Should traffic laws be further enforced for cyclists?

Davyhal

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

hi-vis kills.

Ok, that's all I needed to hear. *Clicks Unfollow*

oflahero

blorg wrote: »

Especially when measure Y (adaquate lighting at night) is actually the important one, which many high-vis wearers don't bother employing.

This. This. This. I see this all the damn time now, numpties along the length of Rathgar Road, high-viz flapping in the gloom without a single light on their bike. They presumably think that because they were handed the high-viz for free during a road safety blitz by some authority figure, that they've pretty much done their bit and Gay Byrne'd be proud.

On the main point, I think Vlad El-Kurtains-Tonto has nailed it - just because something might 'make you safer' doesn't mean it's a good idea. By that logic, all motorists and their passengers should wear motorbike helmets in their cars.

Lumen

Drivers are not perfect. Sure, they have a legal responsibility to drive to the available visibility, but as the more vulnerable party cyclists should take all reasonable precautions to keep themselves safe. Hi-vis garments are a bit uncomfortable and don't look very stylish, but they're not expensive and definitely reduce the risk of being run over. So it's really the case that cyclists who refuse to wear hi-vis and then get run over only have themselves to blame.

Men are not perfect. Sure, they have a legal responsibility to get consent for sex, but as the more vulnerable party women should take all reasonable precautions to keep themselves safe. Burkas are a bit uncomfortable and don't look very stylish, but they're not expensive and definitely reduce the risk of being raped. So it's really the case that women who refuse to wear burkas and then get raped only have themselves to blame.

goldencleric

Lumen wrote: »

Drivers are not perfect. Sure, they have a legal responsibility to drive to the available visibility, but as the more vulnerable party cyclists should take all reasonable precautions to keep themselves safe. Hi-vis garments are a bit uncomfortable and don't look very stylish, but they're not expensive and definitely reduce the risk of being run over. So it's really the case that cyclists who refuse to wear hi-vis and then get run over only have themselves to blame.

Men are not perfect. Sure, they have a legal responsibility to get consent for sex, but as the more vulnerable party women should take all reasonable precautions to keep themselves safe. Burkas are a bit uncomfortable and don't look very stylish, but they're not expensive and definitely reduce the risk of being raped. So it's really the case that women who refuse to wear burkas and then get raped only have themselves to blame.

tomasrojo

The problem I find with the tenor of a lot of road-safety advice now is that it seems to be based on the principle that there is no "adequate" level of, in this case, visibility. You must strive to be more and more visible, even when the return on the investment must tail off considerably after installing good lights.

So you get the astonishing advice of Randy Swart (of the one-man Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute):

http://www.helmets.org/lights.htm

The more I observe about urban light clutter the more I favor big, big lights and lights that have a signature. You will find this concept better developed on Ken Kifer's Web page discussion of the Flashing Neon Light Display, although I would not favor his use of a diesel generator to power the array.

Ken Kifer's discussion is obviously a spoof, but some people are now so trapped in the mindset that all precautions are now indispensable that the following strikes them as a plausible and welcome strategy, only baulking at trailing a diesel generator to power the set-up (even the presence of 'humor' in the URL isn't enough to make it clear that it's a joke):
http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/humor/addit.htm

The Flashing Neon Light Display (FNLD) is intended to make the cyclist more visible on the road at night. It includes a sign with six foot high blue neon letters which spell "CYCLIST" and a series of bright red, interlocking arrows beneath that descend to point to the cyclist below. As an added safety feature, every five seconds, the entire light rapidly flashes off and on several times. At the bottom of the sign are mounted two floodlights, one on either side of the arrow, that illuminate the cyclist, dressed in a cycling jacket covered with sequins, brilliantly (in fact, blindingly). Unfortunately, this device eats up battery power at a frightful rate. It seems that the inventor lived in an area with frequent high-power powerline crossings and therefore did not see the necessity of providing more than a small auxilliary battery which would automatically recharge while passing under each powerline. The best solution seems to be a small motorized trailer to hold the sign and an electric generator. Such a trailer is now being tested, but, in my opinion, the small diesel engine produces undesirable exhaust fumes.

