nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Jan and Klodi's Party Bus - part II off topic discussion

Beasty

Old thread here

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

robyntmorton

OldBean wrote: »

I'm only viewing on my phone, so may have missed something, but the motorist has right of way if indicating left and cyclist was filtering up behind. Open to correction though!

I would have read it this way too. Driver was ahead, indicating left, so the cyclist should have yielded. Some drivers, in checking their mirrors, would note the cyclist, and may hold back, but it is not something that I personally would chance.

That said, it helps if people use indicators in the first place.

[Deleted User]

Crocked wrote: »

Why anyone would undertake a moving vehicle who has indicated their intention to turn left on the approach to a left hand turn is beyond me.

Because that junction is a sh*tshow. The lane forces the cyclist in that position if they are proceeding straight which basically every cyclist is on that route.

The layout of this junction also leaves a degree of ambiguity over right of way when normally traffic would have to yield to passing cylists if the lane was painted straight across.

Take the lane on this one.

Crocked

ronoc wrote: »

Because that junction is a sh*tshow. The lane forces the cyclist in that position if they are proceeding straight which basically every cyclist is on that route.

The layout of this junction also leaves a degree of ambiguity over right of way when normally traffic would have to yield to passing cylists if the lane was painted straight across.

Take the lane on this one.

I don't know the junction but even if it's a bad design the lane doesn't force the cyclist to undertake a left turning vehicle nor is there any ambiguity.

The vehicle in front of the cyclist has signalled it's intention to turn left, the cyclist should slow their speed and stop if necessary to allow them to complete their turn before continuing on.

Even if they somehow thought they had right of way, self preservation alone should tell them to hold back.

smacl

Crocked wrote: »

I don't know the junction but even if it's a bad design the lane doesn't force the cyclist to undertake a left turning vehicle nor is there any ambiguity.

The vehicle in front of the cyclist has signalled it's intention to turn left, the cyclist should slow their speed and stop if necessary to allow them to complete their turn before continuing on.

Even if they somehow thought they had right of way, self preservation alone should tell them to hold back.

The junction is designed for those using the cycle lanes to cross at the pedestrian lights as can be seen from picture below taken from a slightly different angle. Basically, the cycle lane is not suitable for vehicular cycling and as you say cyclist got it wrong, should have taken the lane as per ronoc's post. My daughter takes this route to school, and uses the pedestrian lights going this way. Coming back is where the design is really crap for kids as you have to cross at the lights at the start of the bridge, and cycle across the bridge on the wrong side in order to get back onto the main cycle track below. The only alternative cycle lane route takes you a long way down the hill then all the way back up the hill to the bridge to re-join the cycle lane here

Chuchote

Crocked wrote: »

I don't know the junction but even if it's a bad design the lane doesn't force the cyclist to undertake a left turning vehicle nor is there any ambiguity.

The vehicle in front of the cyclist has signalled it's intention to turn left, the cyclist should slow their speed and stop if necessary to allow them to complete their turn before continuing on.

Even if they somehow thought they had right of way, self preservation alone should tell them to hold back.

The only ambiguity is that we can't see whether the car taking the video has signalled. The driver/poster says she or he had signalled, but we don't have the evidence. If the car signalled left (in a timely fashion) then the cyclist is in the wrong. If not, it's a misunderstanding.

smacl

Chuchote wrote: »

The only ambiguity is that we can't see whether the car taking the video has signalled. The driver/poster says she or he had signalled, but we don't have the evidence. If the car signalled left (in a timely fashion) then the cyclist is in the wrong. If not, it's a misunderstanding.

There is no cycle lane following the line the cyclist took though, so basically she was undertaking a left turning vehicle. The cycle lane takes you around the corner to the pedestrian crossing and expects you to cross there. If you're going to use the cycles lanes at all, you need to use them properly, which involves a lot of waits at pedestrian lights unfortunately.

Chips Lovell

Quelle Surprise: Sugar industry bought off scientists, skewed dietary guidelines for decades

rollingscone

I'm increasingly convinced that Garmin are running some sort of social experiment.

Every update introduces a new and exotic bug.

As of this morning my Edge 520 won't talk to my phone (bad enough I'd inadvertently paused it for 20km of my pre-work spin)

Chuchote

smacl wrote: »

There is no cycle lane following the line the cyclist took though, so basically she was undertaking a left turning vehicle. The cycle lane takes you around the corner to the pedestrian crossing and expects you to cross there. If you're going to use the cycles lanes at all, you need to use them properly, which involves a lot of waits at pedestrian lights unfortunately.

Surely the fact that you're cycling in a cycle lane doesn't mean that you're glued to it? I would regularly signal for straight ahead and continue straight on a lane like that.

As for the left-turning vehicle, we have the driver's word that he or she signalled; however, we can't actually see that. The cyclist may have been cycling beside what was assumed to be a car about to go straight.

brianomc

Chuchote wrote: »

The cyclist may have been cycling beside what was assumed to be a car about to go straight.

Never take it for granted that the car will go straight on. I held back a few weeks ago after getting the feeling that the car beside me that wasn't indicating was going to cut across me, he did, I shouted about using indicators and the car behind me also beeped him out of it.

Yeah I would have been in the right, but I'd also be in a hospital bed.

That's why I don't use those off-road cycle lanes on roads with many junctions, you pretty much have to stop or come close to a stop at every bloody junction.

Kav0777

smacl wrote: »

The cycle lane takes you around the corner to the pedestrian crossing and expects you to cross there.

