Should traffic laws be further enforced for cyclists?

Lumen

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Cyclists passing on the left is such a common circumstance that it is reasonable to expect that its practice and the limitations on its practice be covered.

Define "passing on the left".

tomasrojo

Why is monkeybutter talking about lights and hi-viz?

EDIT: oh yeah, probably something said about ten pages ago. In fact, four days ago. Fair enough.

doozerie

Idleater wrote: »

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.

By "staying in lane" do you mean the cyclist staying in the same (shared) lane as vehicular traffic? I presume so, but if nothing else this thread has highlighted to me that I routinely make certain fairly basic assumptions in traffic based on what I believe to be correct (i.e. legal, safe, and sensible) practice, and I'm questioning the validity of some of those assumptions now.

More generally, I see that some people are dubious about the merits of some of this discussion but personally I find it interesting. Some of the discussion focuses on fairly academic stuff certainly, but I've learned some useful things from it. Hopefully it's knowledge that I'll never need to apply, given that it focuses on the finer details of some aspects of some road laws, but I'd rather know it than not.

Idleater

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Then your point is not that it is ok to keep going past queues but it is that it is ok to keep going past them when you have a reasonable expectation of completing the manouevre or of being able to rejoin the traffic stream going in your intended direction if necessary.

You have pretty much given a text book description of a safe overtake.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

That is not quite the same concept. It seems to me that to be lawful such manoevres must also conform to the other regulations regarding overtaking.

But it is. You highlighted as much when you linked to the IrishStatuteBook.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

So what kind of vehicle were you using? - you don't appear to state.

The RoSPA exam was on the motorcycle, but the "advanced" concepts do not cease to apply once the method of transport changes, only the execution of them does. I.e. an overtake is an overtake regardless of the method of transport and the exact regulations that you mention do apply.

My point was that any manoeuvre must be executed with Due Care and Attention, I did not specify that it only applied to potentially undertaking cyclists. I merely outlined instances where it was legal to perform such manoeuvres and I illustrated this point by extending the "undertaking" of cyclists to the "filtering" of motorcyclists. I also stated that the instances where one can perform such manoeuvres is limited by the mode of transport as well as the circumstances - eg easiest done by cyclists, next motorcyclists, probably not possible by cars and most likely impossible by HGV's.

If you really want to get into the specifics and dynamics of overtaking procedures then we can do that, but I think that would divert too much from the main topic at hand.

I think that we should take a step back for a moment and stop talking about specific instances and talk more about general practices as outlined in the ISB. The ISB law states the circumstances in which passing on the left is permissible. It is my opinion that cyclists negotiating a line of stationary or slow moving traffic on the left may do so legally as long as the Due Care and Attention to other road users and pedestrians apply.

tomasrojo

monkeybutter wrote: »

Lights are only of use when you are at an angle when they are directed at you, so if a car is coming at a right angle to you, you are difficult to see, thus the high viz jacket. When a cars light flash across you, you are lit up like a christ mass tree.

As a vulerable road user, you have to take personal responsability, you can't rely on car drivers to always see you in the teeming rain, with oncoming traffic dazling them and you dressed like a ninja.

I find the wrist light more effective. If you are approaching the orthogonally placed car from the right (from the car's point of view), you are still highly visible, which hi-viz can't accomplish, because the car lights throw to the left and down.

I think people who use hi-viz in preference to wrist lights are cavalier about their own safety. I can't understand why they don't take personal responsibility and use wrist lights.

galwaycyclist

Idleater wrote: »

I think that we should take a step back for a moment and stop talking about specific instances and talk more about general practices as outlined in the ISB. The ISB law states the circumstances in which passing on the left is permissible. It is my opinion that cyclists negotiating a line of stationary or slow moving traffic on the left may do so legally as long as the Due Care and Attention to other road users and pedestrians apply.

Ok we were talking accross each other on the other thing.

As regards the legality of what you describe it is my view that it should be legal and that cyclists should expect the protection of the law in such cases. However, it seems at this point that it is not strictly legal and that if it goes wrong for a cyclist you are relying on the sympathy of the court rather than the protection of statute. Not good enough.

Idleater

galwaycyclist wrote: »

As regards the legality of what you describe it is my view that it should be legal and that cyclists should expect the protection of the law in such cases.

Relying on the protection of the law is not a good strategy and I certainly would prioritise safety over legality in any situation. As a motorcyclist when more often than not I would have the full backing of the law behind me, I find it unwise to perform manoeuvres simply because I have no interest in testing a point of law from a hospital bed.

I empathise with your desire for legal clarification on such matters regarding your course and wish you well with it.

galwaycyclist

Lumen wrote: »

Define "passing on the left".

Why don't we use the definition used by Minister for Transport Noel Dempsey in 2009?

The Minister also hopes to make legal the common practice of cyclists overtaking slow moving traffic on the inside. In this case, however, the cyclists' responsibility to have regard to their own safety will be reinforced by not allowing this type of overtaking, where a left-hand turn has been indicated by the vehicle to be overtaken and, where that vehicle will reach the corner before the cyclist.