Undercover Elephant

Davyhal wrote: »

Ok, that's all I needed to hear heard. *Clicks Unfollow*

FYP.

Bye then.

tomasrojo

(I should point out that I have been prone to disproportionate hyper-illumination in the past, and I am not making fun of people who take extensive precautions, unless they go as far as Randy Swart. I think if you are that afraid of travelling in the dark, you need counselling, not more lights.)

coolbeans

tomasrojo wrote: »

The problem I find with the tenor of a lot of road-safety advice now is that it seems to be based on the principle that there is no "adequate" level of, in this case, visibility. You must strive to be more and more visible, even when the return on the investment must tail off considerably after installing good lights.

So you get the astonishing advice of Randy Swart (of the one-man Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute):

http://www.helmets.org/lights.htm



Ken Kifer's discussion is obviously a spoof, but some people are now so trapped in the mindset that all precautions are now indispensable that the following strikes them as a plausible and welcome strategy, even down to trailing a diesel generator to power the set-up (even the presence of 'humor' in the URL isn't enough to make it clear that it's a joke):
http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/humor/addit.htm

LOL, what a tool!! He must really be afraid of cycling. That site is comedy gold. Eg; Response to "truck ran over cyclist's head"
A helmet can help, but will crush if squarely run over." Brilliant!

Undercover Elephant

doozerie wrote: »

You seem to be describing clamping down on cycling RLJ'ers as unwarranted. What about, for example, cars parked in cycle tracks, or cars parked on footpaths, should they not be ticketed either 'cos they are not in the act of squishing someone?

Do I think they should be ticketed? Yes. Do I think it should be a priority? No.

Do I think RLJs should be prosecuted? Yes. Do I think it's a good use of resources to set out to catch as many as possible? No.

That said, as a practical matter, I can see the sense in having random days where specific low-level illegal behaviour is specifically targeted. We all know that that is not really what is being suggested, though.

tomasrojo

Just as an aside, seeing as pedal reflectors were mentioned in passing, anyone ever seen one of these?

http://bikexprt.com/bicycle/reflectors/reflwrk.htm

Large glass beads were once commonly used as cat's-eye reflectors. The photo below shows a single glass bead used as a pedal reflector on a 1964 Raleigh bicycle.

Came across it the other day, and was quite taken by it. Not that it's as good as cube-corner reflectors, I assume.

doozerie

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

Do I think they should be ticketed? Yes. Do I think it should be a priority? No.

Do I think RLJs should be prosecuted? Yes. Do I think it's a good use of resources to set out to catch as many as possible? No.

That said, as a practical matter, I can see the sense in having random days where specific low-level illegal behaviour is specifically targeted. We all know that that is not really what is being suggested, though.

I'm not sure what you believe is being suggested. Personally, I think it wouldn't take much garda time to stop the likes of cycling RLJ'ers when they see them and either impose a fine or give them a verbal warning. Sometimes a verbal warning is all that is needed to discourage a repeat offence, peoples' behaviour tends to change when they are reminded that they might actually be caught. I've seen a garda stop a cycling RLJ'er the odd time but it's quite rare (mind you, any garda presence anywhere along my commute is quite rare).

The same should be applied to motorists, obviously, I'm not suggesting that gardai turn a blind eye to motorists while focusing on cyclists (I've been on the receiving end of this approach and to say it is frustrating is an understatement), that already happens the other way around far too often.

galwaycyclist

Just because you think something is OK, doesn't make it so. The point of the law is that is sets an agreed standard upon which we can all adhere to without making our lives inconvenient. You don't get to choose which laws you do and do not obey. OK, you do. But if you knowingly choose to disobey a law, you should be happy to take any consequences of doing so.

Ok this got some appreciation and by way of exploring our mutual attitudes to our wonderful Irish traffic laws;

One of the things that its illegal to do in this country, is for a cyclist (or any other driver) to pass other traffic on the left to go ahead*, aka "undertaking".

