Dotted line cycle-lanes

Traumadoc

A lot of cyclists seem to be killed overtaking in the inside while vehicles, usually HGVs are turning left. While the cyclist may be in the right, it could be a better design to have the cycle lane on the outside of left turning lanes.

crotalus667

Traumadoc wrote: »

A lot of cyclists seem to be killed overtaking in the inside while vehicles, usually HGVs are turning left. While the cyclist may be in the right, it could be a better design to have the cycle lane on the outside of left turning lanes.

In theory if the mirrors are used properly there is no way a hgv driver will not see you unless you race up their side during their turn, if your not seen being on either side is just as lethal as the other

blorg

Sure, and there are examples of this being done. A lot of cycle lane design is just lethal though and actively encourages cyclists to do things that are extremely dangerous (and it is actually illegal for the cyclist to leave the lane to do the sensible thing.)

Here's an example I posted recently in another thread, the "straight on/turn right" cycle lane by the Beacon Hotel in Sandyford:


(click for full size)

They added those yellow bollards to stop cars using the left turn lane and going straight on. But the effect now is that cars just stream left, at high speed, right across the cycle lane. It is honestly a lethal design (I was hit myself by a car here, nothing serious thank god, I now know not to use it.)

I generally am turning right at this junction and do the illegal but sensible thing of joining the correct lane for turning right, as if I was a car.

crotalus667

blorg wrote: »

(and it is actually illegal for the cyclist to leave the lane to do the sensible thing.)
.

It’s not one of those black and white laws , if you get in front of a judge and explain the why you did x , it would more than likely be thrown out , can any one think of a case where a cyclist has been done for not using a dangerous cycle lane ??



The bottom line is safety is paramount on the roads

Traumadoc

In waterford the cycle lane on the ring road seems to be designed for the benefit of motorised vehicles . Its very similar to the cycle lane in the phoenix park where vehicles joining from side roads have priority.

SerialComplaint

The Chessplayer wrote: »

A work colleague is under the impression that cars (such as her enormous, vulgar and over-priced Range Rover) take priority over bicycles when the cycle lane is a broken, rather than continuous, line. Is this the case?

What's the bets that when challenged with the law about cycle lanes, she will respond with some outrageous claim about road tax giving her priority? :eek:

blorg

crotalus667 wrote: »

It’s not one of those black and white laws , if you get in front of a judge and explain the why you did x , it would more than likely be thrown out , can any one think of a case where a cyclist has been done for not using a dangerous cycle lane ??

The bottom line is safety is paramount on the roads

But the problem is it is a black and white law, according to the legislation you have to use a cycle track if one is provided. A cyclist was convicted in the UK for not using a cycle lane (even though it is NOT compulsory there- overturned on appeal.) There are plenty of traffic laws open to reasonable interpretation (keep left as far as is practical) but this is not one of them.

You probably mean more that it is a law that is generally not enforced by the gardaí, which is true- but this is even more of an argument to regularise what cyclists do in any case and fix the law.

Sure I don't use any cycle lane I deem to be dangerous (which would be probably around 50% of them) but I am breaking the law by doing so, and contributing to motorists' view of cyclists as lawbreakers in the process. I feel the law should be changed so that cycle tracks are no longer compulsory for cyclists.

crotalus667

blorg wrote: »

But the problem is it is a black and white law, according to the legislation you have to use a cycle track if one is provided.

It’s not that straight forward when dealing with the roads in this country there is a lot of leeway when it comes to doing something that is “positive” for safety ,

You probably mean more that it is a law that is generally not enforced by the gardaí,

No what I mean is that if it is in enforced and it was unsafe for you to use the cycle lane a judge will throw it out and more than likely have strong words with the guard in question

oobydooby

crotalus667 wrote: »

In theory if the mirrors are used properly there is no way a hgv driver will not see you unless you race up their side during their turn, if your not seen being on either side is just as lethal as the other

I've never driven a HGV but I don't think that's strictly true. From the wiki, this site is an excellent explanation of the truck driver's perspective.

[url] http://www.movingtargetzine.com/forum/discussion/598/hgv-blind-spots-from-nozzer/ [/url]

The cycle lane thing is crazy, and the OP's story is unbelievable. Any word on this new cycling officer for Dublin yet?

crotalus667

oobydooby wrote: »

I've never driven a HGV but I don't think that's strictly true.

Well I have , and I can tell you that any one that does not know what's around them via use of their mirrors before they "start to turn" , Is incompetent , a hgv driver is expected to look beyond their immediate vicinity and identify any possible hazards before they become hazards and react to them accordingly , failing to do so can be a test fail ,

Victor

Traumadoc wrote: »

Is it illegal to overtake on the inside? Say a car or bicycle turning left across a cycle lane and they are being overtaken on the inside, who has the priority?

