legality of filtering through traffic

Morgan

bealbocht wrote: »

lights...for a fiver

bealbocht wrote: »

pound/jumble shops on Mary St

bealbocht wrote: »

.do others peoples front light only ever work for about a week..??.

I can't imagine why

Just on a similar point - on my way home today through Ranelagh there was a motorbike garda at the front of the queue going the opposite way to me. As if by magic all cyclists waited at the lights until a green came.

Powerful things these Garda Motorbikes are.

cyclopath2001

Rob_l wrote: »

Pulled me over told me he could take me to the station for not having a hi vis vest no helmet and overtaking on the inside, because he had no windows on the side of his van and couldn't see me

He was partly bluffing. There is no law requiring cyclists to wear high-vis vests or helmets. He was also bluffing about taking you to the station. If you provide your name and address and support it with ID, he can't arrest you.

If a Garda is going to do you for anything, first and foremost he has to state a valid reason for stopping you. Not wearing a high-vis or helmet don't qualify and could constitute grounds for complaint against the Garda if these were the only reasons given. (Not having a bell, lights or generally acting like a prick do qualify though.)

Passing on the inside of stopped or slow moving traffic is not explicitly prohibited. Passing on any side is prohibited if it causes inconvenience or danger to yourself or others. That's a matter of opinion and is quite arguable at 10mph in stopped traffic.

A clever Garda might stop you and ask you why you're doing what you're doing and let you fess yourself up. Normally, if they stop you with a question (such as 'why are you not using the cycle track?'), it's likely that he's not sure if you are breaking the law and how things go will depend on your response & attitude.

Stark

freddie mac wrote: »

Is it legal to filter through stationary traffic?
I was pulled over by a motorbike gard this morning for doing this on O'Connel St heading south outside Clery's. He told me I was expected to stay left and remain in lane behind traffic. I had just overtaken him whilst we were both in the bus-lane and the bike lane marked was blocked by buses. I was careful to indicate and was only doing 10mph.

Thanks for any advice

It's "overtaking on the right" imo so should be legal. I remember there was a discussion about this in regards to motorcycles before and I think the consensus was that it was legal to overtake as long as there was space to do so safely; the opposite lane didn't necessarily need to be clear.

Lumen wrote:

http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-f...l#cycle-tracks

The ones on O'Connell street definitely fall under the category of "non-mandatory".

eth0_ wrote:

There's no specific law banning cyclings from weaving through traffic but you are expected to follow the rules of the road and that means not causing a danger to yourself and other road users - and don't try to tell me weaving through traffic isn't dangerous!

:rolleyes:

bealbocht

Morgan wrote: »

I can't imagine why

Thanks morgan.. but the others were all standard price. Not expensive, not cheap, same as what they are charging €20 in about 5 shops around town, always a problem with the front. Makes no sense really.

gis a week or two, and I'll let you know how these work out... , if one lasts about two weeks an the other lasts 6 months.. everything is the same, except the price.

So how much did you spend on your lights... ??

Edit: actually , dont answer that, its way off topic, I'll start a thread in "bargin hunting" or something.. might be usefull to someone

Mountain_Surfer

I was heading into college this morning and was heading down Dawson St at around 9, traffic was chaotic as per usual so was cycling between lanes because there was space to do so. All of a sudden possibly the hottest bird ever just strolls out from infront of a bus to my left and by some miracle I managed to avoid her. I wasnt going as fast as I usually would because of the traffic conditions etc etc but was still going fast enough to give her a good smack. Anyway crisis averted thankfully. Dont know how I would have reacted if I had hit her, if it had been anyone else I prob would have lost the head but with ther I guess I would have been apoligetic. Kind of strange I guess!

Vélo

Mountain_Surfer wrote: »

I was heading into college this morning and was heading down Dawson St at around 9, traffic was chaotic as per usual so was cycling between lanes because there was space to do so. All of a sudden possibly the hottest bird ever just strolls out from infront of a bus to my left and by some miracle I managed to avoid her. I wasnt going as fast as I usually would because of the traffic conditions etc etc but was still going fast enough to give her a good smack. Anyway crisis averted thankfully. Dont know how I would have reacted if I had hit her, if it had been anyone else I prob would have lost the head but with ther I guess I would have been apoligetic. Kind of strange I guess!

