrians approaching the junction from the right by another road.

(7) A driver of a vehicle approaching a road junction and intending to turn right at the junction shall yield the right of way to a vehicle approaching on the same road from the opposite direction and intending to proceed straight through or turn left at the junction.

(8) A driver shall not drive from one traffic lane to another without yielding the right of way to traffic in that other lane.

A bicycle is considered a vehicle in this document, which therefore conveys right of way on any bicycles on the priority road and in certain other cases. Clearly, a badly designed cycle track (say, one which crosses the crossing road at some remove from its corresponding priority road) could confuse motorists, who expect to yield to bikes and pedestrians only at the junction itself. However, the obligation to yield at all in this case isn't widely understood hereabouts.

Dermot

cyclopath2001

Verb wrote:

If you are both travelling in the same direction and a car is turning left, I believe the law states that you must yield. It's the same for buses in bus lanes, they have to yield to a car turning to the left in front of em.
Gav

But since a car travels faster than a bicycle, the car would probably have overtaken the bike before slowing down to turn left across the path of the bicycle. The overtaking regulations would apply in this case & it would be illegal for a car to overtake a cyclist, cross the path of the cyclist & force them to stop, slow down or swerve. In fact, if an overtaking manoeuvre causes any inconvenience, it is illegal.

ROAD TRAFFIC (TRAFFIC AND PARKING) REGULATIONS, 1997 (SI 182)
10. (1) A driver shall not overtake, or attempt to overtake, if to do so would endanger, or cause inconvenience to, any other person.

MrPudding

Verb wrote:

If you are both travelling in the same direction and a car is turning left, I believe the law states that you must yield. It's the same for buses in bus lanes, they have to yield to a car turning to the left in front of em.

Interesting. So does that mean that the signs telling drivers to yeild to cyclists are wrong?

MrP

Victor

Verb wrote:

If you are both travelling in the same direction and a car is turning left, I believe the law states that you must yield. It's the same for buses in bus lanes, they have to yield to a car turning to the left in front of em.

I concur with cyclopath, all well and good if the car is in front approaching the junction, but they can't just swerve in front of a bike.

cyclopath:

Bike lane = on road
Bike path = off road

Metrobest

Zaph0d wrote:

In an ideal world, what would be the best way to design this kind of car/bike junction? Has anyone seen it done well in another country?

Netherlands:

As the off-road cycle lane approaches an intersection with vehicular traffic, there should be a miniature traffic bike-only traffic light which would, ordinarily, show green/amber/red at the same time as pedestrians. However, when a cyclist approaches the intersection, he can press the button and will instantly receive a green light; cars will receive a red. The green light lasts for about six seconds, allowing the cyclist proceed through the junction quickly and safely.

These bike-only traffic lights are crucial. Most cyclist/car collisions occur at junctions. The reason being that many junctions are too difficult for cyclists to negotiate without there being a bicycle-only phase to the traffic lights.

A Dublin example: cyclists coming from Patrick Street turning right onto Christchurch place face a very lethal junction: you must hand-signal right and move across a lane of traffic that may be going straight ahead, or turning right. This is not safe for cyclists, as even the smallest driver error is enough to cause an accident. Here is a prime case for the bicycle-only traffic light: in which all traffic stops for six seconds (as it does anyway, I've observed) and the cyclist navigates the junction safely. This isn't about cyclists' rights, laws or comfort, this is not rocket science: it's just basic safety. Still, I suppose, what chance of common sense from a city council that takes away the audio signals needed for blind people to cross the road safely? :rolleyes:

cyclopath2001

MrPudding wrote:

Interesting. So does that mean that the signs telling drivers to yeild to cyclists are wrong?MrP

It depends. If the sign is of a legal design, then it is correct. But the councils are also using undocumented signs & road markings ('advisory signs') which are not legally enforceable. The 'shared use cycle/footpaths' without sign RUS009 and RRM022 markings are an example of the councils bluffing it out. Some of these are very similar to the legal ones.

You could ignore the signs and not be liable to prosecution, but if there was an accident, it could go against you if you ignored the 'advice'.