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

Turning left in car with cyclist behind you

bfa1509

Google didn't understand my question so I'll ask it here:

I always yield to cyclists when I am turning left and they are travelling straight on whether they are beside me or behind me (sometimes in traffic when you need to turn left, a bicycle can be travelling quite fast from behind, so I always let them pass before I turn. But I read somewhere (can't remember where) that it is actually the car that has the right of way in the case of a cyclist being behind and the cyclist should slow down and let the car turn.

So what is the rule exactly? Do I have the right to go ahead and turn left even if a cyclist is approaching from behind me? (Doesn't seem right to me and even if correct, I can't imagine getting much sympathy if the bike ran into the side of the car)

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

bfa1509

Duckjob wrote: »

Its a scenario that's not well defined by law because all depends on the positioning and speed of both the cyclist and the driver.

If I were coming towards a junction on a bike, and saw a car that was already a bit ahead and already indicating I would always slow down and wait for them to make the turn or move out and pass them on the right if safe.

On the other hand, I wouldn't expect a driver to indicate and pull across me if I was already close or nearly level to them.

And if, as happened to me last week, a car guns past from behind only to swing left across me ..... thats just d**kish behavior.

And if the "bike lanes" are considered actual lanes or just guidelines.

The Enbalmer

Amirani wrote:

Majority of cyclists are also drivers. Pretty sure this came out in an RTE programme last year.

Well whoever made that up has plainly never cycled down Dorset st via Gardiner st into city centre. A majority of the cyclists are foreigners in their late teens or early 20s..they work minimum wage jobs in town and they do not own cars.
There's also a sizable number of indigenous students,bums and scobies who are cycling because they can't afford cars.

Cycling has always been a cheap way to get around,the MAMIL generation are the ones who have cars..ironic really as generally they make the worst cyclists.

Pawwed Rig

The Enbalmer wrote: »

they make the worst cyclists.

Not a cycling fan then??

07Lapierre

The Enbalmer wrote: »

Well whoever made that up has plainly never cycled down Dorset st via Gardiner st into city centre. A majority of the cyclists are foreigners in their late teens or early 20s..they work minimum wage jobs in town and they do not own cars.
There's also a sizable number of indigenous students,bums and scobies who are cycling because they can't afford cars.

Cycling has always been a cheap way to get around,the MAMIL generation are the ones who have cars..ironic really as generally they make the worst cyclists.

Bums and scribes are ok, but MAMILS are the worst? Strange logic your using there!

Seth Brundle

The Enbalmer wrote: »

the MAMIL generation are the ones who have cars..ironic really as generally they make the worst cyclists.

In what way are they the worst cyclists?

vandriver

Seth Brundle wrote: »

In what way are they the worst cyclists?

They can be quite aggressive on the roads.

Seth Brundle

vandriver wrote: »

They can be quite aggressive on the roads.

Just like that and for no reason?

vandriver

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Just like that and for no reason?

Just reporting what I see on the roads every day of the week.

antix80

Assuming there's no cycle lane and they're behind me and not yet at the junction, I'd make sure i was to the left side of the lane so that the cyclist couldn't undertake. Passing on the inside is not the primary position on the road so they wouldn't have an automatic right of way.

This is just my view and how i drive (I'm cautious of cyclists anyway), obviously I'm open to correction if someone can provide a source to say otherwise.

If they're in a cycle lane it's different because you're cutting through their lane.. you wouldn't cut in front of a bus in a bus lane, or turn from the 2nd lane with no regard to someone already in the 1st lane and while cycle lanes don't have the same status as lanes for traffic, the principle is the same.

bigar

It is really very simple:
- when you are sure that the cyclist is far enough behind so they do not need to brake: go
- when not: stop and wait until the cyclist passes

A vehicle doing a manoeuvre always need to give way to one going straight ahead. You turn left (a manoeuvre) so need to give way.

bobbyss

The yellow box that I drove into and turned left had three lanes after it. The first two lanes to my left were fully occupied but the lane I wanted was the third one ie the furtherest away one which had a generous space for me. So I was entitled to go for it.

The yellow box was empty so off I went. The first two lanes to my right as i entered were full up to the yellow box as i drove in. As I did that a cyclist sped through between lane one and lane two on my right and went through the yellow box to the lights. Nearly hit him.

Are cyclists allowed do that? If there was an accident who would have been responsible.

I should say there was a big bus in the first lane to my right waiting before the yellow box which meant I could not see any cyclist if they had been cycling between lanes one and two with the intention of gong through the yellow box to the lights ahead.

The Enbalmer

Seth Brundle wrote:

In what way are they the worst cyclists?

In that they cycle without due care and attention..are usually aggressive and often deliberately try to provoke other road users.

I cycle myself and I absolutely hate these clowns,they seem to think sole ownership of the road was conferred in the bike to work scheme.