Clearly at this time the Minister in charge of traffic legislation was of the view that this type of overtaking by cyclists was not legal.

Nanazolie

blorg wrote: »

A motorist has to yield if crossing a continuous cycle lane into a side road. The cyclist has to yield if the cycle lane ends at the junction (even if it immediately starts the other side.)

Thanks, that answers my question. I had never heard of passing traffic on the left being illegal when as a cyclist you are expected to stay on the left side of the road (if the taxis who yell at me when I try changing lanes are to be believed). There are a couple of left turns on my cycling journey, some of them have a continuous cycle lanes and I couldn't understand why on earth it would be illegal for a cyclist to keep going when they are on these continuous lanes.

Lumen, there is a long strech of offroad cycle lanes on the Dublin road towards Howth

Lumen

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Why don't we use the definition used by Minister for Transport Noel Dempsey in 2009?

Clearly at this time the Minister in charge of traffic legislation was of the view that this type of overtaking by cyclists was not legal.

OK, so you're definitely talking about the special case of passing on the left of traffic in the same lane, not the general case of passing slower traffic in a lane to the right (which is legal AFAIK).

To your understanding, is filtering (i.e. passing between lanes of traffic) legal?

TBH I wouldn't trust a FF minister to find his way out of a brown paper bag, let alone understand the law.

galwaycyclist

Lumen wrote: »

To your understanding, is filtering (i.e. passing between lanes of traffic) legal?

Probably not the way I do it - eg tear along the dotted line - no. However, if I stayed within the confines of the left lane when passing traffic in the right lane then I suspect its covered.

However the cyclists who are brave enough to tear along the dotted line are not really my main concern at this point.

galwaycyclist

Lumen wrote: »

TBH I wouldn't trust a FF minister to find his way out of a brown paper bag, let alone understand the law.

You don't think they really write their own press releases do you? or generally profer opinions on matters of law that did not come from their civil servants?

Lumen

galwaycyclist wrote: »

You don't think they really write their own press releases do you? or generally profer opinions on matters of law that did not come from their civil servants?

I have no idea which particular bit of garbage in results in which particular bit of garbage out.

check_six

Observed the other day: young lady on Dublin Bike travelling from Clanwilliam Place to Warrington Place in Dublin near Grand Canal along new segregated bike lane. Lights are red, lady waits patiently for green light. Lights turn green, lady sets off, dude in black Smart car waiting beside her turns left, nearly rams her, and leans on carhorn for ages. Lady continues to bike lane on other side of junction without so much as a dirty look at the car (very dignified).

Here is where the turn is: http://maps.google.com/?ll=53.337643,-6.240634&spn=0,0.002835&z=19&layer=c&cbll=53.337721,-6.240524&panoid=UOcVcDXeArHO2CImZRYExw&cbp=12,42.19,,0,0
A new two way segregated bike lane has been added where the old red bike lane appears in this picture.

I don't think this adds to the legal debate here, but that blasted bike lane does not really work in real life. Heading with traffic is tricky because you become even more invisible to the cars when you are cut off from them, and I can't imagine how to go against traffic using the second lane as you are on the wrong side of everyone.

Weirdly, I think this lane only works if the cyclist waits for a red light for the cars then goes... <waits for interweb to explode>

Disclaimer: I travel the other way (Mount St - Northumberland Rd) across this junction 99% of the time, so I have yet to use this new cycle lane facility myself.

SerialComplaint

I missed this interesting debate while on holidays. Here's part of my daily experience with passing on the left;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CORFpujaNOI

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Clearly at this time the Minister in charge of traffic legislation was of the view that this type of overtaking by cyclists was not legal.

That's not true. Saying he wants to make it legal is not the same as saying it is currently illegal. He may well want to make it legal because it is currently unclear in law whether this is legal or not.

-Chris-

SerialComplaint wrote: »

I missed this interesting debate while on holidays. Here's part of my daily experience with passing on the left;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CORFpujaNOI

I consider myself quite pro-cyclist, but would often position myself fairly tightly left if I'm first or second in the queue waiting to turn left.
I consider it to be defensive driving as I know there are many cyclists who will try and pass a vehicle on the left, while it's turning left.

I'm not sure if the Volvo made that conscious decision, or if they just have bad lane positioning (or even if this admission is likely to drag the thread off-topic and expose me to open derision), but I just want to give an alternate perspective to that particular obnoxious habit...

seamus

-Chris- wrote: »

I'm not sure if the Volvo made that conscious decision, or if they just have bad lane positioning (or even if this admission is likely to drag the thread off-topic and expose me to open derision), but I just want to give an alternate perspective to that particular obnoxious habit...

The Volvo in this case is turning right, you can see the indicator for a brief second. It's just the same kind of inconsiderate driving that we see every day.

