Turning left in car with cyclist behind you

magicbastarder · 25-07-2019 10:23am

Spook_ie wrote: »

Well maybe the fact that so many drivers and cyclists don't know the difference between RRM022 and 023 or have even heard of the 2012 Statutory Instrument would seem to blow that theory out of the water.

I know it's kinda nitpicking but it's also not - knowing the ROTR and knowing specific SIs are two separate things. You're tested on the ROTR, not on knowledge of legal instruments.

Tombo2001 · 25-07-2019 10:32am

magicbastarder wrote: »

I know it's kinda nitpicking but it's also not - knowing the ROTR and knowing specific SIs are two separate things. You're tested on the ROTR, not on knowledge of legal instruments.

One point and I also know its nit picking :

The driving test - from what I remember - is primarily a test of driving.

Can you parallel park
Can you turn right
Can you operate the steering wheel correctly
Do you look in the mirror appropriately

The oral test mainly relates to cars and parking:
When do you dip your lights
When do you use the hard shoulder
What is the minimum thread depth

http://erneschoolofmotoring.com/driving-test-cavan.html

Banging on about cyclists 'not knowing the rules of the road'

I think most people know at this point that a red light means stop.

What are these complex obscure rules that cyclists are not aware of.

Give an example of one.

The are rules that are routinely breach by cyclists, by drivers, by pedestrians:

Such as this one (Drivers) -
Some cycle tracks are bordered by a continuous white line on the right-hand
side. These are only for bicycles and motorised wheelchairs, so no other drivers
may use them or park in them.

Or indeed this one (Cyclists) -
At night you must carry a lamp showing a white or yellow light to the
front and a lamp showing a red light to the back. These are the minimum
lighting requirements laid down by law.

But that's ignoring the rules, rather than not knowing the rules.

Spook_ie · 25-07-2019 10:47am

magicbastarder wrote: »

I know it's kinda nitpicking but it's also not - knowing the ROTR and knowing specific SIs are two separate things. You're tested on the ROTR, not on knowledge of legal instruments.

The rules of the road are taken from the SIs, the rules of the road do include knowledge of road markings, RSA needs to update the RotR to include new legislation, failing to do so is an abdication of their responsibilities.

meeeeh · 25-07-2019 10:49am

I don't drive often in Dublin (I don't need to) but I was to Mater a few times in last few months. I actually saw some of the worst driving and parking behaviour on roads in a long time there. There was some pretty poor cyclist and driver behaviour. That was not done by people not knowing ror it was people driving dangerously. Revant for this thread a driver just suddenly decided to turn left, didn't look or indicate, cut on the cycling track and completely squeezed the cyclist in their blind spot. Also everyone knows cycling track is not for parking and yet every one does it. All you need is tickets for parking in wrong spot to be issued to the whole row of cars and it will eventually stop.

No one knows all the minuscule rules but if people just stuck to most obvious ones you could avoid many of the incidents.

evolving_doors · 25-07-2019 10:58am

If a cyclist isnt able to stop in time then they're going too fast. Whether the car even indicated or not.

Besides that I'd still let the cyclist undertake me if they were going too fast. But I'm not waiting all flipping day just to be nice. It's like holding the door for someone when you go in first, if they're a certain distance away then that's your cut off point.
Everyone's cut off point is different.

Also I've seen a cyclist zoom up the inside left and go flying because a passenger opened the door to get out. Sure it's probably the passengers fault but that's little comfort to the cyclist with a broken collar bone.

Stark · 25-07-2019 10:59am

evolving_doors wrote: »

If a cyclist isnt able to stop in time then they're going too fast. Whether the car even indicated or not.

:rolleyes:

So if I was to swerve in front of you while you were driving without looking or indicating, it would be "your fault" for driving too fast? Get real.

evolving_doors wrote:

Also I've seen a cyclist zoom up the inside left and go flying because a passenger opened the door to get out. Sure it's probably the passengers fault but that's little comfort to the cyclist with a broken collar bone.

Correct, it's the passenger's fault.

meeeeh · 25-07-2019 11:03am

evolving_doors wrote: »

If a cyclist isnt able to stop in time then they're going too fast. Whether the car even indicated or not.

That's like saying the car in the other lane was going too fast and that's why you crashed into them changing lane. It's up to the driver turning to check if someone is in their blind spot, not just look into the mirrors, that is basic requirement when driving (and one of main reasons why people failed driving test when I was learning to drive.)

