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

Who has Priority here? Almost Fatal Accident

ConorBobFinn13

I use this cycle way almost every morning and never had a major incident until this morning. I was cycling as normal at around 8am. Fully, visible with lights, hi-viz etc. I was coming up to this junction/ entrance to a factory. As I approached the dropped kerb (just past the bollard) a car was approaching from my right at almost exactly the same time. It was unfortunate timing that the both of us were there at the exact same time. I was under the impression that I could just keep cycling as I thought the cycle lane continues and the single broken yellow line meant that drivers could only cross that line if it is safe to do so and if there were no pedestrians or cyclists there. Anyway the car cut me off almost hitting me if I hadn't breaked. Can someone tell me in an area/setup/situation like this who has priority? PS I hope my sketch makes sense. I also have this whole thing captured on my Action Cam.

Find more posts tagged with

Accepted answers

cml387

If I were the driver I would have let you go through the junction (provided I saw you, of course).

As an occasional cyclist I'd also be aware of the possibility of traffic turning into that junction.

And I'm not suggesting that this is so in your case, but the tendency for pedestrians and cyclist to be in a world of their own listening on airpods is a contributory factor

28064212

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119974653#Comment_119974653

Is that what that sign means?

It's not, the poster is incorrect. A white arrow like that on a blue background just means "Keep Right" - it applys to users on the road, not the cycle lane. In this case it's likely to prevent motorists cutting the corner too tightly.

But even though that is an entrance to a factory not a road, am I still at fault?

Completely irrelevant.

Does that single broken yellow line mean you can only drive over it if it is safe to do so?

No, a broken yellow line simply marks the edge of the carriageway.

The most important element here is that the cycle lane is not on the road. If the cycle lane had been part of the road, the motorist would have been required to allow you to proceed before performing their turn. In this case, you are attempting to join the roadway: you must give way to traffic already on the road.

KrisW1001

I’m pretty sure the “keep right” bollard here, circled, is for cyclists (it’s too small for cars, and makes no sense for them, as they are already on the road). In that case, you should not have passed it, and your correct path would be what I marked in dashed blue lines. However, that’s a bit of a mess, as you cannot get from the “cycle lane” onto the road without hopping down over a kerb - there should be a dropped kerb to the right here, just ahead of this bollard. But even so, it is telling you to move right, back onto the road, if you want to pass the junction.

That said, you’re right that as a car driver, I cannot turn left here unless I know the way is clear and it is safe to do so - that’s the general rule. I (the car) am leaving my road, so I automatically lose right of way and can’t continue until it’s safe. Whether or not I am using an indicator doesn’t matter (it’s amazing how many drivers think that just flashing an amber light allows them to leap into a road in front of other people) - I cannot just move if there are other people crossing or coming alongside me, and I should not try to turn until I am sure that any pedestrians or cyclists who could cross my path are not going to try it.

But I think you were also incorrect to assume you could sail through, though. Would you chance this if you were a pedestrian? If not, being on a bike gives you no extra rights (the opposite, in fact). If both you and a car come to the area at the same time, you’re both supposed to stop, and one or other of you can go once you have. The car has to stop anyway to make its turn, so you should have been waved through, but as the path you took meant that you were about to cross traffic, you really should have slowed down and been prepared to stop: I don’t see how you would have right of way in this situation. If the timing was really unlucky, you would have approached the car in the driver’s blind-spot as they made the turn.

If you followed the direction of the keep-right sign, and moved out onto the road, then I think you would definitely have had right of way, because now you’re on the same road as the car, and moving forward, while they need to cross your path in order to leave. The car driver is more likely to have seen you coming up on the inside too, as you’d be in their side-mirror just before they made the turn.

But honestly, “He Had Right Of Way” makes a lousy epitaph. Whenever your path changes or crosses another, It’s best not to assume you automatically retain the right of way just because you are going forwards. When I drive, or walk, I don’t ever leave a path I’m on without being sure I won’t get hit by something else . The same should apply to a cyclist.

JMcL

I think this is yet another example of a rubbish box ticking "cycle lane" that's all too common in this country. They're at best unfriendly, at worst death traps, and almost always poorly maintained.

