Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Cam footage - who is at fault here?!

Options
123468

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,121 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    ford2600 wrote: »
    Car starts to turn at about 17 and impact is at 19. That's 2 secs.

    He couldn't but have been in view
    ford2600 wrote: »
    Did you check your mirror immediately before you turned?


    SI's won't matter a sh1te in a civil court irrespective of the answer to the above question.

    The car is visible and turning from about 17, the bike hits at 21.

    The bike being in view is irrelevant, the car had right of way and was turning, the bike either didnt notice or tried to pass on the left.


  • Options
    #153
    droidus
    Registered Users Posts: 1,545 ✭✭✭droidus


    Yeah, 17-21 is what I got too. The bike hits at precisely 21 seconds.

    The bike looks to be travelling at about 20kmh, so in those 4 seconds, the bike would have traveled about 20 metres, which is a significant distance. Certainly enough time for the cyclist to stop and probably about what the average motorist would think was a reasonable amount of space to give to a cyclist when turning left across them.


  • Options
    #154
    Idleater
    Registered Users Posts: 6,236 ✭✭✭Idleater


    droidus wrote: »
    probably about what the average motorist would think was a reasonable amount of space to give to a cyclist when turning left across them.

    4 seconds for 20kmph? I would consider it cutting it quite fine to broadside another moving vehicle. Not unstoppable, but when I was leaning to drive, "pulling out and causing others to adjust their speed" was not sufficient a gap.

    Would you walk across a road 4 seconds in front of a car going 20kmph? Yes they can stop, but it's not really a gap.


  • Options
    #155
    droidus
    Registered Users Posts: 1,545 ✭✭✭droidus


    Dont get me wrong, Im assuming that most drivers have a warped perception of the speed of cyclists. I wouldn't pull across a cycle lane with only 20 metres to spare, but a lot of a people would.


  • Options
    #156
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,121 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Idleater wrote: »

    Would you walk across a road 4 seconds in front of a car going 20kmph? Yes they can stop, but it's not really a gap.

    Would you try to pass on the inside of a left turning car with 4 seconds to complete the pass?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,121 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    My guess is the car was well ahead of the cyclist, slowed to turn left but the squad car was blocking the way so the turn took longer than expected.
    The cyclist didnt slow down as they didnt notice or car and assumed the car would let them pass first...maybe they thought thats why the car slowed.

    If the squad car wasnt there the turn would have completed long before the bike was even in view.

    If a car is waiting to turn left then you shouldnt be passing it on the inside.


  • Options
    #158
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Number one rule of cycling in traffic is never, ever go up the inside of HGVs, buses, left turning vehicles, or any vehicle that's even likely to turn left.

    If in doubt, stay out.


  • Options
    #159
    Fian
    Registered Users Posts: 2,188 ✭✭✭Fian


    I hope he is ok.

    Looks to me that the cyclist was significantly at fault there. I suspect he didn't notice the indicator and assumed the car was going to continue straight on. Put the shoe on the other foot - I would (and have been) annoyed at a motorist who overtakes me while I am moving to the right and have indicated I am turning right ahead, instead of waiting until I have moved into the centre of the road and passing on my left. Has happened many times, but every time I get annoyed about it.

    Despite that I expect he will be compensated for his injuries, perhaps with some deduction for contrib negligence. Insurance company is likely to settle this on the basis that car should have ensured nothing coming through in cycle lane before crossing it to turn left.


  • Options
    #160
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,221 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    While i don't agree with cars driving in cycle lanes...if the garda car had moved into the cycle lane as it approached, the cyclist would have had to slow down and the incident may not have happened. Having said that, cyclist should have anticipated the car turning (the car was indicating that it was going to turn left) .


  • Options
    #161
    Lemming
    Registered Users Posts: 14,148 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    Far, far, far too many drivers bang their indicators on literally a second before beginning their maneuver, or laughable indicate after they've already begun, so without a wider angle of footage showing whether or not the car was indicating in good time before the driver attempted to turn across the cycle lane, it's all speculation. The left rear side of the car is completely out of shot until the car has already begun its turn.