To be honest, it's not obvious to me from the layout that that is the case. there's no markings to suggest that and the lights only show pedestrians and not bikes, unlike the lights at the Sutton end of the coastal bike path, beside St. Fintans school, which has both. There doesn't seem to me to be any markings suggesting a way for cyclists heading southbound to go straight on.

it maybe what was intended, but the only way to reach that conclusion is from the absence of anything else.

Chuchote

Weepsie wrote: »

Drivers sometimes don't indicate or do so very late (a minority I'll add)

Is it a minority? I haven't looked at numbers, but would think it's very common indeed for drivers in Dublin to indicate as they turn the wheel. This is not really indicating for the purpose of telling other road users that you intend to turn, it's a kind of magical action.

"But I indicated!" they'll shout indignantly at the unfortunate non-telepathic cyclist who didn't know that they intended to turn. They did - but only at the moment they began to turn.

smacl

Kav0777 wrote: »

To be honest, it's not obvious to me from the layout that that is the case. there's no markings to suggest that and the lights only show pedestrians and not bikes, unlike the lights at the Sutton end of the coastal bike path, beside St. Fintans school, which has both. There doesn't seem to me to be any markings suggesting a way for cyclists heading southbound to go straight on.

it maybe what was intended, but the only way to reach that conclusion is from the absence of anything else.

Not obvious at all, but probably what was intended. Trying to figure a safe route for your kids through the mish-mash of Dublin cycle lanes, you find loads of this kind of stuff. Personally, I always take the lane in these circumstances unless turning left. Unless you plan on crossing at pedestrian or bike lights, being on the inside of potentially left turning traffic at a junction is ill-advised.

Note that there isn't a cycle lane going straight on in this case, so you most definitely shouldn't stay in the cycle lane unless turning left. Very bad piece of design.

Dermot Illogical

That cyclist was all kinds of wrong. Zero roadcraft. The design of the junction makes no sense either.

Enduro

The whole approach from the point it goes off-road is crap as well, with more potential conflict at the garage in particular. I generally ignore the off-road track and take the lane the whole way under normal circumstance. Definitely a "keep the cyclists out of the way of the important people" design.

Chips Lovell

A good rule of thumb is to pretty much always take the lane at junctions. It eliminates the possibility of a lot of hazardous situations arising.

Dermot Illogical

This is one of my favourites. Deliberately places cyclists to the left of left-turning traffic.
If there's a left turn, it's best to move to the right and take the lane. If that means ignoring the road design, so be it.

Chuchote

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

A good rule of thumb is to pretty much always take the lane at junctions. It eliminates the possibility of a lot of hazardous situations arising.

Take what lane?

Dermot Illogical

Chuchote wrote: »

Take what lane?

The one the cars are in?

Chuchote

I'm not clear. If you're cycling, and going straight, you need to get into the lane full of cars going straight, rather than that full of cars going straight/left?

Chips Lovell

The middle of the lane for the direction you're proceeding in, e.g. in the middle of the left lane if you're turning left or the middle of the centre lane if you're going straight.

Dermot Illogical

Chuchote wrote: »

I'm not clear. If you're cycling, and going straight, you need to get into the lane full of cars going straight, rather than that full of cars going straight/left?

If the lane on the left is just for left-turning traffic, then move to the one with cars going straight. If 2 lanes and the one on the left has mixed left/straight traffic, then move into it and position yourself as a car.
The idea is to not be inside someone else's turn.

Chuchote

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

The middle of the lane for the direction you're proceeding in, e.g. in the middle of the left lane if you're turning left or the middle of the centre lane if you're going straight.

A good idea but not always practicable. The cyclist in the video seemed to be travelling to the left of a stream of cars, effectively in a parallel stream of traffic. It would have been difficult to cut in between the cars, and quite possibly dangerous.

Chips Lovell

I'm not saying to cut in the stream of cars. She shouldn't have been on the inside the first place.

Chuchote

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I'm not saying to cut in the stream of cars. She shouldn't have been on the inside the first place.

#gawp

Dermot Illogical

If the cycle lane placement delivers you into danger, ignore it and use the road.

Crocked

Maybe this video should be emailed to Shane Ross as a perfect example of why cycle lanes shouldn't be mandatory

CramCycle

Chuchote wrote: »

A good idea but not always practicable. The cyclist in the video seemed to be travelling to the left of a stream of cars, effectively in a parallel stream of traffic. It would have been difficult to cut in between the cars, and quite possibly dangerous.

That's why the design is as big of an issue as the actions of the cyclist and the driver.
The cyclist should have taken the lane before the bridge (you are on a kerb otherwise) and cycled with traffic, potentially overtaking on the right if traffic is slow or stopped.

This said, the cyclist should have slowed / stopped and been prepared for left turning traffic, they weren't. Idiocy. Even without an indicator, which good roadcraft will tell you means nothing.

smacl

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

If the cycle lane placement delivers you into danger, ignore it and use the road.

This. Many cycle lanes are so badly designed that using them is considerably more dangerous than just ignoring them. Lots of them also assume that you will cross with pedestrians rather than with traffic. Great for kids and those not in a hurry with lots of patience, pretty appalling for commuters and experienced cyclists. If you really have a death wish, try using the ones that go around the outside of roundabouts in busy traffic.

Chips Lovell

Indeed. The original policy document that recommended the abolition of the mandatory use law listed it as one of the reasons it should be abolished:

it can force cyclists to be on cycle tracks and (when they are planning
on continuing straight ahead) to be on the inside of left-turning
vehicles, including Heavy Goods Vehicles;