amcalester wrote: It is illegal for a cyclist to pass on the left if the motorist is indicating AND likely to complete the maneuver before the cyclist can pass.
amcalester wrote: I don’t think that’s applicable here though because the OP wasn’t really passing on the left until the motorist started to brake and move left.
Sleeper12 wrote: » I hope every one is OK. The way you describe it doesn't put you in a good light. I wasn't there so I'm not saying who was in the wrong. You decided that he was turning. Didn't his indicator tell you this was happening anyway? Regardless of why he hit the breaks you seemed to be cycling too fast and close & not prepared for him to stop. I'm not having a pop at you. I wasn't there. It's just the way that you describe it. Maybe you are still shaken. I hope you aren't too badly injured.
amcalester wrote: » OP you’ve confused me. Were you attempting to pass the car on the left while it was indicating to turn left? Your posts aren’t clear (at least to me).
standardg60 wrote: » No, the indication to turn left and the veering in were instantaneous. We were basically travelling in the same direction on a downhill bit of road so freewheeling, car passes, goes two or three metres ahead, slows for ramp, we catch up, car indicates and veers in. Friend has reached the junction, feels car close and moves to left. Driver sees friend and stops dead. I haven't reached the junction so no room on left, hit brakes. From the ramp to the collision couldn't have been more than two seconds.
standardg60 wrote: » They were planning on swinging a U-turn in the opening so approached at a 30 angle to the kerb directly from the ramp to where the kerb ended for the turn, directly across my path.
CelticRambler wrote: » Am a bit confused about this bit. On Irish roads, a U-turn is done to the right, so are you saying they indicated and pulled to the left even though they were planning to turn right? If that's the case, was this road wide enough to execute a U-turn? I don't think I've ever come across an urban road that's busy enough to warrant speed ramps and wide enough to allow that kind of manoeuvre.
Rechuchote wrote: » That reminds me: a legal question. If a pedestrian traffic light is red in front of you but the road is empty, can you legally pass through?
cython wrote: » I don't think it's all that confusing, except that technically the manoeuvre probably isn't a U-turn in the traditional/technical sense (might be more of a q-turn but that doesn't have the same wide understanding!). Rather the driver wanted to turn around, and in order to do so was essentially using the mouth of the junction as one might use a lay-by to effectively widen the road at the point where they were turning (swinging left to allow more space on the right). This had the net effect that they turned into the road at a much shallower angle than they might have if they had been proceeding along the the road.
average_runner wrote: » Please tell me this is a joke and these people are not on the road, either walking, car or bike
Rechuchote wrote: » By "these people" you mean me? No, it's a genuine question; I have always thought you were supposed to stop, even when the pedestrian crossing was empty, if the light was red. Someone told me otherwise, and I'm asking for the information. Abuse is nice too, though, thank you.
CelticRambler wrote: » That is more or less how I read it the first time, in which case, the driver should have been indicating right, not left ... and, of course, taking extra care to ensure that they had full situation awareness before starting an unorthodox manoeuvre. Even so, is it legal to use a junction in that way? Isn't it the same as crossing the white line to make a left turn? (which plenty of people do, for no good reason!)
cython wrote: » I don't know about the legality, but I will admit to having done the exact same in the car when it's quiet! However, I wouldn't agree that indicating right would be correct, as their first move is still to turn left into the roadway - had they indicated right and the OP passed on the left and been hit, we'd rightly be slating the driver here.
CelticRambler wrote: » My more recent Rules of the Road training is related to driving HGVs, in which case you indicate RIGHT then pull LEFT to complete the RIGHT turn into a side road, or vice versa when turning left. When there is no possibility of using the full width of the side road, this is considered normal (and the reason the RoR tell motorists not to try passing a large vehicle on either side if it is indicating one way or the other).