It seems to me that among cyclists this is even more prevalent than red light running.

Should we not therefore expect a crack down on this behaviour by the Garda?

Are those who are condemnatory of red light running equally scrupulous to always overtake on the right?

*yes I know its ok if you're passing something thats turning right

it's mick

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Ok this got some appreciation and by way of exploring our mutual attitudes to our wonderful Irish traffic laws;

One of the things that its illegal to do in this country, is for a cyclist (or any other driver) to pass other traffic on the left to go ahead*, aka "undertaking".

It seems to me that among cyclists this is even more prevalent than red light running.

Should we not therefore expect a crack down on this behaviour by the Garda?

Are those who are condemnatory of red light running equally scrupulous to always overtake on the right?

*yes I know its ok if you're passing something thats turning right

This could get you a fault on your driving test... it's not always illegal to pass on the left. for example, it's fine to pass on the left in slow moving traffic.

edit: just saw you knew about someone turning right too which is another case

Dermot Illogical

galwaycyclist wrote: »

One of the things that its illegal to do in this country, is for a cyclist (or any other driver) to pass other traffic on the left to go ahead*, aka "undertaking".

Bus lane? Cycle lane? More than one lane and traffic in the right-hand lane is slower?

galwaycyclist

RT66 wrote: »

Bus lane? Cycle lane? More than one lane and traffic in the right-hand lane is slower?

Yes as far as I am aware the same law would still apply in bus lanes. You cannot pass another vehicle in the same lane lane to go straight ahead where they are not turning right.

I was assuming it was understood that we are talking about being in the same lane.

On the cycle track issue it seems logical to conclude that it is unlawful to pass another cyclist or wheelchair user on the left in the same lane. However as I recall for some curious reason, probably connected with our expert friends in the DTO, cycle track markings are not defined as a traffic lane marking in the regulations. So lets leave cycle tracks out of it for the moment as it might get messy.

galwaycyclist

<snip inadvertant duplicate post>

HivemindXX

Just a question.

Is it legal to pass on the left in the same lane? In other words what are the requirements to make a legal overtaking maneuver? Is it ok for a car to overtake another car where there is a solid white line so long as they can squeeze past without crossing the line (this appears to be a fairly common belief).

Obviously if it's not then a large amount of overtaking of bicycles by cars is illegal.

You make a good point but I bet if you were to ask the minister concerned he would be certain that cyclists should not break red lights but would have to check if they should be allowed filter up the inside of slow moving traffic.

I guess I'm a hypocrite because I'll still continue to filter up the inside of slow moving traffic when I feel it's safe but I won't go through red lights.

Lumen

HivemindXX wrote: »

I guess I'm a hypocrite because I'll still continue to filter up the inside of slow moving traffic when I feel it's safe but I won't go through red lights.

That's not hypocritical.

If you can find someone who jumps red lights but doesn't filter, that might be hypocritical, but as it stands you're more law abiding than the person you're criticising.

In any case, I'm sticking with filtering is legal unless/until someone can post a proper review of the law indicating the contrary.

galwaycyclist

Lumen wrote: »

In any case, I'm sticking with filtering is legal unless/until someone can post a proper review of the law indicating the contrary.

If you are doing something that would be illegal in a car then the burden of proof is on you to show that cyclists have a specific, stated, exemption in the traffic regulations.

Anyway to remove the speculation. In December 2009 Noel Dempsey indicated that he hoped to legalise the practice of cyclists passing slower traffic on the inside. This seems to me a fairly clear confirmation that it was not legal then and is not legal now.

In terms of the "superiority" of left filtering over red light running. You could argue that cyclists unlawfully trying to pass left turning HGVs on the left has been a more prominent source of deaths than red light running.

This could be taken as a suggestion that left filtering should attract more oprobrium than jumping lights.

HivemindXX

galwaycyclist wrote: »

In terms of the "superiority" of left filtering over red light running. You could argue that cyclists unlawfully trying to pass left turning HGVs on the left has been a more prominent source of deaths than red light running.

This could be taken as a suggestion that left filtering should attract more oprobrium than jumping lights.