If you hit her you might have had to give her mouth to mouth!

rflynnr

My interest in this whole discussion was sufficiently piqued as to lead me to contact the Road Safety Authority this morning to seek clarification. The Rules of the Road are extremely ambiguous on this. In fact I had always assumed that one was obliged to stop behind other traffic (in the absence of of a bike lane) when it is stationary but the Rules of the Road site suggests otherwise. At one point (http://www.rotr.ie/rules-for-pedestrians-cyclists-motorcyclists/cyclists/cyclists_other-road-users.html) it tells us that cyclists "should not" (which it carefully distinguishes from "must not") weave in and out of moving traffic. This seems to assume that weaving is permitted through stationary traffic (provided one is not doing so in a reckless manner).

They're "coming back" to me. I'll post their response when (if ) it arrives...

jimmycrackcorm

I was filtering between stationary traffic at a school this morning. On the left cars were parked and the main lane traffic was stationary. I narrowly missed hitting an opening car door as a kid got out of the car on my right. It made me wonder though who would be to blame if I had collided. Me for filtering or the car for opening the door in the middle of the road.

Vélo

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I was filtering between stationary traffic at a school this morning. On the left cars were parked and the main lane traffic was stationary. I narrowly missed hitting an opening car door as a kid got out of the car on my right. It made me wonder though who would be to blame if I had collided. Me for filtering or the car for opening the door in the middle of the road.

The way it works for car insurance is if the car door is opened as your driving past the person who opened the door would be at fault. If the car door was already open then the other person would be at fault for hitting it. I presume it works the same for cyclists. As for filtering I can't see there being a problem as you were passing a parked car.

BuyingorSelling

Similiar;

Who is at fault if while cycling on the kerb side of the road appraching a junction where you can either take a left hand turn or go straight on a car turns left without using their indicater.

Malari

BuyingorSelling wrote: »

Similiar;

Who is at fault if while cycling on the kerb side of the road appraching a junction where you can either take a left hand turn or go straight on a car turns left without using their indicater.

How could the cyclist be at fault in this situation?

Lumen

BuyingorSelling wrote: »

Who is at fault if while cycling on the kerb side of the road appraching a junction where you can either take a left hand turn or go straight on a car turns left without using their indicater.

Use of the indicator is irrelevant.

If the car drives into you, it's his fault. If you drive into the car, it's your fault.

Both parties have a responsibility to avoid this happening, since they are both in a situation which "may lead them into conflict with another road user".

seamus

BuyingorSelling wrote: »

If the car drives into you, it's his fault. If you drive into the car, it's your fault.

Simply, yeah.

Basic rule is if the car overtook you just before they turned, they're at fault. If the car left sufficient time/room between overtaking you and the collision, you're at fault.

'68 Fastback

BuyingorSelling wrote: »

Similiar;

Who is at fault if while cycling on the kerb side of the road appraching a junction where you can either take a left hand turn or go straight on a car turns left without using their indicater.

Along the same lines..Who has the right of way if a cyclist and a car are approaching a crossroads, the cyclist is slightly ahead of the car and indicates to turn right?
This happened to me yesterday. The car was behind me as i had my hand out but as soon as i moved to make the turn he started laying on the horn and screaming abuse! If I see him again his paint job is getting a custom finish.

seamus

'68 wrote:

Along the same lines..Who has the right of way if a cyclist and a car are approaching a crossroads, the cyclist is slightly ahead of the car and indicates to turn right?
This happened to me yesterday. The car was behind me as i had my hand out but as soon as i moved to make the turn he started laying on the horn and screaming abuse! If I see him again his paint job is getting a custom finish.

Indication does not confer a right of way. Even if you've indicated, you're required to ensure that it's safe to change your road position before you move.

That said, anyone who overtakes a road user who is indicating to turn right could be found at least partially at fault in court.

The existence of the cycle lane actually makes the most difference in this case: If you were in a cycle lane, you are required to ensure that the other lane is clear before you change lanes. If you weren't in a cycle lane, then he shouldn't overtake a vehicle which is indicating to turn right.

Slice

Why wasn't the guard doing anything about the vehecle blocking the cycle lane in this instance?

'68 Fastback

No cycle lane involved. The geezer stayed behind me for about 30 yards while I was indicating so I thought he was letting me go. He only passed as I was about to turn.
I wonder would he prefer the classic scratchy look of a bunch of keys or the more contemporary feel achieved with a U-lock?!

Lumen

'68 wrote:

No cycle lane involved. The geezer stayed behind me for about 30 yards while I was indicating so I thought he was letting me go. He only passed as I was about to turn.
I wonder would he prefer the classic scratchy look of a bunch of keys or the more contemporary feel achieved with a U-lock?!

I'm not sure if you're joking or not, but please don't do that. He may take out his fury on the next cyclist he comes across, which could be me.

'68 Fastback

Lumen wrote: »

I'm not sure if you're joking or not, but please don't do that. He may take out his fury on the next cyclist he comes across, which could be me.

