Undertaking in traffic

is_that_so · 18-02-2020 2:10pm

Madd Finn wrote: »

Just saw this!

FYI this right-turn near miss occurred on the "most dangerous road in the country", according to Gardaí!

Let's be careful out there, guys! It's worse than Hill Street

They should leave the M50 out of that list. It's not actually a dangerous road.
Most are minor tips and down to the huge volumes and inattention.

AndrewJRenko · 18-02-2020 2:12pm

Madd Finn wrote: »

That's exactly the issue, to my mind. It wasn't the fact that the cyclist was overtaking on the left (single lane traffic, no cycle lane, painted or otherwise) which he is entitled to do if the traffic is stationary. It was the speed at which he was travelling in those circumstances.

The motorist was making a legal turn and proceeding as if his way was clear. Which it was until the cyclist materialised at pace from beside a stationary vehicle.

Bottom line: the car stopped. The cyclist couldn't. Who was driving with undue care?

Motorists need to EXPECT to see cyclists cycling inside a line of traffic. It shouldn't come as a big surprise to find a cyclist cycling where cyclists are supposed to be cycling.

Madd Finn · 18-02-2020 2:19pm

CrankyHaus wrote: »

IME if the car goes slow enough they minimise the chance of a collision and most cyclists are very courteous about letting the car pass.

Objectively, that's what happened here (apart from the courtesy bit, of course. There was precious little of that in the subsequent altercation

)

eclipsechaser · 18-02-2020 2:19pm

Madd Finn wrote: »

They were each performing perfectly legal manoeuvres: the cyclist proceeding along a straight road; the motorist making a legitimate right turn.

This is where we disagree.

It's not a legal manoeuvre to take a right if you're going to cross a vehicle which is travelling straight. If you're turning right across a lane and getting in the way of something going straight it is no longer a legitimate right turn.

Speed of turn is irrelevant. Speed of object going straight is irrelevant. Just because it looks clear to turn doesn't mean it is. Here's a good example with 2 cars of why you don't turn unless you're absolutely clear that nothing is coming. If you're not sure, don't make the turn.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWFQN5WeHeM

beauf · 18-02-2020 2:21pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Motorists need to EXPECT to see cyclists cycling inside a line of traffic. It shouldn't come as a big surprise to find a cyclist cycling where cyclists are supposed to be cycling.

Expecting a cyclist is one thing.

But if you are cycling or driving too fast in heavy traffic and congestion you leave no time for people to react.

If you remove the cyclist from the original story and replace it with another lane of cars. Then the driver should expect cars on the inside lane, but also the driver on the inside lane, who see a gap in the traffic opposite a lane way or road, should expect someone might be turning into it. Both should proceed with caution and slowly enough so they can react.

tomasrojo · 18-02-2020 2:29pm

beauf wrote: »

You laugh, but your missing an important consideration about lines of sight, speed etc.

I'm not laughing at you though. It's just a mental connection I have with the word "materialise". You're right about lines of sight and speed. You do have to consider them when there are drivers making conflicting decisions. I don't know though how whose fault it is is decided when a cyclist goes through a yellow box that ony a cycist can go through, and a motorist decides that the box is clear.

eclipsechaser · 18-02-2020 2:31pm

beauf wrote: »

Expecting a cyclist is one thing.

But if you are cycling or driving too fast in heavy traffic and congestion you leave no time for people to react.

If you remove the cyclist from the original story and replace it with another lane of cars. Then the driver should expect cars on the inside lane, but also the driver on the inside lane, who see a gap in the traffic opposite a lane way or road, should expect someone might be turning into it. Both should proceed with caution and slowly enough so they can react.

The onus is 100% on every driver not to turn across the path of another driver.

It's good to drive and cycle defensively and to expect the unexpected. But we should start first with insisting that drivers expect the expected and not pull out in front of vehicles going straight. If they do, they're the ones causing the incident.

CramCycle · 18-02-2020 2:40pm

beauf wrote: »

If you remove the cyclist from the original story and replace it with another lane of cars. Then the driver should expect cars on the inside lane, but also the driver on the inside lane, who see a gap in the traffic opposite a lane way or road, should expect someone might be turning into it. Both should proceed with caution and slowly enough so they can react.

+1

tomasrojo wrote: »

I'm not laughing at you though. It's just a mental connection I have with the word "materialise". You're right about lines of sight and speed. You do have to consider them when there are drivers making conflicting decisions. I don't know though how whose fault it is is decided when a cyclist goes through a yellow box that ony a cycist can go through, and a motorist decides that the box is clear.