This is another good point.

It hightlights that the way cyclists typically go through red lights is not dangerous enough to cause a lot of fatalities. It might be inconsiderate, cause other traffic to have to slow or take evasive action and generally bring down the ire of the Joe Duffy ringing masses upon us but it's not very dangerous.

However it's clear to anyone that filtering on the left is extremely common at traffic lights. To the extent that it is rare to see someone not doing it. There are a lot more cars on the roads than trucks but trucks are involved in by far the majority of these types of accidents. Since cyclists pass both trucks and cars on the inside I think the poor visibility and/or lack of attention by truck drivers is a significant contributing factor.

Here's why I'm a hypocrite. I don't think we should go through red lights at all. I won't go through a pedestrian crossing even when there is nobody there because I believe once that's acceptable people will decide it's acceptable to go through when there's a sufficient gap in the pedestrian traffic and then we'll have people skimming through the middle of knots of people excusing themselves because they didn't actually hit anyone.

On the other hand when it comes to filtering on the left I've decided I'm allowed to decide for myself whether this is ok. I will filter up the inside where traffic is busy, there is plenty of room and no intersections approaching without a thought (for example the Grand Canal in Dublin). I won't filter inside a left turning truck (or anything) near a junction and I generally won't filter up the inside of a left turn only lane. I've pulled in behind left turning traffic when the light has gone green only to see a cyclist pass them on the inside forcing the lead car to stop in the junction while the cyclist clears. Once again on the canal I've seen left turning cars stuck at the junction while multiple cyclists pass them on the inside. This sort of behaviour is the mark of a self centred wanker but I'm not really able to criticise since (apparently) we're all breaking the law, they just made a different personal decision about how far it was ok to go.

Lumen

galwaycyclist wrote: »

If you are doing something that would be illegal in a car then the burden of proof is on you to show that cyclists have a specific, stated, exemption in the traffic regulations.

Stuff isn't illegal by default. ISTR that the speed limit legislation doesn't explicitly state an exemption for bicycles, but speed limits not to apply to bicycles.

I really can't be bothered to check the legislation, but here is an excerpt from the rulesoftheroad.ie

"When cycling alongside traffic stopped in line, be aware of gaps in the traffic to allow other vehicles to turn across the stationary lane. The view of the car that is turning may be blocked due to the traffic build-up."

That's filtering. If it's illegal, then why is the RSA site explaining how to do it?

galwaycyclist

Lumen wrote: »

I really can't be bothered to check the legislation, but here is an excerpt from the rulesoftheroad.ie

"When cycling alongside traffic stopped in line, be aware of gaps in the traffic to allow other vehicles to turn across the stationary lane. The view of the car that is turning may be blocked due to the traffic build-up."

That's filtering. If it's illegal, then why is the RSA site explaining how to do it?

The rules of the road text is not the law. In my view the RSA are open to the accusation that they are being disingenuous in how they present their advice. (This is a long standing argument). So do they actually state anywhere that it is legal for cyclist to pass left or is it just an "understanding" that might be derived from their phrasing? If its legal why would a minister talk about legalising it?

Lumen

galwaycyclist wrote: »

The rules of the road text is not the law. In my view the RSA are open to the accusation that they are being disingenuous in how they present their advice. (This is a long standing argument). So do they actually state anywhere that it is legal for cyclist to pass left or is it just an "understanding" that might be derived from their phrasing? If its legal why would a minister talk about legalising it?

I don't really care, do you? What's your point anyway?

tomasrojo

One concern, I think, would be that a cyclist injured while passing a larger vehicle on the left has no legal recourse while that action remains legally nebulous. If it were explicitly permitted, I assume the injured cyclist would have more legal options.

It's bizarre that we have straight-ahead cycle lanes placed on the left of the left-turn lane, when it isn't even clear that such a manoeuvre is legal (or that a cycle lane is legally a separate lane).

galwaycyclist

Lumen wrote: »

I don't really care, do you? What's your point anyway?

Then what is your purpose in participating in this discussion?

