Skipping at traffic lights

Harrybelafonte

NeedMoreGears

SI 332/2012 contains provisions relating to cyclists overtaking on the left

“(5)(a) A driver (other than a pedal cyclist) may only overtake on the left—

(i) where the driver of the vehicle about to be overtaken has signalled an intention to turn to the right and the driver of the overtaking vehicle intends, after overtaking, to go straight ahead or turn to the left,

(ii) where the driver of the overtaking vehicle intends, after overtaking, to turn to the left at the next road junction and has signalled this intention, or

(iii) in slow-moving traffic, when vehicles in the traffic lane on the driver’s right are moving more slowly than the overtaking vehicle,

(b) A pedal cyclist may overtake on the left where vehicles to the pedal cyclist’s right are stationary or are moving more slowly than the overtaking pedal cycle, except where the vehicle to be overtaken—

(i) has signalled an intention to turn to the left and there is a reasonable expectation that the vehicle in which the driver has signalled an intention to turn to the left will execute a movement to the left before the cycle overtakes the vehicle,

(ii) is stationary for the purposes of permitting a passenger or passengers to alight or board the vehicle, or

(iii) is stationary for the purposes of loading or unloading.”,

It is interesting that the provision in 5(a)(iii) that allows non pedal cyclists overtake on the left when the traffic in a lane to the right is slower is not restated but is replaced by a more general permission to pass a vehicle on the left, presumably regardless of whether the vehicle in the same lane as the pedal cyclist or in a lane to the right.

Prior to the introduction of SI 332, the more general exemptions to overtaking on the left would have, I believe, applied to pedal cyclists. Under the earlier regulations I think there would have been a good argument to be made that vehicles in lanes to the right "don't count" as such. Hence pedal cyclists could travel two abreast in the left lane and it would be legal for a third pedal cyclist to pass the other two. This in turn suggests that it is legal for up to three cyclists being abreast of one another during an overaking manoeouvre whilst all three are passing slower/stationary vehicles. Carrying this idea forward to the current regulations (on the basis that the new regulations were aimed at improving things for cyclists) suggests to me that it is ok to pass another pedal cyclist in a lane when there are slower moving or stationary vehicles in a lane to the right - always to the general provisions of safety, inconvenience etc.

TLDR - I suspect it's ok to pass a cyclist within lane when there is traffic in a lane to the right subject to the usual safety and convenience obligations.

Fian

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

TLDR - I suspect it's ok to pass a cyclist within lane when there is traffic in a lane to the right subject to the usual safety and convenience obligations.

I agree and i think it is pretty clear that so do An Garda Síochána since I have never heard of a cyclist being prosecuted for the heinous offence of "overtaking another cycle, in a cycle lane, when safe to do so, while both are filtering inside cars" which has been described in this thread. I understand Galwaycyclist to be objecting to passing a slower cyclist who in turn is filtering inside traffic on the basis that the slower cyclist is "overtaking" the cars and you are not permitted to by section 47(2) below:


Pedal Cyclists
47. (1) A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than two pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.

(2) Pedal cyclists on a roadway shall cycle in single file when overtaking other traffic.

This reasoning rests on that "filtering" being regarded as "overtaking" rather than "undertaking". Filtering is technically "overtaking" but i think there is a strong likelihood that a court would be persuaded that "overtaking" within the meaning of section 47(2) refers to overtaking on the right and the subsection does not prohibit passing to the right of slower cyclists and left of slower cars when it is safe to do so. Not that a prosecution is a realistic likelihood in those circumstances.

Bottom line: I wouldn't hesitate to make that manoeuver in front of a traffic cop.

dreamerb

Fian wrote: »

I agree and i think it is pretty clear that so do An Garda Síochána since I have never heard of a cyclist being prosecuted for the heinous offence of "overtaking another cycle, in a cycle lane, when safe to do so, while both are filtering inside cars" which has been described in this thread.

I think it generally isn't safe to do so: cycle lanes aren't wide enough.

You should not overtake another cyclist so close that a wobble from either of you has the potential for disaster, and I can think of only one (short) on-road cycle lane wide enough to allow that.

One of my pet hates is cyclists who won't wait for a short while and decide to squeeze between me and a moving car - with maybe less than a foot clearance from me and without even announcing their presence in advance. What's worse is that it tends to happen when I'm already "queueing" behind a slower cyclist waiting for a safe place to overtake.

