Same rule as the old thread…
That's the norm on that road unfortunately. Maybe it's knowledge of the 30km/h speed limit ahead of them in the park.
Cyclists can be traffic in a general traffic lane, no objection. And they can be traffic in a cycle track. I'm not sure what difference that makes?
Part of a road does not meet the threshold of lane, no. Any reference to a lane (apart from bus lanes, etc.) in the SI that I see, explicitly calls it a 'traffic lane'. That is marked by the likes of RRM 003 (a broken white line), whereas cycle tracks are marked by RRM 022 or RRM 023.
I would love for someone to show me the SI that defines a cycle track as a lane with all the associated protection that bestows. Or tell me I'm being a moron and point out the inconsistency somewhere. I spent an evening a long time ago trawling various Road Traffic Acts and could not find it. According to Google, there is literally not a single reference to a 'cycle lane' on IrishStatueBook.ie: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Airishstatutebook.ie+%22cycle+lane%22 But as magicbastard points out above, the RTA SIs are layers upon layers, so there could well be something I'm missing.
Even if you look at the detail in SI 2012/332 which made it legal for cyclists to overtake on the left. Drivers can overtake on the left "in slow-moving traffic, when vehicles in the traffic lane on the driver’s right are moving more slowly than the overtaking vehicle", i.e. a driver cannot overtake on the left within the same lane, only in the next lane. Cyclists can 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...", i.e. cyclists can overtake on the left in the same lane. I know this covers roads with no cycle tracks, but my reading is that it also covers roads with cycle tracks in the traffic lane.
By the way, I'm not claiming any of this makes sense or should be defended. I just want to make the current legal situation clear (or be corrected!). On a unrelated note, an advanced stop box - for cyclists to position themselves ahead of motor traffic at a light - is bounded by two stop lines. It is an offence for a cyclist to cross the first stop line to enter the ASB while the associated traffic light is red, and not all ASBs have a cycle track feeding into them (where the stop line is usually discontinued). Which is nonsense.
I initially had a different quote there but I removed it in error after getting frustrated with the new boards interface. I'll try again.
The road traffic act interprets: "cycle track" means part of a road, including part of a footway or part of a roadway, which is reserved for the use of pedal cycles and from which all mechanically propelled vehicles, other than mechanically propelled wheelchairs, are prohibited from entering except for the purpose of access.
Does 'part of a road' not meet the threshold, or is lane only reserved for motor vehicles in a 'traffic lane' or a 'bus lane'? A two-way cycle track is defined in the law as having lanes plural so does a cycle track contain a lane also?
The road traffic act lists under interpretations that traffic does not including pedestrians, so we can conclude that cyclists are traffic?
@buffalo
I miss old boards where you could edit quotes, for brevity or emphasis. Is that possible now?
Only like this, though there's no elegant way to attribute the quote to a poster or post like you could with BBCode ([quote=buffalo] etc.)
Again, it's not a lane. When overtaking on the left as a cyclist, an indicator from the motorist does in fact effectively give right of way if they are about to execute the movement (such clunky language), as it means the overtake by cyclist is not a legal one.
And again, I'm not excusing **** driving. But let's be correct about it.
There was no reasonable expectation that he would complete it after he started indicating.
They don't have to complete it, only "execute a movement to the left".
You might have held off,
But at the end of the day he is doing nothing wrong trying to pass the car.
Indication is just that, intention. It doesn't give any right of way and the motorist is crossing another lane so its their job to look...which they clearly did not. In addition to that the motorist only just passed the cyclist so they 100% knew they existed, they simply didn't consider them afterwards.
I don't understand why you've quoted the legislation that I linked to? It doesn't mention cycle lanes.
As I said, I'm not excusing the bad driving, but in the eyes of the law that was not a legal overtake afaics. The law does not say "has signalled an intention to turn to the left in good time". Regardless of the tardiness of the indicator, it was on before the overtake started.
There are other laws in play here such as driving without due care and attention, but I want to make sure people are aware that cycle tracks do not confer any legal protection while overtaking, unless they are mandatory tracks that a motorised vehicle must not enter.
From here:
S.I. No. 332/2012 - Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2012.
(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.”,
The driver indicated far too late, the silver car was stopped in traffic and so Seth is correct.
This was updated in the above SI and only requires that cyclists must use a cycle lane when it a contraflow lane or in pedestrianised area.
2012 🙂
https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2012/si/332/made/en/print
(e) by substituting for article 14 (inserted by article 6 of the Regulations of 1998) the following:
“Cycle tracks
14. (4) A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where—
(a) a cycle track is provided on a road, a portion of a road, or an area at the entrance to which traffic sign number RUS 021 (pedestrianised street or area) is provided, or
(b) a cycle track is a contra-flow cycle track where traffic sign number RUS 059 is provided and pedal cycles shall only be driven in a contra-flow direction on such track.
i.e. the mandatory requirement is only for cycle tracks in a pedestrian area or on a contra-flow track.
It's only been nearly a decade since this became law, you'd think people would know it by now.
No.
Seth is not in a lane though, he's in a cycle track. All your references to 'lane' are moot. Can you show me where a cycle track is defined as a lane in law?
I'm not excusing the bad driving, the driver should have anticipated the cyclist's actions, but I want to make sure that every cyclist is aware of the legal situation. What happened in that video was overtaking on the left, which is allowed except in certain situations. One of which is that the vehicle to be overtaken "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".
https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/112384088/#Comment_112384088
IANAL, obviously.