Lumen

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Then what is your purpose in participating in this discussion?

Slagging off RLJers.

I'm not interesting in finding out that I have to spend an extra half hour on my commute sitting behind cars because filtering is illegal.

galwaycyclist

Lumen wrote: »

Slagging off RLJers.

I'm not interesting in finding out that I have to spend an extra half hour on my commute sitting behind cars because filtering is illegal.

Yep thats actually a reasonable position. Nobody want their life made more awkward for no good apparent reason - possibly not even the RLJers.

TinyExplosions

Lumen wrote: »

I'm not interesting

Understatement of the year!

galwaycyclist

Lumen wrote: »

Slagging off RLJers.

I'm not interesting in finding out that I have to spend an extra half hour on my commute sitting behind cars because filtering is illegal.

PS Nobody said you had to sit behind them only that you have to pass them on the right. Thats my standard method for maintaining progress in heavy traffic. (Polishes halo)

Lumen

galwaycyclist wrote: »

PS Nobody said you had to sit behind them only that you have to pass them on the right. Thats my standard method for maintaining progress in heavy traffic. (Polishes halo)

Sometimes it's safer on the left, sometimes on the right. I weigh up the risk of being doored vs the risk of being hit by oncoming traffic.

Anyway, I think filtering is different from passing on the left. Motorcyclists tend to consider filtering acceptable but passing on left unacceptable.

ThisRegard

IMO you're just putting yourself in more danger by trying to keep that halo clean for some law that may not even exist. Vehicles will expect cyclists on their left in traffic, and for the most part leave a bit of space to enable cyclists to do so. If you're on the outside you also have to contest with oncoming traffic which may swing out towards you to go around traffic, parked vehicles etc.

It's a stupid thing to do just because there's no explicit law saying a cyclist can 'undertake' on the left in the same lane as stopped/slow moving traffic.

tomasrojo

I wouldn't say it's stupid to pass on the right. I've only ever found a problem with it when traffic is backed up in your direction and totally stationary, so you get people who get frustrated and unexpectedly swing across the road to turn around and drive the other way.

If traffic is moving along, they'll be passing you on the right; if traffic at a moderate speed you can get in the main stream.

I don't always pass stationary traffic on the right. Probably more often on the left, but very, very carefully.

RobertFoster

ThisRegard wrote: »

Vehicles will expect cyclists on their left in traffic, and for the most part leave a bit of space to enable cyclists to do so.

I find for the most part they don't leave space to pass on the left. Once I've been overtaken (in a mad rush to get to queue at the red light ahead), I'm completely forgotten about and the driver hugs the kerb.

I suppose they could be the same people who drive with two wheels in the bus lane. Either they don't know they can look in their left mirror to straighten themselves up, or they're adverse to buses getting somewhere before them.

galwaycyclist

ThisRegard wrote: »

IMO you're just putting yourself in more danger by trying to keep that halo clean for some law that may not even exist. Vehicles will expect cyclists on their left in traffic, and for the most part leave a bit of space to enable cyclists to do so. If you're on the outside you also have to contest with oncoming traffic which may swing out towards you to go around traffic, parked vehicles etc.

It's a stupid thing to do just because there's no explicit law saying a cyclist can 'undertake' on the left in the same lane as stopped/slow moving traffic.

I can assure you that I am very clear regarding the legal situation. I would query your understanding that motorists leave space for cyclists on the left. The space you refer to may be an artefact of Dublin streets that were laid out by the wide streets commission. In Galway, it is our experience that a fair proportion of motorists will deliberately pull in to the kerb when halted in traffic. This may be something that is deliberately taught or deliberately tested for in driver training and testing.

Overtaking on the right is the only legal option for us and is supported by sources such as Cyclecraft and the UK National Standard for Cycle Training. (Bearing in mind that filtering on the left is legal in the UK - John Franklin still recommends passing on the right).

Clearly you also have to yeild to oncoming traffic - its no different to overtaking in a car. However on a bike you have much more space to pull in if you meet something coming the other way.