CelticRambler wrote: » With regard to the OPs situation, I would argue that the motorist indicating and moving left when they subsequently declared that it had been their intention to (U-)turn to the right even though the road was not wide enough to allow such a manoeuvre would constitute liability. They were neither pulling in to the kerb nor executing a normal left turn, and gave the OP the "wrong" information on which to base his decision.
Hi all, updating this only now as guards took months to get back to me and i'd forgotten about the thread in the meantime and stumbled back across it tonight.
So i stopped posting at the time as i wasn't sure it was a good idea pending any legal repercussions, which really only hit home when i was advised of my rights and cautioned about relying on evidence when giving my statement a couple of days later (never having given one before). Also things took a bit of a sinister turn as there was a toddler in the back seat of the car, and unbeknownst to me at the time (observed by my friend as i was talking to the guard at the scene), the driver was pointing out a cut to a finger of the toddler from the broken glass to another guard.
Had nearly forgotten about the whole thing when the guard rang me, informing me that the super had decided there was no further action required, and the driver had claimed off their own insurance for the window. Reading into that i imagine the driver was told not to pursue further, and pretty much confirmed what i thought that i wasn't to blame. In reality i could have had their guts for garters, but i've never claimed nor been claimed against and plan to keep it that way.
The knee is fine now, though was painful off and on for a couple of years, had a lump on the kneecap which GP advised was a bit of detached cartilage which thankfully has disappeared now, though still and probably will have a couple of 'dents' in the skin to remind me of the collision forever.
Thankfully the whole incident hasn't affected my confidence on the road, it was just one of those freak occurrences.
the way i read it - if a car overtakes and then immediately brakes to left turn, that's a brake check. the usual rules about keeping a safe distance from the vehicle in front don't apply if the driver of said vehicle themselves create the unsafe distance. so as above, hard to tell without seeing a video of the incident, to figure out quite how long after the overtake it was before they braked. but on the face of it; a driver overtaking another vehicle, knowing he or she going to brake and turn left immediately after, i'd place the ultimate cause on the driver.
The driver was a complete bellend to overtake ye at all if he was turning left just up ahead. That's the kind of thoughtless sh1t that cyclists have to put up with from drivers all the time and it clearly created the dangerous situation and the incident that followed.
Unfortunately, once he was in front it then became your responsibility to not hit him :(
So had luck dude. As a matter of interest what kind of bike and brakes are we talking about? It's not the easiest thing to do to flip your bike with a handful of front brake.
Theres an argument to be made that your friend caused the full thing. He was not entitled to undertake unless he was in a cycle lane - (the lack of reference leads me to believer there is no cycle lane) The distance he indicated away from the junction, whilst small, may well be proportional to the speed involved. Prior to the accidnet, you yourself were about to make an illegal undertaking. Take your scolding, and pay for damages. Driver is innocent. sounds like cyclists left their brains at home before they put the lycra on!
no. the OP wasnt cycling with due care and attention. The car driver responded to the hazard presented by the first dumbo undertaking.
He was not entitled to undertake unless he was in a cycle lane
please cite the relevant law stating this.
if you want, start with this and find the law which contradicts their lack of mention of cycle lanes for overtaking on the left
https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/cycling/cycling_offences.html
Do people just replay to threads after only reading first post.
Thread is from 2018, OP revived it in 2022 by posting details of what the outcome was, Thanks OP
People respond as though OP's most recent post doesn't exist.
I get not reading through all posts but at least read the last one or two to see what the most recent update is.
https://goo.gl/maps/yiJPfEJ7JsiJTgsC6
Whoops! Guilty as charged.
A common sense approach on the road can sometimes mean as much as the rules of the road.
Let the bigger guy in front make his move. Slow down. Wait. Patience.
i think there's a bit more nuance than that - if someone pulls into the clear space you had maintained in front of you, they are the ones who have created the dangerous gap, and not you. i don't know if the law would reflect that subtlety, and without video footage, it's going to be very difficult to prove it wasn't a straightforward rear ending.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b6984b3dff155c34b5a9498bb42f9c13.svg)