I'm kidding! He stopped, blocking my way and laughed out the window at me! He was so flippin arrogant about the whole situation, it was hard not to have a go.

Harrybelafonte

'68 wrote:

No cycle lane involved. The geezer stayed behind me for about 30 yards while I was indicating so I thought he was letting me go. He only passed as I was about to turn.
I wonder would he prefer the classic scratchy look of a bunch of keys or the more contemporary feel achieved with a U-lock?!

I have to do this coming down Canal St and I swear it's 50/50 whether cars will slow down or not.

'68 Fastback

I would never usually assume right of way in this situation but I looked behind me, the car was about 5 yards away. I indicated, looked behind again, he hadn't come any closer. Then moved out to turn and he laid on the horn and pulled up beside me.

bealbocht

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I was filtering between stationary traffic at a school this morning. On the left cars were parked and the main lane traffic was stationary. I narrowly missed hitting an opening car door as a kid got out of the car on my right. It made me wonder though who would be to blame if I had collided. Me for filtering or the car for opening the door in the middle of the road.

A friend of mine , hit a pedesterian who steped off the path in front of him.
The pedesterian was a teenager (around whats that place in Donnybrook on a friday night) , and admited fault, and offered to pay for the buckeled wheel.

When my mate called the phone number he was give, the father answered, and said he was a barrister , and he would sue for dangerous cycling, if pursed any further. My mate went to the local garda station to enquire about this, and was told "you should never be going faster, than you can stop in case of emergency"

I reckon there is also an argument that, if you hit a something from behind.. its your fault.

Any and all(mentioned in the other posts) of these, could be used in court.. and it could go any way...

Personally , I just pray that I will never have to remove the corner of a car door from my skull some day.., and its most likely to be a driver side door..

bealbocht

'68 wrote:

Along the same lines..Who has the right of way if a cyclist and a car are approaching a crossroads, the cyclist is slightly ahead of the car and indicates to turn right?
This happened to me yesterday. The car was behind me as i had my hand out but as soon as i moved to make the turn he started laying on the horn and screaming abuse! If I see him again his paint job is getting a custom finish.

oh didnt you know.. 40% of motorist do not recognise the right of cyclists to turn right at any time.

Turbulent Bill

On the whole road positioning / traffic management area for cyclists, I'd recommend 'Cyclecraft' by John Franklin (www.cyclecraft.co.uk) - I think this has been given the thumbs-up on the forum before. It's structured like a Rules of the Road, but gives practical advice rather than just stating the law. In parts it even shows how/why you should break the law to protect yourself. This is obviously written from a UK perspective but I found most of it helpful. Unfortunately, it doesn't say much about filtering!

Harrybelafonte

bealbocht wrote: »

oh didnt you know.. 40% of motorist do not recognise the right of cyclists to turn right at any time.

You wanna quote a source there

Rob_l

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

You wanna quote a source there

the poster doesn't need a source didn't you know that 96.7% of all statistics on the net are made up at the moment of posting.

But the sentiment is right you have very little hope of motorists allowing you turn right

bealbocht

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

You wanna quote a source there

Can I just say " recent studies have shown" . Seems to be good enough for most newspapers , and TV documentary makers.

Actually , no , it was taken from "The complete compendium of international stastical surveys, on the bahavioural habits and attitudes of random motorists who were momentarily slowed when when Beal went to turn right to get to his house, so he could publish makie-up statistics on the internet by way of flippant humour" . Published by Serious, Serious & Fudgepack of London.

Harrybelafonte

bealbocht wrote: »

Can I just say " recent studies have shown" . Seems to be good enough for most newspapers , and TV documentary makers.

Actually , no , it was taken from "The complete compendium of international stastical surveys, on the bahavioural habits and attitudes of random motorists who were momentarily slowed when when Beal went to turn right to get to his house, so he could publish makie-up statistics on the internet by way of flippant humour" . Published by Serious, Serious & Fudgepack of London.

Ah right.... humour.

Bunnyhopper

I was turning right off the Chapelizod Road into the Phoenix Park the other day and a taxi driver coming the other way (from Chapelizod heading into town) slowed down for no reason other than politeness and let me turn across in front of him.

I know...the rarity and brilliance of it

Filtering is inherently dangerous, but you do sometimes get the impression that the law regards cyclists as mainly a nuisance and something to be kept out of the way of proper road users.

It's nice to see the D4 stereotypes are alive and well and stumbling around Donnybrook even with this recession and all: imagine the horror of letting your poor darling son face the consequences of his actions. (As it is, he might grow up to be a banker and then the rest of us can face the consequences for him.)