BTW. I am not endorsing the Irish legal situation merely pointing it out by way of exploring peoples real attitudes to the law - which so far are quite interesting.

ThisRegard

tomasrojo wrote: »

I wouldn't say it's stupid to pass on the right.

I meant stupid making the point to only pass on the right because there's no explicit law saying you're allowed undertake on the left. I pass both ways, traffic conditions depending.

@RobertFoster, as I said, for the most part you're given space, there's exceptions to every rule. And I'm not implying that you then shouldn't go around traffic on the outside.

@Galwaycyclist, query all you want, I'm speaking from personal experience.

What are you insinuating by your line "merely pointing it out by way of exploring people real attitudes to the law - which so far are quite interesting." ? Are you saying we're all law breakers because we undertake while on the left ?

galwaycyclist

ThisRegard wrote: »

Are you saying we're all law breakers because we undertake while on the left ?

Correct you are breaking the law unless those specific circumstances apply where the regulations state that you may pass on the left.

In Irish law there is no difference between a cyclist and the driver of a motor vehicle.

Dermot Illogical

galwaycyclist wrote: »

PS Nobody said you had to sit behind them only that you have to pass them on the right. Thats my standard method for maintaining progress in heavy traffic. (Polishes halo)

That would be my usual/preferred method too, and I don't run red lights either. Do I win a prize?
Having spent quite a few years riding motorbikes, I've come to the conclusion that there's limited difference between them* and bicycles in urban areas once you're moving faster than other traffic. So I generally take the same lines, and use the same techniques, when I'm cycling as I would have while motorcycling. I overtake on the right, and have no problem signaling and moving into a lane once I'm matching or faster than the speed of it's occupants.
However, I will often be doing this despite the presence of a mandatory cycle lane which makes it legally dubious. It's my little protest against those who would squeeze me into a space shared with drains, potholes, "cyclists dismount" signs, oblivious pedestrians, parked cars, buses, taxis and passenger doors that suddenly open.

*Assuming the motorcycle is being driven reasonably legally speed-wise etc..

Lumen

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Correct you are breaking the law unless those specific circumstances apply where the regulations state that you may pass on the left

That's all very well in theory, but in practice legislation is irrelevant until it is tested in court. FWIW I looked at the 2010 RTA, and some of the the wording is utter garbage.

Since (unless you can provide an example) no cyclist has been taken to court for passing on the left, filtering, or not using a mandatory cycle lane, your assertions concerning what is and isn't the law in these areas are speculative.

On the other hand, there are several threads on boards concerning RLJing cyclists getting summons, so it's not reasonable to conflate these issues.

tomasrojo

No-one is likely to be stopped for passing on the left, but has a legal case ever been taken in the aftermath of a collision in this scenario, and if so what was the outcome?

ThisRegard

Well slap the cuffs on haul me away to court as a serial offender so. While you may think that passing only on the right makes you some sort of angel, you just come across as having an anal retentive issue with regards to the dots and crosses in what you see is the law for cyclist.

galwaycyclist

Lumen wrote: »

Since (unless you can provide an example) no cyclist has been taken to court for passing on the left, filtering, or not using a mandatory cycle lane, your assertions concerning what is and isn't the law in these areas are speculative.

As it happens I am in posession of a legal opinion to the effect stated. I have been asked not to publish it. PM me if you want details.

droidus

So what you're saying is, that since pretty much every cyclist here filters on the left, we are all breaking the law anyway, and we may as well jump the lights as well?

galwaycyclist

droidus wrote: »

So what you're saying is, that since pretty much every cyclist here filters on the left, we are all breaking the law anyway, and we may as well jump the lights as well?

Bit early for conclusions. Perhaps we need a bit more discussion as to what our attitudes to the law are first? Then we can start discussing the implications.

Dermot Illogical

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Bit early for conclusions.

