Cyclists, rules of the road, a bit of cop on!

Spook_ie · 09-12-2013 02:06PM

rubadub wrote: »

Every day I see gardai witnessing people on bikes & on foot breaking red lights etc. And the gardai let it go, I doubt its because they think the law breakers are "green", more likely they know what the rules & laws set out to actually prevent. They don't just act the pedantic arsehole and do people on technicalities when their law breaking is often done to increase the safety of them and those around them -or else the law breaking does nothing to increase danger.

I have seen fucking idiots doing this on Grafton street, people cycling at a slow safe pace who were, up until then, in full control, but these "protestors" now put the cyclist and others around them at risk, as they might fall off, great accomplishment!

Ask yourself "why was the law invented", because cycling at a fast pace on a narrow footpath is dangerous, their might not be much room. If you have to "take up room" its an admittance that there is probably plenty of room, and so the upholding of the precious technical law is not too really critical, the type of thing gardai do ignore. I would bet anything most of these protestors jaywalk too, and don't even acknowledge their law breaking.

If there's no cycle lane they shouldn't be cycling in pedestrianised areas.

What signage is present for Grafton Street at the moment?

SI 332/2012 again gives specifics for when and where cyclists may cycle in pedestrianised zones

Jawgap · 09-12-2013 02:07PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Pedestrians shouldn't NEED to be empowered, cyclists should be obeying the laws, end of

I agree, and so should pedestrians, drivers, motorbikers, HGV operators (and their drivers), public transport operators (and their drivers), taxi drivers, utility companies, the Guards, news paper vendors etc etc etc etc etc......

Cyclists are not the only ones out there ignoring, willfully disobeying or exhibiting ignorance of how to safely use the roads.....they're not even in the top five of poor road user behaviour.

My own top five would be
1. Taxi drivers
2. Pedestrians
3. HGV drivers
4. Utility companies
5. Private coach operators

YMMV.........

CramCycle · 09-12-2013 02:15PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

The cyclist was in a lane designated for left turn only, even if the SI didn't apply ( which I believe it would, as being in a left turn lane is an indication / indicator of turning left) the cyclist was still in the wrong for being in the wrong lane, traffic lanes and signage applicable to the lanes apply to cyclists as well

Nope, he was in a STRAIGHT AHEAD or TURN LEFT LANE.

CramCycle · 09-12-2013 02:16PM

I would have put Nissan Micra drivers ahead of anyone else in JawGaps list

seamus · 09-12-2013 02:23PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

The cyclist was in a lane designated for left turn only, even if the SI didn't apply ( which I believe it would, as being in a left turn lane is an indication / indicator of turning left) the cyclist was still in the wrong for being in the wrong lane, traffic lanes and signage applicable to the lanes apply to cyclists as well

Whether he was in the wrong lane is somewhat irrelevant when it comes to the question. If the driver had hit him, the driver would be in the wrong for a failure to yield - because the cyclist was ahead of him.

I think I've had this conversation with you a few times, but on the road one does not forfeit all of your rights because you're in the wrong.
If a taxi driver is parked on a double-yellow line, they're illegally parked, but that doesn't mean if I crash into the back of them, that they're automatically in the wrong.

Viper_JB · 09-12-2013 02:23PM

CramCycle wrote: »

I would have put Nissan Micra drivers ahead of anyone else in JawGaps list

I dunno lots of crazy Yaris drivers, either going way to fast or way to slow for the circumstances.

Spook_ie · 09-12-2013 02:25PM

Jawgap wrote: »

I agree, and so should pedestrians, drivers, motorbikers, HGV operators (and their drivers), public transport operators (and their drivers), taxi drivers, utility companies, the Guards, news paper vendors etc etc etc etc etc......

Cyclists are not the only ones out there ignoring, willfully disobeying or exhibiting ignorance of how to safely use the roads.....they're not even in the top five of poor road user behaviour.

My own top five would be
1. Taxi drivers
2. Pedestrians
3. HGV drivers
4. Utility companies
5. Private coach operators

YMMV.........

they're not even in the top five of poor road user behaviour.

Only in other cyclists views, which is a minority of road users

Jawgap · 09-12-2013 02:26PM

CramCycle wrote: »

I would have put Nissan Micra drivers ahead of anyone else in JawGaps list

Nuns + Yarises = deadly combination.....

........more dangerous than the worst taxi driver on his worst day, being hailed from the far side of a road on the southside of Dublin to go to the airport;)

Jawgap · 09-12-2013 02:31PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Only in other cyclists views, which is a minority of road users

......for now.....

The number of cyclists entering Dublin City has increased 42% over the period 2006 to 2011 (NTA report on the Canal Cordon Count Feb 2012)

Spook_ie · 09-12-2013 02:44PM

CramCycle wrote: »

Nope, he was in a STRAIGHT AHEAD or TURN LEFT LANE.

Yep I'd agree with that picture which puts the original post to this section of the thread in the wrong,

Healy Rae Permit Holder wrote: »

It depends on the layout of the road, i was driving down Dyke Parade and had entered the lane for bachelors quay, there was a cyclist to my left of me, the lights were red and the cyclist was quicker to react and went to cycle on straight instead of turning left, i nearly ran him over had to stop, he should have been to the right of me since he was continuing on Dyke Parade, he was poorly lit too, what would the law be if i had mowed him down that morning?
This happened in Cork City.

But as the Google image is from 2009 is that still the current layout and do the lights have a left filter only phase? Perhaps someone in Cork would verify it

https://maps.google.ie/maps?q=Dyke+Parade,+Cork&hl=en&ll=51.897766,-8.483123&spn=0.000538,0.001206&sll=53.3834,-8.21775&sspn=8.472526,19.753418&oq=Dyke+Parade&t=h&hnear=Dyke+Parade,+Cork,+County+Cork&z=20&layer=c&cbll=51.897766,-8.483123&panoid=8IizNFKG2G4jRteBY3Mq0g&cbp=12,30.94,,0,0
The image used is dated June 2009

Spook_ie · 09-12-2013 02:45PM

Jawgap wrote: »

......for now.....

You'd still be in the minority because as the number of cyclists increase and motorists decrease you'll still be outnumbered by pedestrians and you will still be public enemy #1

Spook_ie · 09-12-2013 02:48PM

seamus wrote: »

Whether he was in the wrong lane is somewhat irrelevant when it comes to the question. If the driver had hit him, the driver would be in the wrong for a failure to yield - because the cyclist was ahead of him.

I think I've had this conversation with you a few times, but on the road one does not forfeit all of your rights because you're in the wrong.
If a taxi driver is parked on a double-yellow line, they're illegally parked, but that doesn't mean if I crash into the back of them, that they're automatically in the wrong.

If you were in the wrong lane and you changed lanes without yielding you would be in the wrong, would seem irrelevant though as CramCycle has a picture indicating that the lane isn't just for left turning

keithclancy · 09-12-2013 02:49PM

chopper6 wrote: »

Push them off is a better way.

No need to be a d!ck.

animaal · 09-12-2013 02:56PM

seamus wrote: »

If the driver had hit him, the driver would be in the wrong for a failure to yield - because the cyclist was ahead of him.

Hmm, this is something I've wondered about before. If a driver is indicating left approaching a junction, and a cyclist is approaching from behind the car, with the intention of going straight ahead, does the same apply? I.e. the bike has to yield because the car is ahead? I have always yielded whether I'm ahead or behind, driving or cycling, because I never know for sure.

Knasher · 09-12-2013 03:03PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

But as the Google image is from 2009 is that still the current layout and do the lights have a left filter only phase? Perhaps someone in Cork would verify it

Passed that way the other day, it hasn't changed. The lights don't have a left only filter phase, they can go red for traffic turning left while green for going straight though, depending on the pedestrian crossing to the left.

Spook_ie · 09-12-2013 03:08PM

seamus wrote: »

Whether he was in the wrong lane is somewhat irrelevant when it comes to the question. If the driver had hit him, the driver would be in the wrong for a failure to yield - because the cyclist was ahead of him.

I think I've had this conversation with you a few times, but on the road one does not forfeit all of your rights because you're in the wrong.
If a taxi driver is parked on a double-yellow line, they're illegally parked, but that doesn't mean if I crash into the back of them, that they're automatically in the wrong.

Not so, picture the situation, the cyclist is ahead of the car, the car is turning left therefore no conflict.

The cyclist is beside the car, the car is turning left, there is a conflict, cause debatable as the cyclist by being in a left turn lane should be turning left as well as the car

Knasher · 09-12-2013 03:08PM

animaal wrote: »

Hmm, this is something I've wondered about before. If a driver is indicating left approaching a junction, and a cyclist is approaching from behind the car, with the intention of going straight ahead, does the same apply? I.e. the bike has to yield because the car is ahead? I have always yielded whether I'm ahead or behind, driving or cycling, because I never know for sure.

If you are in the same lane then the cyclist should yield, undertaking isn't allowed when a driver is indicating. If the cyclist is in their own cycling lane which the driver needs to cross in order to turn left, then as far as I know the driver is meant to yield, though if I were a cyclist in that situation I'd yield anyway, simply because I've seen enough people cut off on those sort of roads.

Spook_ie · 09-12-2013 03:09PM

Knasher wrote: »

Passed that way the other day, it hasn't changed. The lights don't have a left only filter phase, they can go red for traffic turning left while green for going straight though, depending on the pedestrian crossing to the left.

In that case, Healy Rae Permit Holder learn the RotR and watch for road signage

seamus · 09-12-2013 03:36PM

animaal wrote: »

Hmm, this is something I've wondered about before. If a driver is indicating left approaching a junction, and a cyclist is approaching from behind the car, with the intention of going straight ahead, does the same apply? I.e. the bike has to yield because the car is ahead? I have always yielded whether I'm ahead or behind, driving or cycling, because I never know for sure.

This used to be less clear, but the ROTR now states that where a vehicle is indicating left and the cyclist is behind and cannot overtake safely before the left turn, then they must hold back and yield.

There's a bit of a grey area in terms of cycle lanes, i.e. does the car have to yield because they're crossing a cycle lane, or does the cyclist have to yield because the car is turning left? But where there is no cycle lane, it's pretty clear.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Not so, picture the situation, the cyclist is ahead of the car, the car is turning left therefore no conflict.

The cyclist is beside the car, the car is turning left, there is a conflict, cause debatable as the cyclist by being in a left turn lane should be turning left as well as the car

"Should".

You stand up in court and say, "I assumed he was turning", and you'll have the book thrown at you.

If you are approaching a left turn side-by-side with another vehicle, the most sensible thing to do is for the vehicle on the right to fall back and allow the vehicle on the inside to complete the turn, as they may require additional road space on the other side to safely complete the turn.

In this case it's not strictly about who has right of way but about driving with due care and consideration - the vehicle on the inside is more restricted and vulnerable than the vehicle on the outside.
In the event of a collision in a left-only lane, the cyclist could equally be charged with care and attention offences. There would be no winners in such an event.

keithclancy · 09-12-2013 04:03PM

Knasher wrote: »

If you are in the same lane then the cyclist should yield, undertaking isn't allowed when a driver is indicating. If the cyclist is in their own cycling lane which the driver needs to cross in order to turn left, then as far as I know the driver is meant to yield, though if I were a cyclist in that situation I'd yield anyway, simply because I've seen enough people cut off on those sort of roads.

Its pretty stupid to undertake any vehicle when its indicating to turn.

Spook_ie · 09-12-2013 04:04PM

seamus wrote: »

<snipped>
"Should".
You stand up in court and say, "I assumed he was turning", and you'll have the book thrown at you.
If you are approaching a left turn side-by-side with another vehicle, the most sensible thing to do is for the vehicle on the right to fall back and allow the vehicle on the inside to complete the turn, as they may require additional road space on the other side to safely complete the turn.

In this case it's not strictly about who has right of way but about driving with due care and consideration - the vehicle on the inside is more restricted and vulnerable than the vehicle on the outside.
In the event of a collision in a left-only lane, the cyclist could equally be charged with care and attention offences. There would be no winners in such an event.

Hmmm let's see

Cyclist

1 failure to obey traffic signs
2 failure to look before changing lanes/direction
3 failure to indicate
4 failure to yield to a left turning vehicle ( dependent on exact sequence of events )

Motorist

1 Failure to NOT go straight on at a left turn

Yep pretty clear cut

chopper6 · 09-12-2013 04:22PM

rubadub wrote: »

Yeah, like you have really done that, mr. internet tough guy :rolleyes:. If you go pushing kids & old grannies off bikes then expect to get your face kicked in, I can imagine someone beating you if you did what you suggest, while I can't imagine your initial proposed attack happening. If you do it to an person of equal size expect them to beat you, I know who's side a judge or garda would be more likely to take.

Done it many times..i've had my toes clipped by idiots cycling on the path before...they tend not to be "kids and old grannies" either...usually some skinny,half-bearded tool in a pair of cords and an ill-fitting suit jacket.

Never had any major grief from them either...apart from blowhard threats to have me arrested....idiots.

Knasher · 09-12-2013 04:35PM

keithclancy wrote: »

Its pretty stupid to undertake any vehicle when its indicating to turn.

To be fair, it is actually the norm that you have to yield to any traffic that is in the lane you are crossing or merging into. Unfortunately cycle lanes are often not considered as a proper lane in the road. The larger problem isn't undertaking though is that there will always be people who forget to indicate before making a left turn, or who overtake a cyclist and immediately turn left, that latter happens to me so often on normal roads that I've taken to moving into the centre of the lane before certain junctions just so there is not doubt I'm not turning left. I'd imagine it would be much worse on junctions where there is some confusion on who has right of way.