Brian CivilEng

This is one of those situations that I would plead with drivers to be considerate, rather than scrutinise the letter of the law. If you want to turn left assume that the cyclist will not yield and if you still have time then go for it, if not wait. It takes a lot of effort to come to a complete stop and start again on a bike, it's not just a case of pressing a brake and then accelerating again.

When it comes to getting roared out of it by a cyclist be aware that a close pass or near miss between a bicycle and a car is very scary for the cyclist, and they will be filled with adrenalin. A large 1 tonne metal box vs a squishy human on a bike is only going to end one way, and it is never far from my mind when I'm on the bike. Imagine standing at the edge of the Cliffs of Moher, then having someone behind push you and then grab you to stop you from falling. You will be fine, but you will let out a roar at the person who did it. That's what it feels when you have a near miss with a car.

beauf

The Enbalmer wrote: »

In that they cycle without due care and attention..are usually aggressive and often deliberately try to provoke other road users.

I cycle myself and I absolutely hate these clowns,they seem to think sole ownership of the road was conferred in the bike to work scheme.

None of that has anything to do with left turning.

magicbastarder

Worth mentioning that cyclists are better drivers than non cyclists, according to insurance data from the UK.

Anyway, on the topic, as mentioned above I think, if I see a car indicating left in front of me I usually move to the middle of the lane behind them where possible; in most instances this means you remain visible to the driver, and it's a clear enough indication that you've spotted the indicator and are not going to pass on the left.

07Lapierre

vandriver wrote: »

They can be quite aggressive on the roads.

There's a thin line between Confidence and aggression. Just like when driving, you have to exert your right to exist on the road or other road users will run you off the road if they can.

cdaly_

bobbyss wrote: »

The yellow box that I drove into and turned left had three lanes after it. The first two lanes to my left were fully occupied but the lane I wanted was the third one ie the furtherest away one which had a generous space for me. So I was entitled to go for it.

The yellow box was empty so off I went. The first two lanes to my right as i entered were full up to the yellow box as i drove in. As I did that a cyclist sped through between lane one and lane two on my right and went through the yellow box to the lights. Nearly hit him.

Are cyclists allowed do that? If there was an accident who would have been responsible.

I should say there was a big bus in the first lane to my right waiting before the yellow box which meant I could not see any cyclist if they had been cycling between lanes one and two with the intention of gong through the yellow box to the lights ahead.

Without seeing the junction in question it's hard to say.

I'll make an assumption here that you were emerging from a side road, into a yellow box and turning left into the third lane thereby crossing two lanes. As a driver/cyclist crossing lanes the onus is on you to ensure that it is safe to cross.

As a driver/cyclist travelling on the main road, they may cross the yellow box if their way is clear.

In the tailback situation you describe, the way is not clear for a car but is clear for a bike filtering between lanes of cars.

I would say the cyclist was allowed to do that but should have been aware of the possibility of a crossing vehicle and should have adjusted their speed.

I would say that you, crossing lanes, should have been doing so slowly and been ready to stop if necessary.

It's a classic case of assuming that since the cars are stopped that there are no other vehicles moving. This gets motorcyclists injured/killed also.

The Enbalmer

beauf wrote: »

None of that has anything to do with left turning.

Of course it does..i've had these people fly up the inside of me when i'm turning left and have indicated in good time. They seem to think they'll be able to shoot through the ever-closing gap and if they don't make it they can start shouting...especially when they have a camera on their helmet.

I anticipate a "wagon-circling" of the usual suspects from the cycling forum whereby they deny that cyclist ever cause problems on the roads and that all motorists are bloodthirsty maniacs out to kill a quota of "2-3 people a week".

The Enbalmer

07Lapierre wrote: »

There's a thin line between Confidence and aggression. Just like when driving, you have to exert your right to exist on the road or other road users will run you off the road if they can.

No they ****ing won't! People are all out to use the roads safely and they want to arrive at their destination in one piece. This paranoid idea that car drivers are all out to mill cyclists is devisive,dangerous nonsense.

TriFirst

bfa1509 wrote: »

Google didn't understand my question so I'll ask it here:

I always yield to cyclists when I am turning left and they are travelling straight on whether they are beside me or behind me (sometimes in traffic when you need to turn left, a bicycle can be travelling quite fast from behind, so I always let them pass before I turn. But I read somewhere (can't remember where) that it is actually the car that has the right of way in the case of a cyclist being behind and the cyclist should slow down and let the car turn.

So what is the rule exactly? Do I have the right to go ahead and turn left even if a cyclist is approaching from behind me? (Doesn't seem right to me and even if correct, I can't imagine getting much sympathy if the bike ran into the side of the car)

Legally whoever reaches the junction first has the right of way. So if the cyclist is nearing the junction before the car , the cyclist has right of way and the car must wait. If the car arrives at the junction before the cyclist and can safely turn across the path of the cyclist in time then the driver is correct to do so, at saying that the cyclist must also give way to the car in this instance.

magicbastarder

The Enbalmer wrote: »

No they ****ing won't! People are all out to use the roads safely and they want to arrive at their destination in one piece. This paranoid idea that car drivers are all out to mill cyclists is devisive,dangerous nonsense.