I've come to one already.

doozerie

I think that describing what cyclists typically do (passing traffic on the left) as undertaking, while technically correct, assumes a few things that, to my mind at least, rarely hold true. For one thing it assumes that a cyclist makes a conscious move to the inside to pass, rather than already being on the inside by virtue of a line of traffic placing/keeping the cyclist in that position - and inherent in this is an assumption that the cyclist typically should and could otherwise be occupying the position of a car in traffic and therefore being part of the line of traffic. In practice, motorists generally expect cyclists to not occupy the road in front of them, but rather expect them to keep to the left to permit motorised traffic to pass, and this attitude applies regardless of the relative speeds of cyclist and motorists. I think that cyclists too generally adopt the same approach, for reasons of safety and/or convenience (and no, it's not always safe). Cycle lanes promote this behaviour but the behaviour has existed for a lot longer than the cycle lanes. Obviously cyclist road position varies according to the width of the road, the volume of traffic, etc., but keeping to the inside of motorised traffic has been the standard approach, so far as I can tell, anywhere I've cycled (and trying to interleave with motorised traffic has been the cause of most aggro I've encountered while on the bike, though sometimes it's an entirely necessary, and/or the safest, thing to do too).

Behaviour does not over-ride the laws, of course, and perhaps a cyclist could be found legally at fault for undertaking. But if this were the case, would things change for the better if everyone were to alter their riding/driving styles overnight to adhere to a requirement for cyclists to not undertake, I wonder? It's an academic question though, I think, as I'm not sure that either cyclists or motorists would be keen to see such a law enforced and for the same reason I couldn't see the gardai as being keen to encourage it either. The current situation of cyclists keeping inside motorised traffic is a compromise, and a strictly illegal one perhaps (I've not checked the actual laws either), but one with benefits for cyclists and motorists alike it seems to me and I can't picture a reasonable alternative that would work better for either party.

blorg

tomasrojo wrote: »

I wouldn't say it's stupid to pass on the right. I've only ever found a problem with it when traffic is backed up in your direction and totally stationary, so you get people who get frustrated and unexpectedly swing across the road to turn around and drive the other way.

I've been hit in this situation, clipped on the back wheel and sent flying through the air. No serious injuries thankfully. Motorist said he didn't expect me to be passing on the right. I do think most expect cyclists to pass on the left and that it is safer in most situations.

Idleater

doozerie wrote: »

I think that describing what cyclists typically do (passing traffic on the left) as undertaking, while technically correct...

It is only undertaking if both the cyclists and vehicular traffic are moving side by side and the cyclists make a move to pass. Staying in lane does not constitute a move.
The liklihood of this happening in anything but slow moving traffic is remote.
Where a cyclist and traffic are traveling faster say 50kmph in a 60 zone and there is an opportunity to overtake legally one would presume the cyclist would have the sense and wherewithal to overtake legally and safely on the right.
Similarly, if the vehicular traffic slows eg due to traffic lights, then cyclists on the left may legally continue with due care without being termed undertaking under the "traveling in queues " exemption without resorting to the traffic must be turning right for straight ahead or cyclist turning left and vehicles traveling straight.
Due care and attention always supersedes overtaking and passing on the left.

Diarmuid

galwaycyclist wrote: »

As it happens I am in posession of a legal opinion to the effect stated. I have been asked not to publish it. PM me if you want details.

"ROTR :galwaycyclist special edition" ?

tomasrojo

Diarmuid wrote: »

"ROTR :galwaycyclist special edition" ?

Again, no-one is going to pull you up for passing on the inside. But you could be completely without legal defence in the event of an accident doing so. This doesn't mean that you should pass on the right, necessarily, since avoiding an accident in the first place is more important. But it is important that the law protect people who are doing what they in all good faith regard as the correct thing to do. As things stand, it looks as if it doesn't afford cyclists any legal protection if they are injured passing on the inside. (This is mostly of importance at junctions, where passing on the inside is far more likely to result in injury.)

RobFowl

galwaycyclist wrote: »

As it happens I am in posession of a legal opinion to the effect stated. I have been asked not to publish it. PM me if you want details.

Legal opinions are merely that until they are tested in court.
On a separate matter as part of a company I'm a director of (unpaid !) we have had 3 eminent legal opinions including senior counsel which are completely at odds with each other.