And by the way the cyclist was going very slowly and was able to stop but that was seriously bad and dangerous driving.

evolving_doors · 25-07-2019 11:04am

Stark wrote: »

:rolleyes:

So if I was to swerve in front of you while you were driving without indicating, it would be "your fault" for driving too fast? Get real.

Dunno what your saying here so you'll need to clarify.

What would it matter to you or me if you were in front and I wasnt indicating? What's the outcome of this imaginary scenario, has someone been injured?
If you go in front of me then grand, drive on!

meeeeh · 25-07-2019 11:08am

evolving_doors wrote: »

Dunno what your saying here so you'll need to clarify.

What would it matter to you or me if you were in front and I wasnt indicating? What's the outcome of this imaginary scenario, has someone been injured?
If you go in front of me then grand, drive on!

What you are advocating here is just bad driving. You are supposed to indicate well in advance, not assume people will read your mind and check you mirrors and blind spots.

Stark · 25-07-2019 11:11am

evolving_doors wrote: »

Dunno what your saying here so you'll need to clarify.

What would it matter to you or me if you were in front and I wasnt indicating? What's the outcome of this imaginary scenario, has someone been injured?
If you go in front of me then grand, drive on!

Try reading the post you replied to again. You wouldn't consider it okay to change lanes without looking or indicating on a motorway and nearly causing a crash so why is it okay to do it to a cyclist?

evolving_doors · 25-07-2019 11:16am

meeeeh wrote: »

That's like saying the car in the other lane was going too fast and that's why you crashed into them changing lane. It's up to the driver turning to check if someone is in their blind spot, not just look into the mirrors, that is basic requirement when driving (and one of main reasons why people failed driving test when I was learning to drive.).

Sure ya it's up to the driver to be considerate and check, but it's also up to the cyclist to assume they don't. If they don't know if the person isn't going to turn left or not they need to slow down and go at an appropriate speed. Anytime I cycle and I see a left turn coming up and I'm going straight I always slow down and don't presume that just cos they don't indicate that it means they aren't going left.

meeeeh wrote: »

And by the way the cyclist was going very slowly and was able to stop but that was seriously bad and dangerous driving.

I dunno what the 'dangerous driver' did or didn't see, maybe they checked and there was a blind spot or maybe they just didn't look and take due regard. But everyone has to assume that the driver WILL turn left without indicating.

Who's at fault? I dunno I think we'd need to assess the exact distance the bike was away from the car (at back left bumper... Or 2 car lengths away). And even then we all have our degrees of personal space.

Stark · 25-07-2019 11:19am

evolving_doors wrote: »

Who's at fault? I dunno I think we'd need to assess the exact distance the bike was away from the car (at back left bumper... Or 2 car lengths away). And even then we all have our degrees of personal space.

I know. The driver was at fault.

I think we'd need to assess the exact distance the bike was away from the car (at back left bumper... Or 2 car lengths away). And even then we all have our degrees of personal space.

completely squeezed the cyclist in their blind spot.

Sounds pretty close to me.

evolving_doors · 25-07-2019 11:19am

Stark wrote: »

Try reading the post you replied to again. You wouldn't consider it okay to change lanes without looking or indicating on a motorway and nearly causing a crash so why is it okay to do it to a cyclist?

I'm not saying it is ok (read my posts again). If I'm going down a motorway and approaching with a car on my right (as we assume the cyclist was) then I need to slow down and take due regard. That's why undertaking is bad.

Are you maintaining that on the motorway both cars are moving at the same speed? You'll need to be specific.

Stark · 25-07-2019 11:23am

evolving_doors wrote: »

You'll need to be specific.

No I don't. There's no need for me to have to explain why changing road position without looking or indicating is bad. It's up to you to re-familiarise yourself with the RotR and basic driving practices.

evolving_doors · 25-07-2019 11:24am

Stark wrote: »

I know. The driver was at fault.

An indication is simply that, it's not a contract.
I know I'm being a bit George Hookish but what do some cyclists expect when they need an indication to know whether to slow down or not. If they can't adjust their speed then they are going too fast.

But ya go ahead and zoom up the inside undertaking all the way and then blame the driver while you're on your hospital bed out of work for weeks and have a lifelong injury.

meeeeh · 25-07-2019 11:26am

evolving_doors wrote: »

Sure ya it's up to the driver to be considerate and check, but it's also up to the cyclist to assume they don't. If they don't know if the person isn't going to turn left or not they need to slow down and go at an appropriate speed. Anytime I cycle and I see a left turn coming up and I'm going straight I always slow down and don't presume that just cos they don't indicate that it means they aren't going left.