    Regardless, indicator or no; the question mentioned already of "yes I know the defendant had their indicator on at the moment of impact your honour, but did they check their mirror to ensure that they were safe to proceed?" in court would trump everything else.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    Chumpski
    Registered Users Posts: 741 ✭✭✭Chumpski


    Baron de Charlus wrote: »
    Number one rule of cycling in traffic is never, ever go up the inside of HGVs, buses, left turning vehicles, or any vehicle that's even likely to turn left.

    If in doubt, stay out.

    Yup, how many times do i see people risking this on the commute? Too many.


  • Options
    #163
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    This new video occupies one of the grey areas.

    The cycle lane doesn't form part of the "main" lane, it's a distinct traffic lane in itself.

    Therefore just like any other lane, a car moving from one lane across another, must yield to all traffic in that lane. The cyclist had right of way and it was wrong of the car to pull across a lane which was not clear - exactly the same as if you crossed a bus lane and got hit by a bus in the lane.

    Then you have the ambiguity introduced by the "do not overtake a vehicle indicating left" law.

    I expect in a crunch scenario (no pun intended), it would be taken that the "do not overtake on the left" law only applies where there is no cycle lane - where a cycle lane exists, it must be treated as a traffic lane and vehicles must ensure the lane is clear before crossing it.

    That's the legal bit. From a practical standpoint that was a very avoidable collision for everyone involved.


  • Options
    #164
    droidus
    Registered Users Posts: 1,545 ✭✭✭droidus


    The legalities have been discussed earlier in this thread (and many other places Im sure).

    Essentially, its not considered a separate lane in law and a cyclist must yield to traffic turning left if a car is ahead and is indicating and/or is travelling faster than the cyclist and is indicating.


  • Options
    #165
    buffalo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,060 ✭✭✭buffalo


    seamus wrote: »
    This new video occupies one of the grey areas.

    The cycle lane doesn't form part of the "main" lane, it's a distinct traffic lane in itself.

    Therefore just like any other lane, a car moving from one lane across another, must yield to all traffic in that lane. The cyclist had right of way and it was wrong of the car to pull across a lane which was not clear - exactly the same as if you crossed a bus lane and got hit by a bus in the lane.

    Under what legislation?

    As far as I can see from SI 182/1997*, drivers must only yield to another traffic lane:
    8. (8) A driver shall not drive from one traffic lane to another without yielding the right of way to traffic in that other lane.

    What's a traffic lane? Well that's defined by RRM003:
    27. (1) Traffic sign number [RRM 003] [broken white line], shall indicate the boundary of a traffic lane.

    What marks out a cycle track (note not 'lane') - RRM 022 or RRM 023.
    14. (1) Where traffic sign numbers RUS 009 or RUS 009A and either RRM 022 or RRM 023 [cycle track] are provided, the part of road to which they relate shall be a cycle track.

    So ipso facto from my reading (IANAL), a cycle track is not a traffic lane, ergo there is no obligation on a driver to yield to a cyclist in the track. The obligation is on the cyclist to overtake on the left safely. I am open to legal counter-arguments, but that's my understanding.

    *http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/si/182/made/en/print


  • Options
    #166
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,401 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    buffalo wrote: »
    Under what legislation?

    As far as I can see from SI 182/1997*, drivers must only yield to another traffic lane:


    What's a traffic lane? Well that's defined by RRM003:


    What marks out a cycle track (note not 'lane') - RRM 022 or RRM 023.



    So ipso facto from my reading (IANAL), a cycle track is not a traffic lane, and ergo there is no obligation on a driver to yield to a cyclist in the track. The obligation is on the cyclist to overtake on the left safely. I am open to legal counter-arguments, but that's my understanding.

    *http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/si/182/made/en/print

    I see your legislation and raise you the RTA 1961

    Road Traffic Act, 1961 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1961/act/24/section/52/enacted/en/html

    "
    52.—(1) A person shall not drive a vehicle in a public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the place.


    (2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence.