... not accusing ROK ON of doing this, btw. I made no assumption from his post that there was anything unsafe about his overtaking. If anything I'd have assumed it was in a bus lane.

galwaycyclist

Fian wrote: »

I agree and i think it is pretty clear that so do An Garda Síochána since I have never heard of a cyclist being prosecuted for the heinous offence of "overtaking another cycle, in a cycle lane, when safe to do so, while both are filtering inside cars" which has been described in this thread.

I think you may be the first to introduce the cycle lane. The original description did not include either a cycle lane or a bus lane. Clearly the use of separate lanes is a different situation.

I understand Galwaycyclist to be objecting to passing a slower cyclist who in turn is filtering inside traffic on the basis that the slower cyclist is "overtaking" the cars and you are not permitted to by section 47(2) below:

If someone is already overtaking then, in my view, they are entitled to complete the manouevre without interference from following traffic regardless of what vehicle either is using, or what either's preferred speed is.

The issue here is a bit like bus drivers and taxi-drivers who object to being held up by cyclists in narrow bus lanes. They are already getting the benefits of being able to keep moving past stalled traffic but some people seem to want their cake and eat it too.

galwaycyclist

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

It is interesting that the provision in 5(a)(iii) that allows non pedal cyclists overtake on the left when the traffic in a lane to the right is slower is not restated but is replaced by a more general permission to pass a vehicle on the left, presumably regardless of whether the vehicle in the same lane as the pedal cyclist or in a lane to the right.

Prior to the introduction of SI 332, the more general exemptions to overtaking on the left would have, I believe, applied to pedal cyclists. Under the earlier regulations I think there would have been a good argument to be made that vehicles in lanes to the right "don't count" as such. Hence pedal cyclists could travel two abreast in the left lane and it would be legal for a third pedal cyclist to pass the other two. This in turn suggests that it is legal for up to three cyclists being abreast of one another during an overaking manoeouvre whilst all three are passing slower/stationary vehicles. Carrying this idea forward to the current regulations (on the basis that the new regulations were aimed at improving things for cyclists) suggests to me that it is ok to pass another pedal cyclist in a lane when there are slower moving or stationary vehicles in a lane to the right - always to the general provisions of safety, inconvenience etc.

TLDR - I suspect it's ok to pass a cyclist within lane when there is traffic in a lane to the right subject to the usual safety and convenience obligations.

I agree that situations where there are separate traffic lanes are a different situation and that where there is a free lane for cyclists to use then it would appear they may overtake each other within that lane.

But that was not what was being discussed by some of our contributors. What was being described and endorsed was passing both cyclists and other traffic in the same lane at the same time. The regulations on over taking above do not seem to me to provide for simultaneously passing two vehicles in the same lane at the same time by driving between them when one is overtaking the other.

Again the legality of the cyclists being three abreast seems to me to rest on the idea that two of them are not overtaking each other - they have chosen by arrangement to cycle side by side.

NeedMoreGears

Just to clarify my earlier post, I was thinking in terms of bus lane or a lane designed for motor traffic. I don't think I've ever seen a cycle lane that's wide enough for two (let alone three!). Come to think of it. I'm not sure I've seen that many lanes that would provide enough room for a cyclist to pass another cyclist while there was a stationary car in the lane as well.

Carawaystick

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

Just to clarify my earlier post, I was thinking in terms of bus lane or a lane designed for motor traffic. I don't think I've ever seen a cycle lane that's wide enough for two (let alone three!). Come to think of it. I'm not sure I've seen that many lanes that would provide enough room for a cyclist to pass another cyclist while there was a stationary car in the lane as well.

There's shared use (spit!) lanes on the r132 more than 3m wide. so your could pass a stopped car and undertake a slower cyclist all at the same time...

The Long Mile road in Dublin has cycle lanes where you could pass 2 abreast cyclists.

Obviously the solution is to have advanced stop lines, so cyclists can spread out 20 abreast for the mass start as the lights go green

stop

A man's gotta have a code, here's mine.

I overtook you, later I stopped at the lights. Please stay behind me unless you are barrelling through the red light, in which case I will overtake you again when I catch up to you.

If you try to overtake me at a busy junction, like the ones on the canal cycle path, where I know you have skipped everyone else queuing patiently, I will not let you in. I will keep you in the opposite lane. You can overtake me when we have cleared the junction.