Now I'm confused. Cyclists are dangerous assholes, but car drivers are all well intentioned and safety conscious?

magicbastarder

TriFirst wrote: »

bfa1509 wrote: »

Google didn't understand my question so I'll ask it here:

I always yield to cyclists when I am turning left and they are travelling straight on whether they are beside me or behind me (sometimes in traffic when you need to turn left, a bicycle can be travelling quite fast from behind, so I always let them pass before I turn. But I read somewhere (can't remember where) that it is actually the car that has the right of way in the case of a cyclist being behind and the cyclist should slow down and let the car turn.

So what is the rule exactly? Do I have the right to go ahead and turn left even if a cyclist is approaching from behind me? (Doesn't seem right to me and even if correct, I can't imagine getting much sympathy if the bike ran into the side of the car)

Legally whoever reaches the junction first has the right of way. So if the cyclist is nearing the junction before the car , the cyclist has right of way and the car must wait. If the car arrives at the junction before the cyclist and can safely turn across the path of the cyclist in time then the driver is correct to do so, at saying that the cyclist must also give way to the car in this instance.

It's not just about getting there first, it's about giving clear and timely indication too.

beauf

The Enbalmer wrote: »

Of course it does..i've had these people fly up the inside of me when i'm turning left and have indicated in good time. They seem to think they'll be able to shoot through the ever-closing gap and if they don't make it they can start shouting...especially when they have a camera on their helmet.

I anticipate a "wagon-circling" of the usual suspects from the cycling forum whereby they deny that cyclist ever cause problems on the roads and that all motorists are bloodthirsty maniacs out to kill a quota of "2-3 people a week".

Nope it's just general ranting.

It the same as someone complaining about BMW drivers or white vans or taxis in any thread remotely about a car. Likewise setting up an intentionally misrepresented proposition like a sweeping generalisation.

beauf

TriFirst wrote: »

Legally whoever reaches the junction first has the right of way. So if the cyclist is nearing the junction before the car , the cyclist has right of way and the car must wait. If the car arrives at the junction before the cyclist and can safely turn across the path of the cyclist in time then the driver is correct to do so, at saying that the cyclist must also give way to the car in this instance.

You are right of course.

Problem is a lot of cyclists don't realise this, or don't care. Do you have to be careful and not assume they will stop.

This is really what the op was asking about. There is the legal position then the practical application of it.

Mjolnir

You being in front have right of way its simple as.
However that won't stop cyclists coming up your inside.
Mirror, indicate, manoeuvre to the left so no one can come up beside you and complete the turn.
That's what we do on motorbikes leave a gap so small no one can squeeze in

The Enbalmer

magicbastarder wrote: »

Now I'm confused. Cyclists are dangerous assholes, but car drivers are all well intentioned and safety conscious?

Well let's put it this way. In order to be LEGALLY allowed to drive a motorist must (in no particular order)

Take a Theory test

Display "L" or "N" plates

Receive lessons from a qualified instructor

Pass the driving test

Display up to date insurance policy

Display up to date tax disc

Have a valid NCT for the vehicle

Have a visible registration plate

Be subject to occasional intoxication tests

Hold a valid driving licence.

What are the legal requirements for a cyclist?

antix80

The Enbalmer wrote: »

Well let's put it this way. In order to be LEGALLY allowed to drive a motorist must (in no particular order)

Awesome. What has that got to do with "Turning left in car with cyclist behind you"?

Honestly, threads can go a little OT but this isn't interesting to anyone.

magicbastarder

Mjolnir wrote: »

You being in front have right of way its simple as.
However that won't stop cyclists coming up your inside.
Mirror, indicate, manoeuvre to the left so no one can come up beside you and complete the turn.
That's what we do on motorbikes leave a gap so small no one can squeeze in

Again - you need to indicate. It's not as simple as just bring in front.

beauf

Mjolnir wrote: »

You being in front have right of way its simple as.
However that won't stop cyclists coming up your inside.
Mirror, indicate, manoeuvre to the left so no one can come up beside you and complete the turn.
That's what we do on motorbikes leave a gap so small no one can squeeze in

Same here driving.

Segregated cycle lanes make this impossible. So you have to just sit and wait for the cyclist to clear or gap to appear.

meeeeh

I did my driving test in another country and you would fail for not checking right (left in this country) if a cyclist is approaching on the cycling track. They had the right of way because drivers were cutting accross their path. If a cyclist was behind the car on the same lane then the car had a right of way. Basically the bike was treated just like another vehicle and frankly I think that's the most common sense approach.