The vehicle turning or changing lane always loses priority.

blorg wrote: »

Sure, and there are examples of this being done. A lot of cycle lane design is just lethal though and actively encourages cyclists to do things that are extremely dangerous (and it is actually illegal for the cyclist to leave the lane to do the sensible thing.) Here's an example I posted recently in another thread, the "straight on/turn right" cycle lane by the Beacon Hotel in Sandyford:
(click for full size) They added those yellow bollards to stop cars using the left turn lane and going straight on. But the effect now is that cars just stream left, at high speed, right across the cycle lane. It is honestly a lethal design (I was hit myself by a car here, nothing serious thank god, I now know not to use it.) I generally am turning right at this junction and do the illegal but sensible thing of joining the correct lane for turning right, as if I was a car.

Being in the right lane for turning right is the correct thing to do.

The left traffic lane should have a yield / stop before the cycle lane or altenatively there should be two cycle lanes.

SerialComplaint

This BBC news article might be of interest Cyclists flout law 'to stay safe'.

cyclopath2001

SerialComplaint wrote: »

What's the bets that when challenged with the law about cycle lanes, she will respond with some outrageous claim about road tax giving her priority? :eek:

At which point you smugly point out that there is no such thing as 'road tax' in Ireland.

blorg

Victor wrote: »

The vehicle turning or changing lane always loses priority.Being in the right lane for turning right is the correct thing to do.

The left traffic lane should have a yield / stop before the cycle lane or altenatively there should be two cycle lanes.

The cycle lane is a mandatory one (continuous white line) until the point where the left-turning traffic lane crosses it. Cyclists are only allowed leave non-mandatory (dashed line) lanes to turn right (having indicated), they are not allowed leave mandatory lanes. There is an ASL at the lights- what a cyclist turning right is meant to do here is to continue up to the lights on the lane and then, when clear, make their way across the ASL box.

There is no yield/stop on the left-turning traffic lane. (Full photo)

Mucco

blorg wrote: »

(click for full size)
.....................

I generally am turning right at this junction and do the illegal but sensible thing of joining the correct lane for turning right, as if I was a car.

I have never heard of an Irish cyclist being convicted for not using a mandatory cycle lane. I never used them when I lived in Dublin, and, apart from the occaisonal irate bus driver, had no problems.

So, with that in mind, the best way to tackle this junction is to ignore the cycle lane, and fully occupy either of the left two car lanes for going straight on. The cycle lane has a rubbish surface anyway.
Ignoring cycle lanes is generally the best policy, I find.

M

Raam

People often can't understand why cyclists don't use cycle lanes, and then sometimes won't accept the reasons when they are presented to them.
Put simply: we (cyclists) will always use whatever is both best and safest for us. The majority of regular posters here are experienced cyclists and are therefor best suited to decide what is safe or unsafe. If they deem the cycle lanes unsafe, then that's all the reasoning that is needed.

blorg

Mucco- I completely agree and that is exactly what I do, ignore the lane. Point is the law should be changed. With the law as it is, cyclists who choose not to use the cycle lanes are seen as lawbreakers by many motorists, in the same way as those who skip red lights, cycle without lights, etc. A tiny proportion of these motorists will actively take out their anger on the cyclist. I've had beeping and yelling, but also have been clipped by a van passing very close and had a bus driver deliberately turn into me, forcing me off the road- both of these confirmed that they did it deliberately as "I should have been in the cycle lane." Bus driver was on the N11 between Stillorgan and UCD and I know I'm not the only one who has had this sort of experience with a bus driver on the N11.

One day a cyclist will be killed or seriously injured by the effects of this law, whether it be them following the law and using the cycle lane, or being driven into by angry motorist for not using it. (Indeed cyclists have been killed as a direct result of using cycle lanes in other jurisdictions.)

Joe Malone

Raam wrote: »

People often can't understand why cyclists don't use cycle lanes, and then sometimes won't accept the reasons when they are presented to them.
Put simply: we (cyclists) will always use whatever is both best and safest for us. The majority of regular posters here are experienced cyclists and are therefor best suited to decide what is safe or unsafe. If they deem the cycle lanes unsafe, then that's all the reasoning that is needed.