Captain: Scotty, two cyclists too beam down.
Scotty: Where should I put them Captain?
Captain: Just before the junction, in a bike path, they should blend in nicely and it is where people would expect them to be.
Scotty: Are you sure Captain, I am not sure blending in is what we want to do here.
Captain: Damn it Scotty, I am the Captain, beam them down.

Later that day. at the funeral of two red shirts in sexy sexy lycra, the captain remarked, if only we had let them wear hi Vis. Scotty was later fired for pointing out the flaw in their plan. Kirk retired early and on full pension to come back as the chairperson of the RSA.

beauf · 18-02-2020 2:44pm

eclipsechaser wrote: »

The onus is 100% on every driver not to turn across the path of another driver.

It's good to drive and cycle defensively and to expect the unexpected. But we should start first with insisting that drivers expect the expected and not pull out in front of vehicles going straight. If they do, they're the ones causing the incident.

I don't disagree that if you are crossing someone elses path, the right of way, you have a greater onus to make sure nothing is approaching.

Madd Finn · 18-02-2020 2:44pm

eclipsechaser wrote: »

This is where we disagree.

It's not a legal manoeuvre to take a right if you're going to cross a vehicle which is travelling straight. If you're turning right across a lane and getting in the way of something going straight it is no longer a legitimate right turn.

Speed of turn is irrelevant. Speed of object going straight is irrelevant. Just because it looks clear to turn doesn't mean it is. Here's a good example with 2 cars of why you don't turn unless you're absolutely clear that nothing is coming. If you're not sure, don't make the turn.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWFQN5WeHeM

Well that movie is from a right-hand drive location so it's not Ireland, but it only goes to show that our country is not the only place in the world where many motorists have no idea how two cars, each attempting to turn right across the other, ought to behave. They should each loop around the other, like dogs sniffing each other's bum, precisely so they can SEE other traffic approaching from either side. Nobody does that in Ireland and it cracks me up.

However, that's a motor on motor issue and not for this cycling forum.

The principle is the same however: you have to be able to SEE what's coming so that you can proceed safely when turning right.

The point about the turn I was talking about is that it IS a dangerous one. It's very hard to see cyclists (and I have both driven and cycled along that route many times). However carefully a car inches into that laneway, it is not going to see an oncoming bicycle until quite late, very late if the cyclist is moving at speed. The motorist has to be able to stop suddenly (jam on the brakes, as has already been mentioned).

Did the car today do so in sufficient time? At the end of the day: yes. There was no collision. Damned angry cyclist though.

18-02-2020 3:28pm

stoneill wrote: »

I don't think I have ever seen a cycle lane go through a bus stop.

Every day is a school day.

I was involved in an incident which is the reverse of the situation being discussed. It took place about 100 yds further on down the road towards town. Car was turning right coming out of the side road on the left (Shamrock Tce) and I was going straight into town. Fella saw the traffic on his left (heading into town) was stationary and pulled out while looking left at the traffic heading towards the Strand.

At least, that's what the witnesses said. I can remember neither the 16hrs before it happened nor the following 72hrs afterwards.

eclipsechaser · 18-02-2020 4:03pm

Madd Finn wrote: »

However carefully a car inches into that laneway, it is not going to see an oncoming bicycle until quite late

Then don't make the turn!

Madd Finn · 18-02-2020 4:17pm

eclipsechaser wrote: »

Then don't make the turn!

....unless you can stop on a sixpence if/when a cyclist appears from behind an obstacle.

Which, as I say ad nauseum, actually happened in this case.

However, given that the original topic of this thread was about "undertaking in traffic" and is why I posted here, there should be a duty of care on cyclists proceeding along a line of stationary traffic to do so in a safe way. They don't, in my opinion, have the right to say "I can peg it along here as fast as I can, regardless of what might emerge in front of one of these stopped cars."

But I doubt if any cyclists would ever face legal sanction for doing that. Unless somebody knows differently?

magicbastarder · 18-02-2020 4:33pm

Madd Finn wrote: »

However, given that the original topic of this thread was about "undertaking in traffic" and is why I posted here, there should be a duty of care on cyclists proceeding along a line of stationary traffic to do so in a safe way. They don't, in my opinion, have the right to say "I can peg it along here as fast as I can, regardless of what might emerge in front of one of these stopped cars."

