meeeeh wrote: » I get that but what is in the rules of the road? Does the car have a right of way in junctions turning left despite cycling lane and cyclists going straight? I'm just curious.
beauf wrote: » If the cyclist ignores the driver and goes up the inside it's undertaking. Which is a dumb thing to do. If the driver is far enough ahead to cross into the cycling lane withOUT causing you to emergency brake then they are simply in front. If you leave space for left turning car to turn left then that makes everything work smoothly and safely. Facilitating your fellow road users so that it avoids conflict is simple courtesy and good road etiquette.
Dominique Fresh Tween wrote: » No it's not. Not in the same sense that a car undertakes. The cyclist should be free to proceed and the driver turning left should stop. Ireland is far far too car centric. Bicycles should always have the right of way when going forward and should only proceed with their turn when safe to do so.
(b) A pedal cyclist may overtake on the left where vehicles to the pedal cyclist’s right are stationary or are moving more slowly than the overtaking pedal cycle, except where the vehicle to be overtaken— (i) has signalled an intention to turn to the left and there is a reasonable expectation that the vehicle in which the driver has signalled an intention to turn to the left will execute a movement to the left before the cycle overtakes the vehicle, (ii) is stationary for the purposes of permitting a passenger or passengers to alight or board the vehicle, or (iii) is stationary for the purposes of loading or unloading.”,
beauf wrote: » If the cyclist ignores the driver and goes up the inside it's undertaking. Which is a dumb thing to do. If the driver is far enough ahead to cross into the cycling lane with causing you to emergency brake then they are simply in front. If you leave space for left turning car to turn left then that makes everything work smoothly and safely. Facilitating your fellow road users so that it avoids conflict is simple courtesy and good road etiquette.
“(5)(a) A driver (other than a pedal cyclist) may only overtake on the left— (i) where the driver of the vehicle about to be overtaken has signalled an intention to turn to the right and the driver of the overtaking vehicle intends, after overtaking, to go straight ahead or turn to the left, (ii) where the driver of the overtaking vehicle intends, after overtaking, to turn to the left at the next road junction and has signalled this intention, or (iii) in slow-moving traffic, when vehicles in the traffic lane on the driver’s right are moving more slowly than the overtaking vehicle, (b) A pedal cyclist may overtake on the left where vehicles to the pedal cyclist’s right are stationary or are moving more slowly than the overtaking pedal cycle, except where the vehicle to be overtaken— (i) has signalled an intention to turn to the left and there is a reasonable expectation that the vehicle in which the driver has signalled an intention to turn to the left will execute a movement to the left before the cycle overtakes the vehicle, (ii) is stationary for the purposes of permitting a passenger or passengers to alight or board the vehicle, or (iii) is stationary for the purposes of loading or unloading.”,
Spook_ie wrote: » Dunno how many times this going to need repeating SI332/2012 Section on overtaking on the left specifically for cyclists.
JustAThought wrote: » Just cos you're bigger and sitting inside and safer dosn't give you the right to mash some poor cyclist . You may only turn either left or right after you have indicated, and checked that you have a clear safe way to progress. Driving oversomeone doan't make it safe for you or them-plus you have might and power on your sode and with thos comes more responsibility not to crush and maim. Google that idiot pedestrian who was walking aling the wrong sode of the road,zig zagging, in the dark, pissex with no footpath on the arong sode of the road rentlently. He did everything wrong but the judge ruled in favour of a 1.8 million settlement /payout for him because he was mashed and the driver - although in the right in every way - was in a car. Precedent.
meeeeh wrote: » So does that include segregated cycling track like the one in Phoenix Park for example? Grass is between the road and the track and left (or right) turn cuts accross the cycling track. I'm well able to read but you reposting the rules does not answer my question.
Spook_ie wrote: » Do you mean like the bit with Stop signs on the track or somewhere else?https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3529618,-6.3086841,3a,60y,202.77h,83.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFkQrDmBGo_3te5mWj56b_A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
meeeeh wrote: » ...I'm coming from the cyclist would have the right of way and that's why I am asking.
Spook_ie wrote: » See what I mean, though the legislation has been linked to and highlighted, there are still people on this thread that don't know the law. Is it the RSA's fault or someone else's fault?
Dravokivich wrote: » Right or wrong, the finger is always pointed at drivers in this country. I'm not having anyone pointing theirs my way.
meeeeh wrote: » So there is the stop there but what is the general rule since you like quoting them? Obviously you are supposed to obey stop sign but can you confirm that all the tracks have stop signs or is tgere a general rule? Since segregated tracks are golden standard one would assume rules would deal with it. (And just to make it clear where I'm coming from the cyclist would have the right of way and that's why I am asking.
magicbastarder wrote: » there's a saying - if you want to kill someone, do it in a car. e.g. a very recent example, a woman who ran a light at double the speed limit, and hit a pedestrian causing permanent injury; she got a suspended sentence.
beauf wrote: » If even you had right of way, and thus far you don't. Assuming you do as you are is a very bad mindset for a cyclist.
Dravokivich wrote: » magicbastarder wrote: » there's a saying - if you want to kill someone, do it in a car. e.g. a very recent example, a woman who ran a light at double the speed limit, and hit a pedestrian causing permanent injury; she got a suspended sentence. Not everyone in a car kills people that arent in cars. Its tiresome seeing such ill thought out crap like what you posted recited time and time again. All drivers arent killers, nor are we potential killers. I've even given my experience as a cyclist. But you decide to just push this nonsense agenda. What are you looking for with that?
07Lapierre wrote: » A lot of bike lanes end with a yield or stop sign. It's a good example of why bike lanes are not used much. .....
Stark wrote: » Driver hat on here. I've no issue with being called a potential killer as it's perfectly accurate. All it takes is a moment's inattention.
meeeeh wrote: » I'm asking as a driver not as cyclist. Where I cycle this situation doesn't arise and frankly even if it did I'm usually with kids and would stop just to be sure. You can be rude if you want but neither you or the poster above managed to show how this is dealt in rules of the road or confirm that it's not dealt with at all. I'm not coming at this from an anti driver or anti cyclist perspective but because I am curious what the rule is.
Dravokivich wrote: » A moment's inattention has nothing to do with driving. And with magicbastarders comment, it's not about being a potential killer, the suggestion is that it's only a matter of time and pretty much always on the driver. And he chewed that one out, by spinning my own comments to suit it.
beauf wrote: » Its a bit of tired argument alright. The odds are against a driver for a number of reasons. No need use all the hyperbole.
beauf wrote: » You can be rude and not read what has been posted. But the law and more importantly the practicalities have been quoted. If you have links to the law, or other recognized studies or official bodies to say otherwise please post them.
meeeeh wrote: » I don't have them. Why would I be asking otherwise? Not all of us use this thread to soaobox about cars or cyclists or whatever.
