Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Who has Priority here? Almost Fatal Accident

Options
12357…11

Answers

  • Options
    #122
    Allinall
    Registered Users Posts: 6,618 ✭✭✭Allinall


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119980439#Comment_119980439

    “Should watch out for” doesn’t in any way imply right of way.

    That needs to be clarified for those that don’t understand.



  • Options
    #123
    Brendan Bendar
    Registered Users Posts: 19,275 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119980439#Comment_119980439

    Andrew if you want to waste peoples time , go right ahead….. the floor is yours.

    Of course motorists should watch out for cyclists, but if cyclists act like idiots then suck it up and admit it.

    Common sense Andrew.



  • Options
    #124
    FishOnABike
    Registered Users Posts: 4,453 ✭✭✭FishOnABike


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119980191#Comment_119980191

    and the cyclist could have eased off the pedals and the car would have been clear of the junction before the cyclist got to it.

    Even then the cyclist should perform a 'Jesus look' over their shoulder approaching the junction and be prepared to yield to traffic that has the right of way.

    Everyone has a responsibility to be observent and avoid a collision if possible but there is a greater responsibility on the person who is in the wrong to do the right thing in the first place and avoid creating the possibility of a collision.



  • Options
    #125
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,363 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119980350#Comment_119980350

    Anything else is just lycra tinted glasses speaking.

    It's off topic but isn't it odd how some people are obsessed with a form of clothing used by people involved in a sport and bizarrely think it is clever if they can intertwine it into an insult.

    The irony is that I'd say the OP (and most people who would use the cycle path we're discussing) are less likely to be sports cyclists!



  • Options
    #126
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,134 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119980386#Comment_119980386

    Did you see this quote from the ROTR

    "Before changing position on the road, cyclists should 'look, signal in good time and look again' to ensure that it is safe to proceed."



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,134 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119980439#Comment_119980439

    "watch" doesnt mean stop or yield or give right of way...



  • Options
    #128
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,835 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119980464#Comment_119980464

    So motorists should watch out for cyclists to be able to see them clearly as they mow them down?

    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119980493#Comment_119980493

    Cyclist wasn't on the road.



  • Options
    #129
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,835 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119980474#Comment_119980474

    Thanks for your permission to post, you're too kind, really.

    Common sense would suggest that if you just passed out a cyclist two seconds ago, you shouldn't be too surprised when he reappears on your inside. You're supposed to check that a junction is clear before you enter it.



  • Options
    #130
    Jim_Hodge
    Registered Users Posts: 10,561 ✭✭✭✭Jim_Hodge


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119980589#Comment_119980589

    Cyclist most certainly was on the road. He had passed the cycle path. How can you not see this?

    A waste of time discussing any further as it's just repetitive attempts to get the last word, be it correct or not. So, all yours...



  • Options
    #131
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,835 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119980622#Comment_119980622

    How could he have "changed position on the road" when he was on the cycle lane?



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Allinall
    Registered Users Posts: 6,618 ✭✭✭Allinall


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119980589#Comment_119980589

    Who was mowed down?



  • Options
    #133
    Sono Topolino
    Registered Users Posts: 456 ✭✭Sono Topolino


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119977723#Comment_119977723

    The cyclist did not have the right of way here as he was not cycling in the road. As he was not cycling on the road, the driver did not "overtake" - he drove normally on the road. In any case, it is not permitted to cycle to the left of traffic that had indicated its intention to turn left. The left turning traffic that has assumed the primary position has priority. So whatever way you cut it, the rules of the road are clear that he did not have the right of way. Again, nowhere in the rules of the road does it state that I, as a driver, am obliged to assume that cyclists who are not even on the road are cycling recklessly. I am a driver, not a mind reader.



  • Options
    #134
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,133 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    In any case, it is not permitted to cycle to the left of traffic that had indicated its intention to turn left.

    whatever else about what you posted, that is comical. the motorist had indicated (presumably!) *before* they reached the cyclist. the motorist indicated, then (barely) passed the cyclist and turned left. trying to apply your logic here would legalise left hooks.

    the law you are referring to is intended for cyclists who are cycling in slow moving traffic, moving more slowly than they are, and it is not relevant here.


    if you think that a thought process of 'oh, there's a cyclist ahead who i'm about to turn left across, i'd better be careful' is akin to mind reading, you have a very strange definition of mind reading. your first responsibility as a motorist (and indeed as any form of traffic) is caution and avoidance of collisions. arguments about priority and right of way are secondary to that.



  • Options
    #135
    Sono Topolino
    Registered Users Posts: 456 ✭✭Sono Topolino


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119979178#Comment_119979178

    Cars turning left have the right of way by default if the cyclist does not assume the primary position. This does not give a motorist the right to drive recklessly, but if the cyclist isn't even on the road then the idea that a driver shouldn't turn left until the cyclist has cleared a crossing it hasn't even entered is completely absurd.



  • Options
    #136
    kirk.
    Registered Users Posts: 4,957 ✭✭✭kirk.


    Rules are rules but if you're cycling you should be protecting yourself

    Law is no use if you're lying in hospital drivers do stupid **** so you'd stop at the edge of footpath



  • Options
    #137
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,835 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119980686#Comment_119980686

    Why do you think the ROTR tells motorists to watch out for cyclists?