But I doubt if any cyclists would ever face legal sanction for doing that. Unless somebody knows differently?

all road users have a duty to proceed in a safe manner.
but you're confusing recklessness and dangerousness, and conflating responsibility.
a cyclist may be reckless in cycling faster than the conditions would suggest. but if a motorist pulls across in front of them, it's the motorist creating the danger, and violating traffic law in the process.

saying 'the cyclist could have avoided the danger by cycling more slowly' does not absolve the motorist of responsibility.

say i tell a very ill-considered joke about stupid english people in a pool hall in liverpool, and get the **** kicked out of me; who should be held legally responsible for my injuries?

Seth Brundle · 18-02-2020 6:19pm

Madd Finn wrote: »

....unless you can stop on a sixpence if/when a cyclist appears from behind an obstacle.

But if a car wishes to turn right and there are cars blocking their view then maybe they should wait until they can see fully and be sure that it's safe to turn?

eclipsechaser · 18-02-2020 7:58pm

Madd Finn wrote: »

....unless you can stop on a sixpence if/when a cyclist appears from behind an obstacle.

Which, as I say ad nauseum, actually happened in this case.

However, given that the original topic of this thread was about "undertaking in traffic" and is why I posted here, there should be a duty of care on cyclists proceeding along a line of stationary traffic to do so in a safe way. They don't, in my opinion, have the right to say "I can peg it along here as fast as I can, regardless of what might emerge in front of one of these stopped cars."

But I doubt if any cyclists would ever face legal sanction for doing that. Unless somebody knows differently?

You want to legally sanction a vehicle going straight because it's not going slow enough to stop when a car it can't see turns into its path?

Seriously, you have the wrong priorities.

If you watch this one in the mirror, are both at fault or just one? https://v.redd.it/na7j3sa04t631

beauf · 18-02-2020 9:32pm

eclipsechaser wrote: »

You want to legally sanction a vehicle going straight because it's not going slow enough to stop when a car it can't see turns into its path?

Seriously, you have the wrong priorities.
..

You can't just ignore the conditions and other traffic. Your speed has to be appropriate.

This attitude of I have the right of way everyone else is wrong is reckless and dangerous.

beauf · 18-02-2020 9:40pm

Seth Brundle wrote: »

But if a car wishes to turn right and there are cars blocking their view then maybe they should wait until they can see fully and be sure that it's safe to turn?

As a cyclist you shouldn't assume no one is going to cross your path in queued traffic or where jay walking is likely. You have right of way but it's dumb to rely on that.

See this all the time on the canal. People doing stupid speeds then going mental if predictably a pedestrian or car pulls across them.

Madd Finn · 18-02-2020 10:22pm

eclipsechaser wrote: »

If you watch this one in the mirror, are both at fault or just one?https://v.redd.it/na7j3sa04t631

Not really comparable, because the turning car in this instance didn't stop, whereas the one earlier today did.

A comparable situation would have been if the grey car (turning) had advanced slowly in front of the Chrysler (?) directly in front of the camera into the lane in which the red car was travelling (too quickly) seen it suddenly and slammed on the brakes. The red car had swerved around the grey car, ended up on the kerb and then its driver had jumped out and started pounding the grey car's bonnet (or hood, as it would probably be called there).

In that instance, the grey car's caution would have prevented an accident and the red car's recklessness (yes, it WAS going too fast) would have been more at fault.

There is a reason why "undertaking" is frowned upon and even in situations where it is legal, it should be undertaken (sic) with caution.
By any road user.

eclipsechaser · 18-02-2020 11:08pm

Madd Finn wrote: »

Not really comparable, because the turning car in this instance didn't stop, whereas the one earlier today did.

A comparable situation would have been if the grey car (turning) had advanced slowly in front of the Chrysler (?) directly in front of the camera into the lane in which the red car was travelling (too quickly) seen it suddenly and slammed on the brakes. The red car had swerved around the grey car, ended up on the kerb and then its driver had jumped out and started pounding the grey car's bonnet (or hood, as it would probably be called there).

In that instance, the grey car's caution would have prevented an accident and the red car's recklessness (yes, it WAS going too fast) would have been more at fault.

There is a reason why "undertaking" is frowned upon and even in situations where it is legal, it should be undertaken (sic) with caution.
By any road user.