I dunno what the 'dangerous driver' did or didn't see, maybe they checked and there was a blind spot or maybe they just didn't look and take due regard. But everyone has to assume that the driver WILL turn left without indicating.

Who's at fault? I dunno I think we'd need to assess the exact distance the bike was away from the car (at back left bumper... Or 2 car lengths away). And even then we all have our degrees of personal space.

It's not about being inconsiderate it's about basic driving skills. Turning right requires you to indicate and check your blind spot. No ifs buts or maybes.

Btw this didn't happen in Ireland but my almost 70 years old mum wasstopped for not indicating correctly in the roundabout, fined and breathalyzed (she was completely sober). While I think that was a bit overly eager policing you can't behave like a complete moron in junctions.

Stark · 25-07-2019 11:28am

evolving_doors wrote:

An indication is simply that, it's not a contract.
I know I'm being a bit George Hookish but what do some cyclists expect when they need an indication to know whether to slow down or not. If they can't adjust their speed then they are going too fast.

But ya go ahead and zoom up the inside undertaking all the way and then blame the driver while you're on your hospital bed out of work for weeks and have a lifelong injury.

And by the way the cyclist was going very slowly and was able to stop but that was seriously bad and dangerous driving.

You're not great at this whole reading lark are you?

Going back to motorway driving, if you were in the overtaking lane overtaking someone and the driver you're overtaking decides at the last minute he wants to change lane and pulls in front of you while you're in his blind spot without indicating, who is in the wrong? Him for changing lanes without looking or indicating or you for driving too fast?

evolving_doors · 25-07-2019 11:29am

Stark wrote: »

No I don't. There's no need for me to have to explain why changing road position without looking or indicating is bad. It's up to you to re-familiarise yourself with the RotR and basic driving practices.

The rules of the road book are just guidelines, not laws. Each case on its own merits.

And actually I have been behind a car who was in the right lane of a motorway who cut in without indicating.

What did I do??

I slowed down, because I was able too and I wadnt going to fast, and I assume every car will always cut in without indicating. So I drive accordingly.

If you are going behind someone and at the same speed in the left lane then there's something wrong with that situation from the outset. (That's assuming there are no other cars in front).

Stark · 25-07-2019 11:31am

The rules of the road book are just guidelines, not laws. Each case on its own merits.

Good luck trying that line on a traffic cop.

evolving_doors · 25-07-2019 11:31am

Stark wrote: »

You're not great at this whole reading lark are you?

Going back to motorway driving, if you were in the overtaking lane overtaking someone and the driver you're overtaking decides at the last minute he wants to change lane and pulls in front of you while you're in his blind spot without indicating, who is in the wrong? Him for changing lanes without looking or indicating or you for driving too fast?

Hold on, if someone cuts in from the left lane while you are overtaking then it's obvious they are going faster than you. Something wrong there... Slow down and see what they're at, no need to be a martyr for being first!

Stark · 25-07-2019 11:34am

evolving_doors wrote: »

Hold on, if someone cuts in from the left lane while you are overtaking then it's obvious they are going faster than you. Something wrong there... Slow down and see what they're at, no need to be a martyr for being first!

Okay. You're going on my ignore list. Your reading comprehension skills are just way too poor for you to be worth arguing with.

evolving_doors · 25-07-2019 11:34am

Stark wrote: »

Good luck trying that line on a traffic cop.

I will never need to and don't hang on whether someone will be indicating or not. I assume everyone doesn't bother to indicate when they should and drive accordingly. Ya sure they should indicate but I doubt you could report not indicating to a traffic cop as careless/dangerous driving.

Somedaythefire · 25-07-2019 11:35am

As a cyclist, I always slow down for the car. They're bigger and would cause a lot more damage to me, than me to them. It can cause an awkward couple of moments where I slow down for the car, but the car slows for me as well. I'm quite a defensive cyclist though. There are a few nutcases out there inside their cars.

evolving_doors · 25-07-2019 11:36am

Stark wrote: »

Okay. You're going on my ignore list. Your reading comprehension skills are just way too poor for you to be worth arguing with.

Well if that's your only reply then your argument falls down and your scenario given is at best wishy washy.

evolving_doors · 25-07-2019 11:39am

Somedaythefire wrote: »

As a cyclist, I always slow down for the car. They're bigger and would cause a lot more damage to me, than me to them. It can cause an awkward couple of moments where I slow down for the car, but the car slows for me as well.

Exactly, this was my point. You drive/cycle accordingly and don't assume that the person will indicate.

So... Would you say the driver is 100% at fault. Or is it a shared responsibility with grey areas in between

Somedaythefire · 25-07-2019 11:43am

evolving_doors wrote: »

Exactly, this was my point. You drive/cycle accordingly and don't assume that the person will indicate.

So... Would you say the driver is 100% at fault. Or is it a shared responsibility with grey areas in between

Driver is at fault, yes. If they aren't aware of their surroundings, they're going to cause accidents. But I'm still not taking the chance, personally.

Lord Nikon · 25-07-2019 11:55am

If you are well ahead of the cyclist then yes it's save to turn left before they get to the junction, However, the speed of the cyclist may remain constant, while the motorist is slowing down to turn left, and with that the cyclist actually gains on the motorist, thus minimizing the distance between the two. This makes it more difficult to make the turn without causing an obstruction for the cyclist.

Markcheese · 25-07-2019 1:04pm

And how many check their blind spot when crossing over a bike lane (or turn across one), I know I've been guilty on occasion...

evolving_doors · 25-07-2019 1:29pm

Lord Nikon wrote: »

If you are well ahead of the cyclist then yes it's save to turn left before they get to the junction, However, the speed of the cyclist may remain constant, while the motorist is slowing down to turn left, and with that the cyclist actually gains on the motorist, thus minimizing the distance between the two. This makes it more difficult to make the turn without causing an obstruction for the cyclist.

At the same time though it's incumbent on the cyclist to notice the speed of the car so they should slow down.

07Lapierre · 25-07-2019 1:31pm

Lord Nikon wrote: »

If you are well ahead of the cyclist then yes it's save to turn left before they get to the junction, However, the speed of the cyclist may remain constant, while the motorist is slowing down to turn left, and with that the cyclist actually gains on the motorist, thus minimizing the distance between the two. This makes it more difficult to make the turn without causing an obstruction for the cyclist.

In that situation, the cyclist should anticipate the car will turn left (assuming the cars indicators are on and the brake lights come on?) and the cyclist should plan* to move out into the middle of the lane and pass the car on the right as the car is turning left.

* By plan i mean look behind and if it's clear signal their intention to move.

meeeeh · 25-07-2019 1:42pm

07Lapierre wrote: »

In that situation, the cyclist should anticipate the car will turn left (assuming the cars indicators are on and the brake lights come on?) and the cyclist should plan* to move out into the middle of the lane and pass the car on the right as the car is turning left.

* By plan i mean look behind and if it's clear signal their intention to move.

How that does work when car crosses segregated cycling line? It's a genuine question because as said previously where I passed my exam the cyclist would have the right of way if there is a cycle lane.

Seth Brundle · 25-07-2019 2:06pm

meeeeh wrote: »

How that does work when car crosses segregated cycling line? It's a genuine question because as said previously where I passed my exam the cyclist would have the right of way if there is a cycle lane.

I pass by a new one each day on the junction of Nangor Rd and Adamstown Rd.
The footpath is dual path and cycle path. However, the cycle path merges with the road at the junctions (and is painted a different colour).
At this junction (from Canal to Newcastle), you have cycle path (for turning left and going straight, then you have a normal traffic lane that turns left (effectively crossing the cycle route going straight ahead. On the right then you've a traffic lane for going straight.
The cyclist would have priority but that's no use when there's an artic to your right with a flashing indicator!

I'll try and get a photo of the junction for reference (too new for Google Maps).

beauf · 25-07-2019 2:29pm

meeeeh wrote: »

How that does work when car crosses segregated cycling line? It's a genuine question because as said previously where I passed my exam the cyclist would have the right of way if there is a cycle lane.

If the cyclist ignores the driver and goes up the inside it's undertaking. Which is a dumb thing to do.

If the driver is far enough ahead to cross into the cycling lane with causing you to emergency brake then they are simply in front.

If you leave space for left turning car to turn left then that makes everything work smoothly and safely. Facilitating your fellow road users so that it avoids conflict is simple courtesy and good road etiquette.

Seth Brundle · 25-07-2019 2:43pm

beauf wrote: »

If the cyclist ignores the driver and goes up the inside it's undertaking. Which is a dumb thing to do.

If the driver is far enough ahead to cross into the cycling lane without causing you to emergency brake then they are simply in front.

If you leave space for left turning car to turn left then that makes everything work smoothly and safely. Facilitating your fellow road users so that it avoids conflict is simple courtesy and good road etiquette.

I presume you meant to say "without"?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 25-07-2019 3:11pm

evolving_doors wrote: »

If a cyclist isnt able to stop in time then they're going too fast. Whether the car even indicated or not.

What an idiotic statement.

You clearly do not know the rotr. It's the drivers responsibility to make sure they can make the turn in due time. It has been cited over and over again, yet somehow you have ignored the facts and blame the cyclist for not breaking in time? did you see the video I posted a few pages back? Who was in the right in the first clip?

Besides that I'd still let the cyclist undertake me if they were going too fast. But I'm not waiting all flipping day just to be nice. It's like holding the door for someone when you go in first, if they're a certain distance away then that's your cut off point.
Everyone's cut off point is different.

Also I've seen a cyclist zoom up the inside left and go flying because a passenger opened the door to get out. Sure it's probably the passengers fault but that's little comfort to the cyclist with a broken collar bone.

It is the passengers fault. You are victim blaming here. There's nothing the cyclist did wrong, regardless of your false perceptions

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 25-07-2019 3:15pm

beauf wrote: »

If the cyclist ignores the driver and goes up the inside it's undertaking.

No it's not. Not in the same sense that a car undertakes. The cyclist should be free to proceed and the driver turning left should stop.

Ireland is far far too car centric. Bicycles should always have the right of way when going forward and should only proceed with their turn when safe to do so.

meeeeh · 25-07-2019 3:43pm

Dominique Fresh Tween wrote: »

No it's not. Not in the same sense that a car undertakes. The cyclist should be free to proceed and the driver turning left should stop.

Ireland is far far too car centric. Bicycles should always have the right of way when going forward and should only proceed with their turn when safe to do so.

No not always. But for me if there is a separate cycle line that you need to cross then it's up to driver to wait for traffic to clear. If they are both on the same lane than whoever is in front should have the right of way.

I have no problem with stopping and letting car by but this kind of situation shouldn't be left to whatever someone is prepared to do.

07Lapierre · 25-07-2019 4:10pm

meeeeh wrote: »

How that does work when car crosses segregated cycling line? It's a genuine question because as said previously where I passed my exam the cyclist would have the right of way if there is a cycle lane.

Cars shouldnt cross segregated bike lanes? I know they do but as a cyclist you'd have no option but to take evasive action to avoid a collision with the car?

Self preservation trumps right of way?

meeeeh · 25-07-2019 4:14pm

07Lapierre wrote: »

Cars shouldnt cross segregated bike lanes? I know they do but as a cyclist you'd have no option but to take evasive action to avoid a collision with the car?

Self preservation trumps right of way?

I get that but what is in the rules of the road? Does the car have a right of way in junctions turning left despite cycling lane and cyclists going straight? I'm just curious.

Stark · 25-07-2019 4:25pm

Well you're expected to yield to pedestrians who are crossing when turning onto a side street so I imagine the same principle applies.

07Lapierre · 25-07-2019 4:25pm

meeeeh wrote: »

I get that but what is in the rules of the road? Does the car have a right of way in junctions turning left despite cycling lane and cyclists going straight? I'm just curious.

I don't have a definitive answer on that one, but this is Ireland. We are a carcentric country and my guess is if this went to court, the car/motorist would win. The cyclists would be found to be at fault is some way or another.

Lord Nikon · 25-07-2019 4:33pm

As someone who has driven and cycled in the city, regardless of whether I am in the right or not, I tell myself that whatever happens, be safe. It is all well and good being in the right, but who is cgoing to come out of it worse, me on a bike or someone driving a car/van/truck/bus?

beauf · 25-07-2019 6:06pm

beauf wrote: »

If the cyclist ignores the driver and goes up the inside it's undertaking. Which is a dumb thing to do.

If the driver is far enough ahead to cross into the cycling lane withOUT causing you to emergency brake then they are simply in front.

If you leave space for left turning car to turn left then that makes everything work smoothly and safely. Facilitating your fellow road users so that it avoids conflict is simple courtesy and good road etiquette.

Dominique Fresh Tween wrote: »

No it's not. Not in the same sense that a car undertakes. The cyclist should be free to proceed and the driver turning left should stop.

Ireland is far far too car centric. Bicycles should always have the right of way when going forward and should only proceed with their turn when safe to do so.

You are thinking about this wrong. Both from a legal and a safety point of view. You are thinking that having right of way, makes something safe.
But undertaking will never be safe in certain situations. So the dogma of "right of way" is dangerously flawed.

(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.”,

JustAThought · 25-07-2019 6:12pm

Just cos you're bigger and sitting inside and safer dosn't give you the right to mash some poor cyclist . You may only turn either left or right after you have indicated, and checked that you have a clear safe way to progress. Driving oversomeone doan't make it safe for you or them-plus you have might and power on your sode and with thos comes more responsibility not to crush and maim. Google that idiot pedestrian who was walking aling the wrong sode of the road,zig zagging, in the dark, pissex with no footpath on the arong sode of the road rentlently. He did everything wrong but the judge ruled in favour of a 1.8 million settlement /payout for him because he was mashed and the driver - although in the right in every way - was in a car. Precedent.

Spook_ie · 25-07-2019 6:23pm

beauf wrote: »

If the cyclist ignores the driver and goes up the inside it's undertaking. Which is a dumb thing to do.

If the driver is far enough ahead to cross into the cycling lane with causing you to emergency brake then they are simply in front.

If you leave space for left turning car to turn left then that makes everything work smoothly and safely. Facilitating your fellow road users so that it avoids conflict is simple courtesy and good road etiquette.

Dominique Fresh Tween wrote: »

No it's not. Not in the same sense that a car undertakes. The cyclist should be free to proceed and the driver turning left should stop.

Ireland is far far too car centric. Bicycles should always have the right of way when going forward and should only proceed with their turn when safe to do so.

See what I mean, though the legislation has been linked to and highlighted, there are still people on this thread that don't know the law. Is it the RSA's fault or someone else's fault?

Spook_ie · 25-07-2019 6:27pm

meeeeh wrote: »

I get that but what is in the rules of the road? Does the car have a right of way in junctions turning left despite cycling lane and cyclists going straight? I'm just curious.

Dunno how many times this going to need repeating

SI332/2012
Section on overtaking on the left specifically for cyclists.

“(5)(a) A driver (other than a pedal cyclist) may only overtake on the left—

(i) where the driver of the vehicle about to be overtaken has signalled an intention to turn to the right and the driver of the overtaking vehicle intends, after overtaking, to go straight ahead or turn to the left,

(ii) where the driver of the overtaking vehicle intends, after overtaking, to turn to the left at the next road junction and has signalled this intention, or

(iii) in slow-moving traffic, when vehicles in the traffic lane on the driver’s right are moving more slowly than the overtaking vehicle,

(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.”,

meeeeh · 25-07-2019 6:41pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Dunno how many times this going to need repeating

SI332/2012
Section on overtaking on the left specifically for cyclists.

So does that include segregated cycling track like the one in Phoenix Park for example? Grass is between the road and the track and left (or right) turn cuts accross the cycling track.

I'm well able to read but you reposting the rules does not answer my question.

Spook_ie · 25-07-2019 6:45pm

JustAThought wrote: »

Just cos you're bigger and sitting inside and safer dosn't give you the right to mash some poor cyclist . You may only turn either left or right after you have indicated, and checked that you have a clear safe way to progress. Driving oversomeone doan't make it safe for you or them-plus you have might and power on your sode and with thos comes more responsibility not to crush and maim. Google that idiot pedestrian who was walking aling the wrong sode of the road,zig zagging, in the dark, pissex with no footpath on the arong sode of the road rentlently. He did everything wrong but the judge ruled in favour of a 1.8 million settlement /payout for him because he was mashed and the driver - although in the right in every way - was in a car. Precedent.

Can't find it, more details for google search or a link please.

Spook_ie · 25-07-2019 6:48pm

meeeeh wrote: »

So does that include segregated cycling track like the one in Phoenix Park for example? Grass is between the road and the track and left (or right) turn cuts accross the cycling track.

I'm well able to read but you reposting the rules does not answer my question.

Do you mean like the bit with Stop signs on the track or somewhere else?
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3529618,-6.3086841,3a,60y,202.77h,83.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFkQrDmBGo_3te5mWj56b_A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

meeeeh · 25-07-2019 6:55pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Do you mean like the bit with Stop signs on the track or somewhere else?
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3529618,-6.3086841,3a,60y,202.77h,83.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFkQrDmBGo_3te5mWj56b_A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

So there is the stop there but what is the general rule since you like quoting them? Obviously you are supposed to obey stop sign but can you confirm that all the tracks have stop signs or is tgere a general rule? Since segregated tracks are golden standard one would assume rules would deal with it. (And just to make it clear where I'm coming from the cyclist would have the right of way and that's why I am asking.

Turning left in car with cyclist behind you

Comments