  • Options
    #138
    Sono Topolino
    Registered Users Posts: 456 ✭✭Sono Topolino


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119980722#Comment_119980722


    The law does not apply to slow moving traffic only. It applies to all instances of cyclists attempting to pass by traffic that has indicated its intention to turn left, and is intended to prevent the exact situation OP experience. By all means cycle to the left of traffic (on a cycle lane or otherwise) but do not assume that you have priority on traffic turning to the left. Again, this is no excuse for dangerous driving but as the late great Richard Grogan said "that's the law and that's a fact".



  • Options
    #139
    Jim_Hodge
    Registered Users Posts: 10,561 ✭✭✭✭Jim_Hodge


    image.png

    .........



  • Options
    #140
    Brendan Bendar
    Registered Users Posts: 19,275 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119980748#Comment_119980748

    Stop trying to waste peoples time, dude.

    This has been discussed with and dealt with several posts previous to this.



  • Options
    #141
    PeaSea
    Registered Users Posts: 667 ✭✭✭PeaSea


    If I was walking across that junction I'd stop and check behind for cars turning. Why is it any different on a cycle ?



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    Sono Topolino
    Registered Users Posts: 456 ✭✭Sono Topolino


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119980767#Comment_119980767

    Exactly. A segregated cycle lane such as the one OP was on is not even a "lane" for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act.



  • Options
    #143
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,835 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119980759#Comment_119980759

    The cyclist wasn't attempting to pass anything. The driver had his left indicator on BEFORE he passed the cyclist. You don't get to claim priority over traffic on your left by passing them with your indicator on. Would you be ok with me cutting you up on the motorway, once I pass you with my indicator on?



  • Options
    #144
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,835 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119980781#Comment_119980781

    If you were driving and you had just passed a cyclist one second earlier, would you stop and give way?



  • Options
    #145
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,835 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119980775#Comment_119980775

    Ok, I'll answer then, if you're too embarrassed to answer. The reason for telling motorists to watch out for cyclists at the end of cycle lanes like this is so that motorists will avoid hitting, or nearly hitting cyclists.



  • Options
    #146
    FishOnABike
    Registered Users Posts: 4,453 ✭✭✭FishOnABike


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119980849#Comment_119980849

    From the video, in this instace it would appear the cyclist would have hit the car, not the other way around.



  • Options
    #147
    Brendan Bendar
    Registered Users Posts: 19,275 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119980849#Comment_119980849

    Not embarrassed in the slightest, your posts are the embarrassment.

    Trying to defend the indefensible.



  • Options
    #148
    Allinall
    Registered Users Posts: 6,618 ✭✭✭Allinall


    I’m still trying to find out who was mowed down.

    Not even just hit, but mowed down.



  • Options
    #149
    PeaSea
    Registered Users Posts: 667 ✭✭✭PeaSea


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119980829#Comment_119980829

    Maybe. What's that got to do with doing the same thing as a pedestrian ? Also, was there anything behind the car that would have made it dangerous for him to essentially stop on the road with nothing in front of him ?



  • Options
    #150
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,652 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Lol, for all the talk about the junction, for the pedants here. That broken yellow line indicates the edge of a carriageway. There is no marking indicating the end of a cycle track or even a yield. I'm surprised the NCBI wouldn't kick up a fuss at those junction markers. The fact the yellow lines continue and don't go around the corner actually indicates it is not a roadway but something akin to a driveway. Now this is clearly a mistake by the road engineer after they done work there over a year ago, but the cycle lane does not end, in fact, to be a pedant, it may not even exist as the signage is incorrect. So there are so many errors in the road markings that no one here is or could be right. Taking that aside, do any of you think, regardless of your vehicle or if your just a pedestrian, that the driving was safe or acceptable. Forget the right of way, is it good or safe driving? Simple question. I've been driving years, regardless of whether I felt he should yield or not, I wouldn't have went for it. Yes the cycling leaves alot to be desired (sorry but IMO those rear view mirrors on bikes are not as good as a head turn for multiple reasons) but that doesn't give me, as a motorist, carte blanche to plough on regardless and anyone who thinks it does needs some serious conversations with a psychiatrist. I drive alot, pillocks with head phones stepping out at junctions all the time but that doesn't mean I can carry on as if they were not there. I see cyclists acting like prats, do I carry on as I had (and had is the word) right of way. Of course not, I might shake my head, roll my eyes or if dangerously close wake them up with the horn to stop them hitting me (I've actually had people walk into me as I stopped at a red light on occasion). It's actually frightening if this were anything but a discussion.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,133 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119980759#Comment_119980759

    Whatever you're talking about, it has nothing to do with the situation in hand. The OP had not 'passed by' the motorist in the clip posted; the motorist passed by the cyclist, having seen them and turned left across them.

    You're attempting to try to legally justify a left hook but are misapplying the law.


    Anyway, probably worth noting that of the two people involved in the clip, it was the cyclist who had enough wits about them to avoid a collision. The motorist had proceeded past the point they could have avoided it.



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement