Undertaking in traffic

punisher5112 wrote: »

http://irishcycle.com/2017/02/07/timeline-mandatory-use-of-cycle-tracks/


A cyclist must take care of pedestrians and be prepared for them to change direction.

A cyclist must yield to pedestrian intending to board or get off a bus.

There are many cycle lanes that pass on the same level as the path and pass exactly at the same point of the doors which to be honest is ridiculously bad.

All stops should have a cyclist removed from that area and have them go behind the bus shelter or create a buffer zone.

Looked more into this and in August the rules changed so the in limbo part has been fixed although it's taken many years for clarification.

One must use a cycle track in pedestrian zones and also on contra flow sections of road where they must follow directions shown.

I'm not sure if all of that is referring to the compulsion to use cycle tracks, but it was settled about six years ago, until the Gardaí and RSA decided that they'd try to put the blanket requirement to use them back in place, with Ross as the useful sloth who knew nothing about transport and cared even less.

magicbastarder wrote: »

yep, i had an interesting lesson in such the other day. cycling up the inside of stopped traffic; there was a taxi indicating left, but stopped and several cars back from the red light (at which there's a left turn a lot of cars take), so i went up the inside. however, as i did so, he pulled in to the kerb, i assume because the fare decided they'd gotten close enough to their destination to get out.

Is it possible that the taxi driver was looking out for you, realised his/her passenger was likely to open the door and moved to block you 'cos then they'd be just an asshole taxi driver rather than the defendant in a dooring case?

Saw a doozie this morning which raises interesting conundrum about overtaking on the left and driving/cycling with undue care.

Situation:
Long line of stationary traffic at a red light.
About 40-50m before traffic light there is a laneway to the left.
A car approaching from the opposite direction wants to turn right into the laneway.
The entrance to the laneway is clear, traffic is stationary so it moves across the traffic to proceed down laneway.
Cyclist approaches overtaking the stationary traffic on the left and at some pace.
Cyclist and motorist see each other at the last minute. Motorist brakes; cyclist veers on to the pavement across the front of the car.
Cyclist dismounts and approaches car before it enters laneway. Cue angry altercation with much thumping of bonnet and pointing of finger from irate cyclist and angry rejoinders from motorist.

Who would be at fault here?
On the one hand, the cyclist has right of way because he was proceeding straight while motorist was turning right.
As against that, the motorist was driving slowly enough that he could stop in time without hitting cyclist, who was moving so quickly that he had to veer on to the pavement.
Nobody hurt, but if there were pedestrians on the pavement (and there is a school on that street!) there could have been carnage.

Interesting one.

Madd Finn wrote: »

Saw a doozie this morning which raises interesting conundrum about overtaking on the left and driving/cycling with undue care.

Situation:
Long line of stationary traffic at a red light.
About 40-50m before traffic light there is a laneway to the left.
A car approaching from the opposite direction wants to turn right into the laneway.
The entrance to the laneway is clear, traffic is stationary so it moves across the traffic to proceed down laneway.
Cyclist approaches overtaking the stationary traffic on the left and at some pace.
Cyclist and motorist see each other at the last minute. Motorist brakes; cyclist veers on to the pavement across the front of the car.
Cyclist dismounts and approaches car before it enters laneway. Cue angry altercation with much thumping of bonnet and pointing of finger from irate cyclist and angry rejoinders from motorist.

Who would be at fault here?
On the one hand, the cyclist has right of way because he was proceeding straight while motorist was turning right.
As against that, the motorist was driving slowly enough that he could stop in time without hitting cyclist, who was moving so quickly that he had to veer on to the pavement.
Nobody hurt, but if there were pedestrians on the pavement (and there is a school on that street!) there could have been carnage.

Interesting one.

Cyclists is always at fault! Was the cyclists wearing Lycra? Sure he doesn't even pay road tax so shouldn't have been on the road in the first place!

Seriously , id say the cyclist bears some responsibility in that you should always ride with due care and attention and this sounds like a situation that the cyclist should have anticipated. Motorist should also have anticipated that a cyclist could be approaching (if their was a cycle lane).

07Lapierre wrote: »

Cyclists is always at fault! Was the cyclists wearing Lycra? Sure he doesn't even pay road tax so shouldn't have been on the road in the first place!

As a frequent cyclist, I have to disagree. But I also firmly believe that cyclists are SOMETIMES at fault in collision situations. Case by case basis.

magicbastarder wrote: »

jamming on the brakes because you see a cyclist at the last second is not 'yielding' per se.

I don't think anyone can judge the specific incident unless they were there.

The car was making a legal right turn. They should having been inching the front of their car past the stopped car until they could see if there was a cyclist coming up the inside. It's not easy as they wouldn't see the cyclist until the last second especially if the bike was travelling quickly.

Both motorist and cyclist should be proceeding with care in this situation and show proper awareness of the potential dangers. Without being there it is impossible to say who was more at fault.

Madd Finn wrote: »

Bottom line: the car stopped. The cyclist couldn't. Who was driving with undue care?

If you were driving and a car coming in the opposite direction pulled a across your lane and braked, with you hitting into the side of their car, would you think that you were the one driving with undue care?

CramCycle wrote: »

Several do on my commute but they are often marked with a yield sign on the cycle path before the stop. I always yield, not everyone on a bike does, those people are sh1tty. On the same note, the driver should not open his doors until it is clear it is safe to do so. The law has it's place but decency and manners should not be forgotten, the road to hell is paved with people who were legally correct.

I found out the alarming way to slow down and have a good look around before going through a yellow box with traffic stalled before and after.

eclipsechaser wrote: »

If you were driving and a car coming in the opposite direction pulled a across your lane and braked, with you hitting into the side of their car, would you think that you were the one driving with undue care?

That hardly applies to the case here, which revolves around the issue of sudden appreciation of a situation on both the part of the cyclist and motorist. Both, in my view, should have a duty of care to approach the situation giving themselves enough leeway to avoid unfortunate consequences. That's called "proceeding with due care and attention".

They were each performing perfectly legal manoeuvres: the cyclist proceeding along a straight road; the motorist making a legitimate right turn. This caused each of them to become aware of the other's presence on an imminent collision course with very little notice.

In my view, this was mainly because of the speed at which the cyclist approached the junction. Granted, it's a tough case. It's a not very visible laneway on either side of which cars are parked very close (too close in my view) to the entrance. It's difficult to see approaching cyclists.

So motorists attempting a right hand turn into that entrance have a big duty of care to look out for bicycles especially when stationary traffic is backed up from the nearby lights as was the case here.

Did the motorist do so in this case? I think he did but if you're asking would the cyclist have avoided him if he had held his course instead of swerving I would not be able to answer truthfully. It happened so quickly. Having said which, the fact that the cyclist had time to skid to a halt on the pavement, throw his bike down and then approach the car to remonstrate with the driver before he had completed his turn into the laneway would suggest that there was a bit of clearance on the road for the cyclist to pass had he appreciated the situation earlier.

I think the point though is that if injuries had occurred, especially from a collision between the cyclist and any pedestrians on the footpath, the motorist would have a very hard job pleading innocence. Even though he had managed to stop before hitting the cyclist.

Might be worth investing in a dash cam, drivers

(Disclaimer: I have no financial interest in any company making or selling dash cams)

Even so: would it have done him any good if a case arose?