    "
    I don't think due care and attention was giving by the driver


  • Options
    #167
    buffalo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,060 ✭✭✭buffalo


    ted1 wrote: »
    I don't think due care and attention was giving by the driver

    thats-just-like-l1omvr.jpg


  • Options
    #168
    droidus
    Registered Users Posts: 1,545 ✭✭✭droidus


    That may be true, but it doesn't contradict Buffalo's post.


  • Options
    #169
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,121 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    ted1 wrote: »
    I don't think due care and attention was giving by the driver

    I dont think due care and attention was given by the cyclist, he cycled into an indicating, slowly turning car that had right of way.


  • Options
    #170
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    What ever about the rights and wrongs of it, I couldn't see myself approaching an entrance to my left where cars may emerge and cars stopped at a hash box where cars may appear from the right at that kind of speed, once bitten in that case for me :(


  • Options
    #171
    Lumen
    Registered Users Posts: 31,031 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    I've done this myself before, although not at that speed (more like 10-15kph). I can't quite remember whether the car was indicating, it doesn't really make any difference to the outcome! It can be difficult to spot a left turning car in a stream of crawling traffic, the movement doesn't really stand out.

    In my case I slammed on the brakes and sort of steered left glued to the side of the car. No harm done.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,481 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    droidus wrote: »
    Sorry to revive this thread, but thought it might be worth comparing this much less ambiguous case which is getting some press at the moment:

    https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/watch-dash-cam-footage-shows-14311278

    Just like the last incident, motorist crossing a lane, 100% at fault. You cannot enter a lane thats not clear, end of story.


  • Options
    #173
    buffalo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,060 ✭✭✭buffalo


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    Just like the last incident, motorist crossing a lane, 100% at fault. You cannot enter a lane thats not clear, end of story.

    What lane?

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106203695&postcount=165


  • Options
    #174
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,786 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    is a motorist allowed cross a footpath without looking as the road traffic act does not state that the path is a 'lane' for the sake of pedestrians?


  • Options
    #175
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,368 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    one thing is odd the cyclist doesn't appear to do anything to slow down even when they are aware of the car


  • Options
    #176
    Averagevegan
    Registered Users Posts: 49 ✭Averagevegan


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    is a motorist allowed cross a footpath without looking as the road traffic act does not state that the path is a 'lane' for the sake of pedestrians?

    I think this is true in Europe but as far as I know irish and British law gives the motorist right of way.


  • Options
    #177
    buffalo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,060 ✭✭✭buffalo


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    is a motorist allowed cross a footpath without looking as the road traffic act does not state that the path is a 'lane' for the sake of pedestrians?

    Same SI:
    (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.

    Doesn't seem to matter so much when leaving the public road though...


  • Options
    #178
    keithdub
    Registered Users Posts: 208 ✭✭keithdub


    It's just past Fairview I know it well it's a narrow turn and I would be in the bike lane making the turn. I think you are in the wrong


  • Options
    #179
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,481 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    buffalo wrote: »
    What lane?

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106203695&postcount=165

    hide behind your semantics and legalese all you want, it's fairly obvious to anyone the bike lane is a separately and obviously defined lane of road by markings alone. It's stupid and careless to simply swing across it without checking it's clear and shows nothing but contempt for other road users.


  • Options
    #180
    ForestFire
    Registered Users Posts: 2,309 ✭✭✭ForestFire


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    hide behind your semantics and legalese all you want, it's fairly obvious to anyone the bike lane is a separately and obviously defined lane of road by markings alone. It's stupid and careless to simply swing across it without checking it's clear and shows nothing but contempt for other road users.

    The question is who has the right of way?

    In Germany, for example it is the cyclist, and you are taught to check mirrors and give way to cyclist, even approaching from behind.

    But is that the case in Ireland? I assumed it was, but not according to most on here.

    In this case the cyclist must give way to the car.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,221 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    ForestFire wrote: »
    The question is who has the right of way?

    In Germany, for example it is the cyclist, and you are taught to check mirrors and give way to cyclist, even approaching from behind.

    But is that the case in Ireland? I assumed it was, but not according to most on here.

    In this case the cyclist must give way to the car.

    Who cares? Hitting moving cars hurts!..cyclists should have anticipated the car turning.


Advertisement