It's how and when and where you say these things too, though.
I was coming from my car in my work carpark, and a visitor was parked up. As I passed his car, he wound down his window, threw some litter out, and wound the window back up.
I picked it up, knocked on his window, and when he wound it down again, I said "I think you dropped something, there" and handed it back to him. He took it and mumbled thanks.
We both knew that he didn't "drop" it, but there was no confrontation.
Did this change his behaviour at all? No idea. But at least in this instance he had the thing he knew was wrong to to pointed out to him
His massive mistake could have had massive consequences. I was travelling at just over 50km/h on a wet surface. He saw me but didn't bother complying with the law which put me in danger. Thankfully I slowed.
As for what more I wanted, I think I wanted to opportunity to explain how his actions endangered me and scared the crap out of me. Instead I got a dismissive gesture along with a feck-off apology.
I wasn't seeking confrontation nor was I looking for him to effectively asault me with his car.
They passed me moments before they joined my lane. I was quite visible from the front and rear so if they didn't see me then it was purely poor observation on their behalf.
Furthermore, I wasn't undertaking them (which implies an illegal action by me). I was at that point using the cycle lane which continues straight on.
He made a massive mistake and thankfully he didn’t do any damage to you. He also realised his mistake and apologised to you. I don’t know what more you wanted or expected.
Going up to him as he was parking or turning or whatever was a dick move and yes he should have stopped but it seems to me like you seek confrontation and getting in under his wheels was just you looking for trouble
You are shouting at him not to move but you were behind and about to undertake him. Likely you were in a blind spot. I only blame you here.
The reality is, the vast majority of people don't know how to fight, regardless of their footwear
I keep saying it here, but the vast majority of drivers would probably be surprised if you stopped them and said they were too close.
If they didn't hit you, they were far enough away, like any inanimate object they might drive past or around.
On top of that, having a random stranger explain to them that they did somthing wrong, and what that was, is not going to engender some sort of come to God moment about cyclist safety. Most people just get defensive.
"Teaching" them by deliberately delaying them, or whatever other tactic? I can't see how anyone thinks that might make people be more considerate.
People are automatically on the defensive if people challenge them about something, particularly if they are unaware they were in the wrong in the first place.
What did he say to you when he had his arm out the window when you first approached him?
In this instance, I'm not sure I would have bothered following him into the car park. I don't think anything will be gained, at best he might offer some form of an apology, but if you're upset enough to follow him, that's unlikely to assuage anything.
In more general terms, I continually surprised when people put themselves in a position for potential confrontation (this isn't a dig at you, Seth)
Having spent a good portion of my life involved in kickboxing, Brazilian jiu-jitsu and MMA, I'm somewhat aware of what's involved or required when an altercation becomes physical, and at that, I steer clear of anything that could result in a row.
Following someone to where they were parking would fall into that category for me, because if I was followed by someone I didn't know, I'd be preparing myself for it to become physical.
Just my two cents
I get why you followed him, but personally I wouldn't have bothered.
Fact he pulled out shows he didn't give a crap about you, he wasn't going to care what you said sadly.
Foot is fine. My cycling shoe took the weight seemingly without any damage. I remember thinking at teh time that I was going to be brought down. Thankfully it didn't happen.
Before that, he also pinned my tyre down (reckon it was the tyre as the wheel looks fine) but wasn't enough to cause it to blow, thankfully.
Just out of curiosity, what are people's thoughts on this?
I'm annoyed at myself for allowing it to escalate - I shouldn't have followed him into the car park but for him to keep moving his car knowing that I was there? Am I at fault here?
Thoughts?
Some language is NSFW!
We've had cycle lanes albeit unprotected for many years and most drivers still don't check and observe. The behaviour in the video below is normal on my commute. I've resorted to taking the lane along that stretch because some drivers sneak into the bus lane and put the foot right down so that they can get to the junction as soon as possible (and join a queue of traffic).
(language NSFW)
How did you embed that you tube video
ive tried uploading one but it’s just coming in as a link
also tried posting video directly but even though it’s only 32mb tells me it’s failed because over limit of 50mb!
Another from Strawberry Beds, overtaking on a bend against an oncoming cyclist.
Trust me, they haven't the time for playing detective for you. Plus they probably won't want to!
Given your use of the words "most likely" means that if you see a matching car, there is doubt as to whether it is THE car! Plus I reckon the garda that you will be talking to will be too busy or disinterested to play detective and won't want to get involved.
Sharpening isn’t a myth just that the possibilities are dramatically less than what is shown on those cop shows. It is very unlikely to help much.
Do you know if there are any other cameras in the area that might have captured the reg.
Am I correct in thinking that if you edit the video, even just to enhance it, this puts its ability to be used as evidence on shaky ground?
That is insane. I looked at the first pic and didn’t really understand the issue. Then I saw the second one. Holy $hit! I cant help you with the footage, I’m afraid, but if you manage to get it sorted please do report that.
Not a near miss for me, but this morning I was coming up Phibsborough Road to Doyle’s Corner. I look to my right and here’s a guy on a Dublin bike merrily cycling the wrong way up the bollard-protected cycle lane on the other side. He comes to the junction a few seconds after the lights go green for Phibsborough Road, and swings right onto NCR, over to the left side of the road, right in front of a truck coming the other way turning left. Not a bother on the nutter!