What age are u? 10? Such a juvenile attitude to take. The reality is that if you were involved in a collision on the road when you should have been in a cycle lane you will automatically be deemed to have contributory negligence. Not such a big deal if all you that happens is a warped wheel or something like that but, in such a collision, as you well know, the cyclist would more than likely end up with very serious injuries (or death) which could end up costing thousands in medical costs and loss of earnings. You can bet your bottom dollar that the motorists insurance company will pounce on your contributory negligence and law breaking to ensure that they do not have to foot the bill. A smug "I deem it unsafe" attitude won't wash I'm afraid. Remember that judges are only human and will draw on their own experience and outlook on life when adjudicating on such matters. How many circuit court or high court judges cycle I wonder? Or drive?

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Joe Malone wrote: »

What age are u? 10? Such a juvenile attitude to take. The reality is that if you were involved in a collision on the road when you should have been in a cycle lane you will automatically be deemed to have contributory negligence. Not such a big deal if all you that happens is a warped wheel or something like that but, in such a collision, as you well know, the cyclist would more than likely end up with very serious injuries (or death) which could end up costing thousands in medical costs and loss of earnings. You can bet your bottom dollar that the motorists insurance company will pounce on your contributory negligence and law breaking to ensure that they do not have to foot the bill. A smug "I deem it unsafe" attitude won't wash I'm afraid. Remember that judges are only human and will draw on their own experience and outlook on life when adjudicating on such matters. How many circuit court or high court judges cycle I wonder? Or drive?

So you're saying we should continue to cycle in a dangerous cycle lane, just so that when we get knocked over we can get a bit of compo as opposed to trying to avoid an accident proactively?

Juvenile no?

Judges will certainly listen to the voice of reason in a court case, and if it is explained that a cycle lane is unsafe or unfit for purpose, that will certainly weigh heavily on decisions.

Mucco

Joe Malone wrote: »

The reality is that if you were involved in a collision on the road when you should have been in a cycle lane you will automatically be deemed to have contributory negligence.

Stats show that you are more likely to be involved in a collision on the cycle lane than on the road.
Check John Franklin's website

blorg

Joe's point is valid, an insurance company would pounce on the fact you should have been in the cycle lane and you could well be left with serious injuries but screwed out of compensation. I've been through a claim myself after having my arm broken (ironically due to the correct use of cycle "facilities"- waiting to make a right turn in an ASL box, having come up an inside cycle track) and I know how they operate. In my case the guy who rear-ended me when the light went green was 100% in the wrong (he just didn't look, although how he could have missed me to this day I do not understand) but they pushed the thing as far as they could, wasting a phenomenal amount of money and only settled "on the steps of the court" as it were.

How many circuit court or high court judges cycle I wonder? Or drive?

This is also entirely to the point- the vast majority of people don't cycle and don't realise how unsafe cycle lanes are. Hence all the "why don't cyclists use the bloody cycle lane" threads here, and attitude of motorists on the road. There is no reason to suppose a judge will be any different than your average motorist.

This is of course another reason the law should be changed- it is unreasonable to have a law demanding that cyclists use unsafe facilities, and I don't go with the "sure the law isn't enforced" or "sure you can go through a lengthy court case at exorbitant expense to have the law deemed unreasonable." The law shouldn't be there in the first place.

Joe Malone

Sean_K wrote: »

So you're saying we should continue to cycle in a dangerous cycle lane, just so that when we get knocked over we can get a bit of compo as opposed to trying to avoid an accident proactively?

Juvenile no?

Judges will certainly listen to the voice of reason in a court case, and if it is explained that a cycle lane is unsafe or unfit for purpose, that will certainly weigh heavily on decisions.

The law says where you must cycle, not me. As stated, the insurance company will run a mile from a claim for a collision. If a cyclist ended up parlysed or something this could involve hundreds of thousand of euro - risk it? No thanks!

I don't share your naive interpretation of the courtroom and what passes for legal argument when up against the insurance company barristers.

Studoc

Joe Malone wrote: »

What age are u? 10? Such a juvenile attitude to take. The reality is that if you were involved in a collision on the road when you should have been in a cycle lane you will automatically be deemed to have contributory negligence. Not such a big deal if all you that happens is a warped wheel or something like that but, in such a collision, as you well know, the cyclist would more than likely end up with very serious injuries (or death) which could end up costing thousands in medical costs and loss of earnings. You can bet your bottom dollar that the motorists insurance company will pounce on your contributory negligence and law breaking to ensure that they do not have to foot the bill. A smug "I deem it unsafe" attitude won't wash I'm afraid. Remember that judges are only human and will draw on their own experience and outlook on life when adjudicating on such matters. How many circuit court or high court judges cycle I wonder? Or drive?

Most insurance cases are settled out of court. The chance of such a case as the above coming before a Circuit or High Court judge is small. Certainly, all the circumstances will be examined before coming to a final arrangement, but the regulations pertaining to cycle lanes are at best, ambiguous and unlikely to be the most important determinant as to the quantum of damages or attribution of liability.