CramCycle · 09-12-2013 04:36PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

The cyclist is beside the car, the car is turning left, there is a conflict, cause debatable as the cyclist by being in a left turn lane should be turning left as well as the car

As below, the car should not attempt to complete the overtake on a corner, ever, its poor driving and a huge lack of foresight, the driver would be destroyed in court by any half decent solicitor.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Motorist

1 Failure to NOT go straight on at a left turn Overtaking on a turn

Yep pretty clear cut

No matter what way you cut it, if the bicycle was turning or not, the car made the mistake. Assumption as they say is the mother of all F ups. Replace the cyclist with a motorcyclist and it remains the same, your overtaking on a corner. If the cyclist was hit, he could claim he was taking the corner wide for his own safety etc. the motorist cannot claim he thinks that the cyclist was turning and that he "should" have had enough space.
Driving 101.

Imagine the cyclist was on the right and decides to turn left, then the car hits him because it was unavoidable, then the cyclist is at fault for the same reasons as above, he should have slotted in behind rather than trying such a silly maneuveur.

Knasher · 09-12-2013 04:36PM

chopper6 wrote: »

Never had any major grief from them either...apart from blowhard threats to have me arrested....idiots.

Hope you get done for assault at some point.

glic71rods46t0 · 09-12-2013 04:55PM

Knasher wrote: »

Hope you get done for assault at some point.

Thats unlikely. Pedestrian v cyclist - the pedestrian is going to be found innocent. Its an interesting strategy. If we all gave RLJ's a push when they try to barge through pedestrians crossing the road then the problem would be solved very quickly!

09-12-2013 05:02PM

chopper6 wrote: »

Done it many times..i've had my toes clipped by idiots cycling on the path before...they tend not to be "kids and old grannies" either...usually some skinny,half-bearded tool in a pair of cords and an ill-fitting suit jacket.

Never had any major grief from them either...apart from blowhard threats to have me arrested....idiots.

lol

you push people cycling on the pavement off their bikes

sure you do

keithclancy · 09-12-2013 05:13PM

Knasher wrote: »

To be fair, it is actually the norm that you have to yield to any traffic that is in the lane you are crossing or merging into. Unfortunately cycle lanes are often not considered as a proper lane in the road. The larger problem isn't undertaking though is that there will always be people who forget to indicate before making a left turn, or who overtake a cyclist and immediately turn left, that latter happens to me so often on normal roads that I've taken to moving into the centre of the lane before certain junctions just so there is not doubt I'm not turning left. I'd imagine it would be much worse on junctions where there is some confusion on who has right of way.

For sure... same rule here in the Netherlands as well.

However I still wouldn't undertake a car while its turning right.

I may have right of way but that doesn't really help when my head is split open and i'm bleeding all over the pavement.

chopper6 · 09-12-2013 05:35PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

lol

you push people cycling on the pavement off their bikes

sure you do

I have shoved them yes...not once did the cyclist actually fall off but I'm hoping it will happen one day.

As an aside...cyclists have no right to cycle on pavements and up pedestrianised streets...I once saw a guy getting a front tooth knocked out after getting creamed by a cyclist on Grafton st...of course the cyclist picked himself up and pissed off as fast as his bone shaker could carry him leaving the pedestrian with a painful and expensive injury.

rubadub · 09-12-2013 06:06PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

If there's no cycle lane they shouldn't be cycling in pedestrianised areas.

Correct, and if there is a red man you should not cross the road. Not sure if you got the point I was making.

Spook_ie wrote: »

What signage is present for Grafton Street at the moment?

I expect you are not allowed cycle on it, I see many safely cycling on it though, as do the gardai who I see ignoring it most of the time, just like jaywalkers. Walking with a bike can be more dangerous as the pedals can be protruding into people walking by.

If I saw some scumbag push a guy off a bike I would expect the gardai to intervene, to do the person assaulting the other.

2 wrongs do not make a right, and in this case 1 of the "wrongs" is far more serious than the other.

As for the "protestors" deliberately standing in their way, -idiots endangering themselves, them and those around them. If people see others running across the road illegally do they block their entry onto the path in the hope they get knocked down?

chopper6 wrote: »

Done it many times..

chopper6 wrote: »

I have shoved them yes...not once did the cyclist actually fall off but I'm hoping it will happen one day.

you never once managed to knock them off, that's pretty pathetic in fairness, your walter mitty hard man act is failing badly. You should easily be able to at least kick a kid or old man off a bike, I know I could.

chopper6 wrote: »

of course the cyclist picked himself up and pissed off as fast as his bone shaker could carry him leaving the pedestrian with a painful and expensive injury.

Yeah, "of course" most people flee the scene of an accident, that's the normal occurrence :rolleyes:

Cyclists, rules of the road, a bit of cop on!

Comments