Most of the similar ones I've seen will have a yield before every junction, there's nothing at all clear in this case, but since you're coming off the pavement, I'd imagine there's a de-facto yield there. Even if you do have right of way, were it me I'd be looking over my shoulder to make sure some bell-end isn't going to left hook you. The driver doesn't get off the hook here either I'd think - they should be sufficiently situationally aware that a) they saw you in the first place - which they should have but humans have a trait of often only seeing what they expect to see, and b) they should expect that you might continue to go straight ahead and make allowances.

Personally I tend to stay on the road where such "cycle lanes" exist. I did try using one for a while, but found it too dangerous as I was having to come to a stop at a series of roundabouts with poor visibility, risking getting t-boned by drivers coming round carrying too much speed, then having to stop/start again in the traffic island in the middle before continuing. On the road you have the same priority as other traffic, no matter how much the Journal commentator brigade might want to protest otherwise, plus you've better visibility as you're less of a peripheral object. I'd really recommend it if you're confident enough on the bike

CramCycle

Weird interpretatins of the law and some wild misunderstanding of it on this thread already.

Start with the facts until the OP puts it up on youtube (you can just drop a link).

The actual layout if the junction is in bits and if there was a fatality there, the council would undoubtedly be brought in as a contributory party by the coroners court due to the lazy half assed job done here. The cycle lane (which according to the signage is actually on the inside, so they weren't even arsed getting the right way round signage up). should be clearly demarcated through the junction as a reminder to road users. The Stop sign on the road at the T junction actually is to far forward for some bizarre reason blocking both pedestrians and cyclists. If the cycle lane is not part of the road way and loses priority it should have a yield sign but this doesn't give a car the right to take the corner if someone is about to cross.

If the motorist was ahead of you and indicated well before the turn then they have the right of way, this does not absolve them of their duty to not proceed when it would endanger them or others. It would leave you partially to blame. If on the other hand they overtook you right before and hooked you, they are fully to blame.

The blue arrow is not telling cyclists to get on the road, it is too stop motorists cutting the corner and to keep out of the cycle lane, pedestrian area. Anyone who thinks it is telling people to join the road before it should hand in their license.

If you could upload it to youtube and share a link it would be easier to see who is at fault but most of this lays with the council and potentially the driver, although I'd always be expecting it and let a roar to wake them up before the corner. A large friendly "Good Morning" to stop tyhem gazing at their phone usually wakes the sleepy early morning motorists up.

All comments

Jim_Hodge

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119977102#Comment_119977102

The cyclist is coming off a path and crossing a road. He had no right to continue straight across without stopping and checking. The cycle path doesn't continue across the entrance to the road.

Mrs Dempsey

I've never saw the gate open but there is (just about) a yield triangle. I unyieldingly cycle to the right of the line demarking the "cycle lane".

https://earth.google.com/web/@52.27396557,-9.7005861,12.67545223a,0d,60y,111.21956605h,85t,0r/data=IhoKFndVbjRSVTUyRlRDdDFwUjVtZS10ZFEQAg

CramCycle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119976801#Comment_119976801

The driver overtook to give 2 seconds to react, you would fail a driving test and have a heap of penalty points if seen by a Garda for that. Your wilful ignorance of both the law and decency. By your reckoning a pedestrian and a cyclist must stop at every driveway. If we want to get really pedantic, the road paint and signage is incorrect but that yellow dashed line is the edge of a carriageway. There is no yield for the cyclist, the motorist should have observed them.

Its actually painful to think some road users think once they get ahead, even at the literal last 2 seconds, they can control the road.

CramCycle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119976876#Comment_119976876

The road signage actually makes it closer to a driveway onto the dual carriageway rather than a road (although it is one). To be honest the council have alot to answer for there. Just so people are clear, a cyclist has to yield if the motorist is ahead and indicates in good time, not if they come past at the last second and cannot complete the maneuver in suitable time. Imagine it was a bus lane rather than a cycle track, do you think that maneuver would have been ok?

Jim_Hodge

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119977748#Comment_119977748

Absurd analogy. A bus lane continues along the roadway. This cycle lane ends before the end of the footpath. It's a "Stop and check before crossing the road" situation. It is not a straight through for cyclists or pedestrians.

chooseusername

The Highway Code in UK changed this year. It now advises that the cyclist going straight ahead, as in this case has right of way, whether on the main highway or cycle lane. They have the same right as a motor vehicle.

micar

Car at fault all day long.

Why motorists think it's OK to go past a cyclist and take an immediate left turn is beyond me.

He/she should have held back and stayed behind you

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119977821#Comment_119977821

whether the cycle lane ends or not is ambiguous, based on the fact that there's no signage to that effect. what is clear is that the motorist has to leave their lane to take the left, and must yield to traffic on their left. they failed to do so.

instead of easing off the gas for a second or two, they passed a cyclist when they knew they were about to turn left across the path of the cyclist. that was either wilful or 'accidental' and neither option says much for the motorist.

but let's take at face value the idea that, as you say, the cycle lane ends before the end of the footpath - once the cyclist proceeds past the supposed end of the cycle lane, they are instantly breaking the law; they're not allowed cycle on a footpath. they should immediately dismount and proceed as a pedestrian. or else hop off the kerb and merge (with no provision for doing so, whether safely designed or not)

again, it's just a lazily designed junction (i say designed, but it's clear no-one 'designed' that, it's an error of omission rather than comission).

tjhook

I think in these cases, the outcome in court generally results in the insured party being held liable for the injured party, regardless of who should have done what. It's not much consolation to either.

I think the cyclist should have held back before entering the road, but if there was a collision there wouldn't be any winners.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119978009#Comment_119978009

An outcome in court would not be biased against someone simply because they are insured.

The bias would be against the person who would be deemed to have posed a greater risk to others. In this scenario, the driver of a large heavy object rather than the vulnerable user. It just so happens that drivers of large heavy objects are legally mandated to hold insurance to cover claims for this very kind of incident.

CramCycle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119977821#Comment_119977821

Where does it end as a matter of interest? Where is the signage for the turn. There isn't even a drop down, there is no yield sign like there is every other place that you are meant to cede right of way. There isn't technically a roadway turn there (there should be). If you want to be a pedant the yellow line should have curved around the turn. So let's focus on the facts, the motorist overtook and left hooked the cyclist, does not matter if he was part of the roadway or not. It's dangerous driving. If you can't see it, then there isn't much point discussing it. Regardless of whether he should have yielded in those two seconds, with no yield sign and no road demarcations, all of that doesn't change the drivers behaviour, which whether you believing was legal or not, was still dangerous.

horse7

Car as priority IMO, pedestrian/cyclist should check before crossing road.

magicbastarder

from the ROTR;

Vehicles do not have an automatic right of way on the road. The overriding rule is, in all circumstances, to proceed with caution.

also

Motorists should watch for cyclists emerging from the end of a cycle track

'should' in the ROTR means that it's general advice, not underpinned by law. but it'd be a nice detail to bring up in case something like this ever went to court.

also from the ROTR:

Turning left from a major road to a minor road

Check your mirrors well in advance for traffic following behind you.

Give a left-turn signal and, when safe, slow down.

Keep as close as you safely can to the left-hand edge of the road, using your mirrors to watch for cyclists or motorcyclists coming up on your left.

the last line - the motorist in the clip didn't even need to check mirrors, they passed the cyclist and then turned left across them.

[Deleted User]

On the other side of the road for cars exiting the factory, the stop line for cars is out way past where it is assumed there is a cycle lane. If there is a cycle lane on that part of the road, why is the stop line that far out?

With no clear markings I would have assumed anyone on the footpath would stop or at least slow down and check the way is clear before ploughing through the crossing. It's what I'd do. I doesn't take much to throw a look over your shoulder, and the cyclist said he had a mirror and did see the car coming.

Mimon

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119974871#Comment_119974871

This would be my philosophy also.

Got marked down in my driving test for stopping on a left turn as a cyclist was belting it down the hill approaching the junction. There was a yield sign for the cyclist on his footpath bike lane but as he was belting it down and didn't look to be slowing I made the judgement that he may not yield and made the decision to stop.

Thought it was a bit unjust to mark me down for this. Only got 3 minors in total so didn't effect the result at least

Spook_ie

ignoring the hyperbole from drivers and cyclists, I would primarily blame the council. If you look back through Google images of the junction you can see how it evolved ( or even devolved ) over a period of time.

2011 You can see the vestiges of the stop line before the footpath, which would have allowed for the painting of a cycle lane across the junction but never was, you can also see what looks like the vestiges of an arrow on the cycle track

2022 The Stop line has been moved, because there is now a solid white line that traffic (including cyclists) must illegally cross or pass slightly to the right of, cue the keep right sign still being there

Which is not the same as the ones in places like Drumcondra

All in all I think we can agree it's a **** show from the council.

What can we conclude, as there is no discernable cycle lane or footpath across the junction pedestrians and cyclists SHOULD look in both directions before they cross.

As per standard RotR IF a pedestrian has begun to cross the road then traffic must yield to the pedestrian at a junction. This should in reality apply to cyclists as well when there is no discernable cycle lane.

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119977847#Comment_119977847

Thats great and welcome, but neither of those scenarios are at play here.

The cycle lane ended at the junction. If your lane ends you dont have any right of way to join or cross another lane.

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119978312#Comment_119978312

If the car jumped the curb to go into the entrance they would have been in the wrong, they didnt. The OP effectively jumped the curb into the roadway after their lane ended.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119978910#Comment_119978910

If you were writing the software for self-driving systems you would have the vehicle stop and wait in those circumstances, I'd have been very annoyed at getting a minor mark for that.

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119978956#Comment_119978956

If you were writing software for a computer cyclist you would have it obey road signs :)

Brendan Bendar

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058275162/who-has-priority-here-almost-fatal-accident

You are dead wrong CB.

I’d suck it up and let it go, dude.

Safe cycling.

Feisar

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119974964#Comment_119974964

If I was in a car I'd be wary of a gobsh*te committing suicide so I would always assume the safe side and wait for them to go.

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119978863#Comment_119978863

again, bad design/maintenance - if you look at the history on google street view, the stop line for cars is before the cycle lane from 2011 to 2021. sometime between Sept 2021 and Aug 2022, the new stop line is painted a metre or two past where it had originally been. which was probably 'accidental' - there was so little of the old line left whoever painted the new one may not have known they were painting it in a different position.

i suspect the junction was 'designed' to have the stop line in the old position. the only maintenance done on the cycle lane that appears in the street view history is that they lifted the old red layer off it as it was badly degraded.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.8701965,-8.4796166,3a,75y,180.88h,56.74t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4dJ7_LkcQUZ9ciCbNBhTSw!2e0!5s20110801T000000!7i13312!8i6656

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119978977#Comment_119978977

I think we'll have fully functioning sentient androids before that was possible, the training models for it don't exist.

Wildly Boaring

And this is why these kind of cycle lanes are only fit for primary school kids.

Out on the road OP and take the lane.

Cycle lane just disappearing for entrance into a factory, typical of coucil engineers without a clue. Driver in the right. So next time look after yourself and save the hassle.

magicbastarder

as mentioned earlier in the thread - that's a fast road i wouldn't fancy cycling on, there's not a lot of wiggle room for drivers to pull out around you if you're on a bike.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119978312#Comment_119978312

If a jogger running up (or down) the hill ran across the junction without looking and ran into the side of a car who would be at fault?

A cyclist is in the exact same position as a jogger or pedestrian at that junction.

Eoinbmw

From the video ye both fecked up and both should cycle/drive more defensibly!

Wildly Boaring

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119979061#Comment_119979061

Ah airport road in cork.

Car has right of way until council sort the junction.

Time to start sending local roads engineer a few emails so.

Hate these useless lanes. Stopping for a bloody factory enterance...

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119979103#Comment_119979103

When they do sort it I suspect a car turning left will still have right of way. They'll just paint a yield triangle before the edge of the footpath to clarify that cyclists should yield to turning traffic (and traffic exiting the junction onto the main road).