Joe Malone

Sean_K wrote: »

So you're saying we should continue to cycle in a dangerous cycle lane, just so that when we get knocked over we can get a bit of compo as opposed to trying to avoid an accident proactively?

Juvenile no?

Judges will certainly listen to the voice of reason in a court case, and if it is explained that a cycle lane is unsafe or unfit for purpose, that will certainly weigh heavily on decisions.

Studoc wrote: »

Most insurance cases are settled out of court. The chance of such a case as the above coming before a Circuit or High Court judge is small. Certainly, all the circumstances will be examined before coming to a final arrangement, but the regulations pertaining to cycle lanes are at best, ambiguous and unlikely to be the most important determinant as to the quantum of damages or attribution of liability.

How naive are u? Insurance companies are not the St Vincent de Paul. Insurance claims are settled where liability is easily established. In the scenario I outlined you can be sure that the insurance company would fancy their chances and take it all the way.
There is no ambiguity regarding the use of cycle lanes - the rules are laid out by statute. Those who flout the law on the road end up liable. FULL STOP.

Studoc

Joe Malone wrote: »

How naive are u? Insurance companies are not the St Vincent de Paul. Insurance claims are settled where liability is easily established. In the scenario I outlined you can be sure that the insurance company would fancy their chances and take it all the way.
There is no ambiguity regarding the use of cycle lanes - the rules are laid out by statute. Those who flout the law on the road end up liable. FULL STOP.

Believe it or not I'm sitting here in a room with a lawyer with extensive experience in litigation, who tells me that I am not, in fact naive, (at least in this scenario).

We also think that mortgage brokers are pond life, but thats by the by.

Peachy123

The Chessplayer wrote: »

She squeezed a cyclist into the path because her car couldn't fit in the car lane. The cyclist then proceeded to bang on her bonnet and shout abuse at her. She claims that the dotted line indicates that motorists take priority.

I think that cyclist might have been me! The b****! Was it the cycle lane outside Jurys Inn at Christchurch about a month ago? I was cycling - in the cycle lane! A Jeep came along behine me & started to blow her horn - literally sat on the horn - where she wanted me to go exactly I'm not sure? The other lanes of traffic had cars stopped in them at the lights - I'd no where to go - and besides - I was in the cycle lane! (Which is a broken white line as the traffic can turn left so cars may have to cross it).

The Jeep pushed up beside me - clipped my arm with her wingmirror & almost knocked me over so that I did end up half falling onto the footpath - guess what the best part was - she got to go about 15m in front of me & then had to stop at a red light anyway! I went up to the drivers door & knocked on the window - she sat there screaming "go away, go away" wouldn't even make eye contact! I did bang her bonnet - I was so angry - I was so tempted to put a good dent in her door - but didn't! She made me so angry!

Joe Malone

"Believe it or not" I choose not. I don't believe you for a second. I don't know of any competent barrister who would take a view that a law breaking road user would win in the scenario I outlined.
Nice one adding in the personal insult - very mature, I'm sure your parents are very proud!

cyclopath2001

Joe Malone wrote: »

There is no ambiguity regarding the use of cycle lanes

Have you read the law at all? Nowhere is the term 'cycle lane' used.

Cycle tracks are a traffic control mechanism, not a safety device. if they were intended to protect cyclist safety, cars would not be allowed to drive or park on them at any time.

The regulations specifically provide that they don't apply where it would be dangerous or just plain impossible to comply. Granted, this does transfer a burden of proof onto the cyclist.

Thanks to the efforts of the various councils, there is plenty of ambiguity surrounding the signage and marking of cycle tracks.

Joe Malone

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Have you read the law at all? Nowhere is the term 'cycle lane' used.

Cycle tracks are a traffic control mechanism, not a safety device. if they were intended to protect cyclist safety, cars would not be allowed to drive or park on them at any time.

The regulations specifically provide that they don't apply where it would be dangerous or just plain impossible to comply. Granted, this does transfer a burden of proof onto the cyclist.

Thanks to the efforts of the various councils, there is plenty of ambiguity surrounding the signage and marking of cycle tracks.

Thanks for that. Its a cycle "track" not a cycle "lane". My point still stands

Studoc

Joe Malone wrote: »

"Believe it or not" I choose not. I don't believe you for a second. I don't know of any competent barrister who would take a view that a law breaking road user would win in the scenario I outlined.
Nice one adding in the personal insult - very mature, I'm sure your parents are very proud!

It was'nt meant to be a personal insult Joseph, it was directed at your profession rather than you. I'm sure you are utterly delightful. Perhaps you could get one of your barrister chums to explain the Rules of the Road to you?