If I have stopped (in heavy traffic) to let a car travelling in the opposite dirdirection make a right turn, and I have deliberately placed myself to stop people passing while the car passes, do not see this as an opportunity to overtake. Again, wait until I have cleared the junction before you try.

CramCycle

stop wrote: »

If you try to overtake me at a busy junction, like the ones on the canal cycle path, where I know you have skipped everyone else queuing patiently, I will not let you in. I will keep you in the opposite lane. You can overtake me when we have cleared the junction.

I came along the canal path yesterday evening, with the DB blinding lights and people just overtaking into oncoming cyclists, I am still confused (but grateful) that there are not more incidents. I will be sticking to the road on the way home tonight.

Hunterbiker

Canal cycle path at peak times is a nightmare (for what I regard as) pushing in.
Its incredibly annoying to stop at the light either atthe front or behind others and find someone try and shoehorn themselves in ahead of you.
Most polite people wouldn't do it driving a car or waiting to pay in a shop but on a bicycle its okay...

Alanstrainor

The thing is...the people who do this, for the most part, are oblivious to any wrong doing. Every day, I will have 5+ people pull up infront of me, only for me to have to overtake them all again shortly after a set of lights; and of course repeat that process ad nauseam. It's just ignorance. It generally doesn't bother me...generally, but I'm not going to start telling people off either, it's not worth the hassle, or being labelled as that crazy fella on a bike.

CramCycle

Also the ped lights going first, you can see someone with a pram, or someone with a walking stick, so you wait for them to cross, they aren't fully over when the flashing amber comes on, so you wait , as you should and some muppet on a DB or a poor excuse for a hybrid, barrels through, skimming you and the pedestrian, and then others start to follow suit.

It is terrible but one day I want the guy with the walking stick to jab it into the ignoramuses front wheel.

Skrynesaver

On the bright side the weather and darkness will be reducing the muppet count over the next few weeks.

Fian

galwaycyclist wrote: »

I think you may be the first to introduce the cycle lane. The original description did not include either a cycle lane or a bus lane. Clearly the use of separate lanes is a different situation.



If someone is already overtaking then, in my view, they are entitled to complete the manouevre without interference from following traffic regardless of what vehicle either is using, or what either's preferred speed is.

The issue here is a bit like bus drivers and taxi-drivers who object to being held up by cyclists in narrow bus lanes. They are already getting the benefits of being able to keep moving past stalled traffic but some people seem to want their cake and eat it too.

Maybe I was the first to introduce cycling lanes, probably because I am thinking of my own commute.

I wonder is part of this discussion down to differences between cycling in Dublin and Galway?

My morning commute routinely involves constantly filtering past a traffic queue which is either at a standstill or rushing to the next set of lights. Meanwhile there is also a line of cyclists, I routinely pass cyclists about 20/30 ( - wild guess tbh I must count it sometime) times on my way into the city centre. There is a cycle lane more or less the whole way in.

It is absolutely normal that i come up behind cyclists where there is insufficient room to pass between them and traffic and that I need to wait for a minute until a gap opens up: when the car ahead of me has pulled off from the line at lights and i can slip out between him and the next car along, there is a "keep clear" box at a junction so that I can pull around the cyclist or cars have stopped a bit further out from the cycle lane so there is room to go between the cyclist and the cars.

It is also absolutely normal that I come up on a slow cyclist when there is stopped cars on the right and room to overtake between the cyclist and the cars without needing to wait. And I do that, probably twenty times, every single day. I do it safely, I give them an "on your right" and I don't dart into gaps where there is insufficient room. I make no apology for it and I don't think it is in any way unreasonable or reprehensible.

If I were to refuse to pass cyclists who are cycling past stopped cars I would essentially not be able to pass at all, aside maybe from shoaling at traffic lights and . Every cyclist on the Dublin commute is "overtaking" inside cars more or less constantly.

I am from Galway, rush hour traffic there is awful, so I guess that is probably also true for cyclists in Galway. But maybe there are alot less cyclists who need to be passed? Anyway what i am getting at is that it might be reasonable to take the view that no cyclist should pass another who in turn is passing inside cars in Galway, but if Dublin cyclists did that the traffic jams in the cycle lanes would be almost as bad as in the car lanes.