That's the exact scenario I was thinking of as a better comparison. If you think the red car going straight would have been at fault in the scenario you outline, then we simply disagree fundamentally.

magicbastarder · 18-02-2020 11:08pm

beauf wrote: »

You can't just ignore the conditions and other traffic. Your speed has to be appropriate.

This attitude of I have the right of way everyone else is wrong is reckless and dangerous.

first point is a given, and the second point - i don't think anyone is arguing that, or if they have, i missed it.
people seem to be disputing the argument that there may be a 50/50 distribution of blame if a motorist pulls across in front of a cyclist, which does not negate the points you make.

eclipsechaser · 18-02-2020 11:14pm

beauf wrote: »

You can't just ignore the conditions and other traffic. Your speed has to be appropriate.

This attitude of I have the right of way everyone else is wrong is reckless and dangerous.

Am I losing my mind? I'm not suggesting slaloming through intersections. Of course you take into account conditions. But if a car can't see you coming - and clearly you can't see the car - it's going to be the car's fault if it pulls out in front of you.

Is this controversial?

CramCycle · 18-02-2020 11:30pm

eclipsechaser wrote: »

Am I losing my mind? I'm not suggesting slaloming through intersections. Of course you take into account conditions. But if a car can't see you coming - and clearly you can't see the car - it's going to be the car's fault if it pulls out in front of you.

Is this controversial?

Not at all, I think the point is that if you can't see anything but dead ahead as you come around lets say a bus or van, you don't hammer through like it is Corkagh Park or Mondello but you accept that even though its not your fault, someone or something may come from in front of said vehicle. You see a gap in stationary traffic, and you see a laneway/road to the left, you can take it handy just in case someone does something stupid. I am not saying stop, just mitigate the risks.

I wasn't at the OPs accident, so I am talking about in general, maybe the cyclist had done this and had adjusted his speed as he got closer so that he could bail if necessary.

I am talking about in general. Every example has its intricacies and unless you are there or it is on video, it is really hard to say for certain who was right or wrong. From the OPs description. I think the motorist is 100% legally wrong, they couldn't see, they should not have went. From a moral perspective, I don't have enough details but based on the OPs post a tiny bit of the blame might lay at the feet of the cyclist for carrying speed through there as he couldn't react to the unexpected. Landing on the pavement where there could have been someone standing is not a good enough response IMO. It is still heavily against the motorist, but what if it was a pedestrian who had crossed in front of stationary traffic and the cyclist didn't notice. Maybe the cyclist took extra care and peeked around and their head speed the cyclist into swerving. Is it all the pedestrians fault?

I nearly hit a pedestrian a few years ago, before I posted on boards. i was coming onto Nassau St. Bus was stopped dead, there was opposing traffic but plenty of space to overtake and I continued on as normal. I got lucky. The girl stepped out and I locked up and stopped a cm from her, it was pure luck I didn't plough straight through her and kill her. Would she have been at fault, yes, she wasn't paying attention and ran through stationary traffic. She was 100% in the wrong from a legal standpoint. Except, was I really cycling to the conditions? Its a city centre, pedestrians, like cyclists and motorists can act stupid. The bus was stopped, right beside one of the busiest pedestrian areas in Dublin, where i myself often done what she had done. I may have been legally in the clear but I certainly wasn't morally and as a cyclist I had a duty of care to other road users, as they do to me.

I am typically a letter of the law person, and if i suspect someone is putting me at risk even though I am doing nothing wrong, I will light on them for it but in regards how I behave to other people, my opinion shifts. The letter of the law is not a high enough standard and I sometimes do things that are just decent rather than legal.

Madd Finn · 19-02-2020 1:36am

eclipsechaser wrote: »

That's the exact scenario I was thinking of as a better comparison. If you think the red car going straight would have been at fault in the scenario you outline, then we simply disagree fundamentally.

OK then. Lets continue with the example of that video you posted
What should the grey car have done? Assuming that it was permitted to turn left (the equivalent of a right turn in this left-hand drive jurisdiction) It clearly can't see what's in the inside lane. Traffic in the two outer lanes have stopped. How should it have proceeded?

Are you saying it should have waited until the road cleared? Which is probably not a realistic scenario during rush hour.
Or should it have inched out, covering the brake and being ready to stop if something was coming up the inside lane (as there was)?
Clearly the red car has the right to proceed, but it was going a little too fast, I think, for the conditions. Even if the grey car had been going slow enough to stop, the red car was going at such a pace that it would likely have had to take sudden evasive action.
I think this real-world scenario illustrates perfectly the dangers of "undertaking". You can do it legally,, but you have a duty of care to recognise that you might be presenting other road users with a nasty surprise.