I will also admit to hugging the kerb if I'm first in the queue and turning left, especially if the lane is already tight. In that case, I would rather cyclists wait behind me or overtake on the right, rather than try to squeeze up along the left and try to head straight on.

When I cycle up behind a queue where the car at the top is indicating left, I will always sit behind or overtake on the right.

alentejo

check_six wrote: »

Observed the other day: young lady on Dublin Bike travelling from Clanwilliam Place to Warrington Place in Dublin near Grand Canal along new segregated bike lane. Lights are red, lady waits patiently for green light. Lights turn green, lady sets off, dude in black Smart car waiting beside her turns left, nearly rams her, and leans on carhorn for ages. Lady continues to bike lane on other side of junction without so much as a dirty look at the car (very dignified).

Here is where the turn is: http://maps.google.com/?ll=53.337643,-6.240634&spn=0,0.002835&z=19&layer=c&cbll=53.337721,-6.240524&panoid=UOcVcDXeArHO2CImZRYExw&cbp=12,42.19,,0,0
A new two way segregated bike lane has been added where the old red bike lane appears in this picture.

I don't think this adds to the legal debate here, but that blasted bike lane does not really work in real life. Heading with traffic is tricky because you become even more invisible to the cars when you are cut off from them, and I can't imagine how to go against traffic using the second lane as you are on the wrong side of everyone.

Weirdly, I think this lane only works if the cyclist waits for a red light for the cars then goes... <waits for interweb to explode>

Disclaimer: I travel the other way (Mount St - Northumberland Rd) across this junction 99% of the time, so I have yet to use this new cycle lane facility myself.

The exact same happened to me recently at this very junction. This is a deadly design for cyclists.

Seaswimmer

alentejo wrote: »

The exact same happened to me recently at this very junction. This is a deadly design for cyclists.

Is the cycle lane open. i assumed that when fully operational that there would be green cycle lights ONLY for bikes at certain times during the traffic light phase. With our new flagship cycle lane, surely they have not made such a basic mistake as outlined above...

check_six

Seaswimmer wrote: »

Is the cycle lane open. i assumed that when fully operational that there would be green cycle lights ONLY for bikes at certain times during the traffic light phase. With our new flagship cycle lane, surely they have not made such a basic mistake as outlined above...

dot dot dot, indeed! This lane has been open for business since the Bike Week in June. It looked like traffic lights for bikes would/might be installed, but no sign of them yet.

It took a while to get that lane constructed, I'm sure they have thought of everything ahead of time, and in no way have they made a massive oversight in the design.
That is the way we roll around these parts, yes? (stop looking at me like that!)

monument

The cycle track along the canal is not "officially" opened.

It is due to be opened in a few weeks.

tomasrojo

It has lights installed but not yet operational -- last I saw -- at the bridge-crossing at Ranelagh Road.

They seem to be still doing basic construction of it at Lower Grand Canal Street.

SteM

monument wrote: »

The cycle track along the canal is not "officially" opened.

It is due to be opened in a few weeks.

It's already being used as a footpath by pedestrians on the Wilton Terrace section. There's the footpath beside the canal, a second footpath at the side of the road and people still insist on walking along the cycle lane

daragh_

SteM wrote: »

It's already being used as a footpath by pedestrians on the Wilton Terrace section. There's the footpath beside the canal, a second footpath at the side of the road and people still insist on walking along the cycle lane

Got some filthy looks from Pedestrians there this morning for daring to impede them by being in the bike lane on an actual bike.

Seaswimmer

SteM wrote: »

It's already being used as a footpath by pedestrians on the Wilton Terrace section. There's the footpath beside the canal, a second footpath at the side of the road and people still insist on walking along the cycle lane

Having lived and cycled on the continent it always amazes me that more of us dont have bells on our bikes. I think in Ireland we have fallen victim to cycling as a "sport" and we are selling the wrong types of bikes to people. Have you ever tried to get a teenager to even look at a "sensible" bike with mudguards,rack, hub dynamo ect. I have and had zero success.

Sorry. Back on topic!!

Lumen

Seaswimmer wrote: »

Have you ever tried to get a teenager to even look at a "sensible" bike with mudguards,rack, hub dynamo ect. I have and had zero success.

Teenagers are stupid. When I was a teenager I used to do 10km rides on a unicycle. On the footpad.

seamus

Seaswimmer wrote: »

Having lived and cycled on the continent it always amazes me that more of us dont have bells on our bikes.

Tbh, if I had a bell on the bike it would go unused. As it is I beep the horn on my car probably once a year. The way I see it, if you have time to ring your bell, then you have time to stop/change direction and let the idiot get on with it. It might come in useful I guess for getting ped's attention so they move out of your way, but I don't use cycle tracks so that's not an issue

Have you ever tried to get a teenager to even look at a "sensible" bike with mudguards,rack, hub dynamo ect. I have and had zero success.

Teenagers want to go fast and look cool. When's the last time you saw a teenager driving a "sensible" car?