ROK ON

I have refrained from answering Galwayscyclists posts of yesterday because i am of the view that the posts written in the manner in which they are fall into the category of playing the man not the ball. I have reported those posts to the mods and have not had a reply.

So here it is.

I agree that close passing is more than inconsiderate it is dangerous. It has occasionally happened to me and I have been annoyed.

I categorically do not practice this.

There was nothing unlawful about my overtaking o the cyclist as recounted in my original posts, yet Galwaycyclist has maintained that it was unlawful. This has persisted despite my explanation of the space that I had and despite another poster quoting an SI.

I have never squeezed past a cyclist hole commuting and I will not. I expect that cyclists overtaking me use similar space to a car - a judgement of one meter distance. If less space exists that that then I do not overtake.

I was annoyed initially at being accused by another cyclists of breaking the law which I did not. I am annoyed now at being accused by Galwaycyclist of breaking the law when I did not. I resent he implication that I am a wreckless and unlawful cyclist.

When space exists in fro t of me to overtake another vehicle on the road I will do so if my natural pace is faster than theirs at the time and that the space exists so that I can pull in well clear of that vehicle. I have been doing this since I was 10, I am 42 years of age. That is a long time commuting without travail.

Qualitymark

I've recently had a few near collisions with young cyclists who bruise past me as I move out to avoid a pothole; I think it's their inexperience and they'll learn when they hurtle off the bike in front of the car in the lane beside them. But I don't want to be the source of their ciall ceannaithe involving my own injuries.

galwaycyclist

Fian wrote: »

Maybe I was the first to introduce cycling lanes, probably because I am thinking of my own commute.

I wonder is part of this discussion down to differences between cycling in Dublin and Galway?

<snip>

There is a cycle lane more or less the whole way in.

<snip>

there is a "keep clear" box at a junction so that I can pull around the cyclist or cars have stopped a bit further out from the cycle lane so there is room to go between the cyclist and the cars.

<snip>

but if Dublin cyclists did that the traffic jams in the cycle lanes would be almost as bad as in the car lanes.

As I have made clear, I am not talking about cycle lanes and nobody mentioned cycle lanes or bus lanes at the start.

I agree that there may be differences between Galway and Dublin - in particular in those places where the wide-streets commission dictated the road width. In the rest of the country the standard urban lane-width was 3.65m for decades and about ten years ago that was reduced to 3.0-3.25m.

Fill that with rows of stalled cars and that is not a whole lot of space.

galwaycyclist

ROK ON wrote: »

I have refrained from answering Galwayscyclists posts of yesterday because i am of the view that the posts written in the manner in which they are fall into the category of playing the man not the ball. I have reported those posts to the mods and have not had a reply.

So here it is.

I agree that close passing is more than inconsiderate it is dangerous. It has occasionally happened to me and I have been annoyed.

I categorically do not practice this.

There was nothing unlawful about my overtaking o the cyclist as recounted in my original posts, yet Galwaycyclist has maintained that it was unlawful. This has persisted despite my explanation of the space that I had and despite another poster quoting an SI.

I have never squeezed past a cyclist hole commuting and I will not. I expect that cyclists overtaking me use similar space to a car - a judgement of one meter distance. If less space exists that that then I do not overtake.

I was annoyed initially at being accused by another cyclists of breaking the law which I did not. I am annoyed now at being accused by Galwaycyclist of breaking the law when I did not. I resent he implication that I am a wreckless and unlawful cyclist.

When space exists in fro t of me to overtake another vehicle on the road I will do so if my natural pace is faster than theirs at the time and that the space exists so that I can pull in well clear of that vehicle. I have been doing this since I was 10, I am 42 years of age. That is a long time commuting without travail.

The situation you initially described sounded like unlawful behaviour. Yes you subsequently issued a correction to your original story but with regret it was quite late coming. In the meantime you endorsed posts by others who also seemed to be describing unlawful behaviour.

With regret you effectively accused yourself.

The clarification you have provided seems reasonable. The type of overtaking you now describe - seems reasonable.

The problem is that this discussion is happening in a context where a proportion of cyclists feel themselves entitled to behave in an unreasonable, and unlawful, manner.

So to be clear about where I am coming from on this - after keep left - the most important rule of the road is "first come first served". In Ireland, once a driver or cyclist has possession of the road they have priority over following and entering traffic - and priority over oncoming traffic that may wish to turn accross their path.