So if you think the red car was entirely in the right, what should the grey car have done?

BTW I think in the actual footage, the grey car is in the wrong for not being in the position or at the speed to stop suddenly.

beauf · 19-02-2020 1:51am

eclipsechaser wrote: »

Am I losing my mind? I'm not suggesting slaloming through intersections. Of course you take into account conditions. But if a car can't see you coming - and clearly you can't see the car - it's going to be the car's fault if it pulls out in front of you.

Is this controversial?

If you can't stop and have to mount the pavement when a car nudges it's nose though a line of cars, you are going too fast, and not reading the traffic or conditions.

We've all cycled down along traffic jams and made a judgement call if progress Vs safety. But the car is doing the same.

magicbastarder wrote: »

first point is a given, and the second point - i don't think anyone is arguing that, or if they have, i missed it.
people seem to be disputing the argument that there may be a 50/50 distribution of blame if a motorist pulls across in front of a cyclist, which does not negate the points you make.

https://road.cc/content/news/262396-cyclist-found-partly-liable-crash-pedestrian-who-was-looking-her-mobile-phone

Wishbone Ash · 19-02-2020 9:27am

beauf wrote: »

....We've all cycled down along traffic jams and made a judgement call if progress Vs safety. But the car is doing the same...

You're not comparing like with like. Of course we all have a duty of care etc. but a driver making a right turn across a line of other road users has a much greater onus to expect the unexpected.

Regarding the link to that accident in London. Again, it's irrelevant as it involves a pedestrian and many in the legal profession will consider a pedestrian to have right of way at all times. If I recall correctly, the cyclist in that incident was riding a fixie with no brakes (open to correction).

beauf · 19-02-2020 10:45am

Well heads down and full speed ahead.... Worked well for the Titanic.

magicbastarder · 19-02-2020 11:03am

that is a curious case, interesting to note that the other pedestrians who witnessed the collision seemed to think the ped was totally to blame.
one swallow does not a summer make, and we all know that judges are often not friends of cyclists, so a single case is a curiosity for now. the reason we know of the case is because it appears to be an outlier and was reported as such.
the above case would hinge on whether the cyclist had taken reasonable precaution and was cycling reasonably, and there's a clear difference between some of the testimony and the outcome on that.

it's always been my understanding that you are explicitly liable for what you can see, or to reasonably expect what you *can't* see, but another road user behaving wilfully unexpectedly is another matter, and often a grey area.
and there's a hierarchy of care too; i would expect greater care from the person controlling the vehicle based on its capability of doing damage. and i think society in general does also.

Madd Finn · 19-02-2020 11:45am

magicbastarder wrote: »

that is a curious case, interesting to note that the other pedestrians who witnessed the collision seemed to think the ped was totally to blame.
one swallow does not a summer make, and we all know that judges are often not friends of cyclists, so a single case is a curiosity for now. the reason we know of the case is because it appears to be an outlier and was reported as such.
the above case would hinge on whether the cyclist had taken reasonable precaution and was cycling reasonably, and there's a clear difference between some of the testimony and the outcome on that.

it's always been my understanding that you are explicitly liable for what you can see, or to reasonably expect what you *can't* see, but another road user behaving wilfully unexpectedly is another matter, and often a grey area.
and there's a hierarchy of care too; i would expect greater care from the person controlling the vehicle based on its capability of doing damage. and i think society in general does also.

Agree it's hard to judge without having seen the evidence and even those who did were divided on who they thought was to blame. The judge actually found both equally responsible and so thought it fair to reduce by half the damages which the pedestrian had demanded.

But the fact that BOTH were knocked unconscious suggests to me that the cyclist was going at a fair old lick and that speed, again, might have been a contributory factor.

It's a duty of care thing.

CramCycle · 19-02-2020 11:59am

The cyclist was partly to blame in that story, in fact quite clearly. He sounded his horn and shouted, so he seen the pedestrian, had time to do that and changed course but never though, maybe I'll just slow down or stop. No different than if it was a car. If there are pedestrians looking they are going to cross or the street is packed, you don't tip along at the speed limit because it is a reasonable possibility that someone will step or fall out, so you slow and drive to the conditions. I see this alot on my commute where cars see someone crossing or they see another car pulling out but they never slow, they just lay on the horn and often speed up. It is insanity.

Undertaking in traffic

Comments