For cyclists, as people trying to make use of a roads system designed to prioritise cars, this is a fundamental protection. It is what allows us to "take the lane" approaching and circulating roundabouts. It is what allows us to "take the lane" approaching those side roads where we tend to find ourselves getting cut up. It is what allows us to "take the lane" approaching pinch points where we might otherwise end up as the "meat in the sandwich".

If I come accross situations where cyclists seem to be abusing that principle - where it seems that some cyclists are denying other cyclists their priority over following traffic - then I will call them out on it.

ROK ON

With respect I disagree with your assessment.
I stated that in my judgement I had space to overtake - you refused to engage their.
I subsequently felt that I should clarify what I meant by that - I did this many times. You refused to engage with that.

Even when the SI of 2012 was cited you did not retract your statement that I acted unlawfully.

I repeat the point that I made - in my view you have played the man.
At the very least I would expect that you acknowledge that you have no way of ascertaining whether I am in breach of the law - at te very least.

The reason that I felt te need to clarify was that my initial post was about being accused of breaking a red light when I did not.

beauf

GasBrakeHonk wrote: »

...even though I own a hybrid ...when I have passed a number of slower cyclists and then eventually come to a red light, they feel the need to skip ahead of me at the lights, which results in me having to wait behind them again until it is safe to pass them out. ...

Perhaps its not a hybrid car you need, but a bicycle.

CramCycle

MOD VOICE: There is nothing in any of ROK ONs posts that suggest he cut up or endangered the other cyclist. My views on the legalities are of no concern as I have no idea but any suggestion that ROK ON behaved in a dangerous manner without any legitimate proof, i.e. he said it, his actions show it or you were there, should be left out of the conversation, it seems to be making a mess of the thread.

If I have missed anything that suggests otherwise, please PM me to discuss, do not do so in thread, I will review the rest of the thread later.

beauf

Two routes I find bad for salmoning are the grand canal and the quays (dublin). I guess you have to find a pace and a method dealing with that suits you. I just let them past, I can generally pass slower people, and haven't a hope of staying with faster people.

I dislike close passing by other cyclists as much as cars. In the phoenix park especially you get a few who tear pass very close at high speeds which are more appropriate for the road. Very little margin to avoid a collision.

NeedMoreGears

This morning I was waiting for the lights to change on the very right of the single lane, with a stationary car to my left, which was signalling its intent to turn left.

Some muppet on a bike passes me on the right and the turns left across me. There were vehicles moving through the junction across me (they had the green light). He never looked. It was a classic left hook, except I wasn't moving at the time. I must have caught him out of the corner of my eye as I twisted the front wheel to the left to make more room. Otherwise I pretty sure he would have clipped me and maybe ended up under a car.


Bloody eejit. He shouldn't be on the road as a car driver, cyclist or pedestrian.

De Bhál

Skrynesaver wrote: »

On the bright side the weather and darkness will be reducing the muppet count over the next few weeks.

Wrong, they're still out there, you just can't see them now.

galwaycyclist

ROK ON wrote: »

With respect I disagree with your assessment.
I stated that in my judgement I had space to overtake - you refused to engage their.
I subsequently felt that I should clarify what I meant by that - I did this many times. You refused to engage with that.

Even when the SI of 2012 was cited you did not retract your statement that I acted unlawfully.

I repeat the point that I made - in my view you have played the man.
At the very least I would expect that you acknowledge that you have no way of ascertaining whether I am in breach of the law - at te very least.

The reason that I felt te need to clarify was that my initial post was about being accused of breaking a red light when I did not.

OK maybe we ended up talking accross each other on differing assumptions.

I accept that the fact that you were both using a bus lane means that there was nothing inherently unlawful about you passing that particular lady.

But to address comments from other users - not you. The revised SI on overtaking from 2012 makes it clear that, in law, cyclists passing other traffic on the left in the same lane is also considered to be "overtaking". It is not "filtering" or "undertaking" or some other speculative concept but a particular form of "overtaking".

beauf

...its winning...

galwaycyclist

beauf wrote: »

...its winning...

Its not a race. The winning part is the fact that you get to keep moving.........without necessarily overtaking.

(Edit:......."everything" in front of you.)

beauf

... for some its the taking part...

galwaycyclist

beauf wrote: »

... for some its the taking part...

I feel a warm happy glow.