Incident between taxi and bike - Dublin city centre

Budawanny

The taxi driver is 100% trying to pull a fast one here. He did not pull in at an appropriate place in an appropriate manner.
that is all there is to it.

dr.fuzzenstein

the_syco wrote: »

Taxi had indicator on, but had not pulled in. Thus as far as anyone else on the road would be concerned; the taxi is intending to pull in, but hadn't yet.

Well, a taxi stopped in the road can mean he is about to do a U turn, pull over to the left or the right, open the door, reverse, drive on or all of the above simultaneously.

sweetie

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

And the church, the English and the Vikings. Not necessarily in that order.

what about ze Germans?

dr.fuzzenstein

sweetie wrote: »

what about ze Germans?

don't mention the war.

ebbsy

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

don't mention the war.

Ve hav vays of makin u talk.

ebbsy

I think the driver knows he ****ed up and is trying to shift the blame.

I would say I was forced out of the taxi if it came down to it.

dr.fuzzenstein

Speaking from a non legal point of view, just throwing open a door without looking is a bit of a silly thing to do. The sensible person in me thinks that any person doing that does carry some responsibility and it is a sad reflection of today's "everything is someone else's fault, who can I sue?" society that anyone would suggest otherwise.

Odyssey 2005

Lets just say that the op's sister was blind/visually impaired. Would the taximan make her guide dog pay. He's an effin stroker pure and simple.

cdebru

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Speaking from a non legal point of view, just throwing open a door without looking is a bit of a silly thing to do. The sensible person in me thinks that any person doing that does carry some responsibility and it is a sad reflection of today's "everything is someone else's fault, who can I sue?" society that anyone would suggest otherwise.

No you are providing a service and part of that service is to provide a safe place for your customer to enter and exit the vehicle, stopping in the middle of the road beside an active cycle lane and allowing your customer to exit into that lane is negligent the customer has a right to a reasonable expectation that the driver has provided her with a safe place to exit, using terms like throwing open a door to suggest that the customer is being reckless or feckless in exiting the vehicle is trying to put a slant on the situation and transfer the fault back to the customer, the reality is we don't know how she opened the door nor does it matter.

would you blame the customer for not checking the condition of tyres and brakes, having a quick look over the engine, maybe doing a breathalyser test on the driver in the event of an accident, or is it a reasonable expectation that a vehicle for hire should be in good roadworthy condition and the driver the same?

dr.fuzzenstein

cdebru wrote: »

No you are providing a service and part of that service is to provide a safe place for your customer to enter and exit the vehicle, stopping in the middle of the road beside an active cycle lane and allowing your customer to exit into that lane is negligent the customer has a right to a reasonable expectation that the driver has provided her with a safe place to exit, using terms like throwing open a door to suggest that the customer is being reckless or feckless in exiting the vehicle is trying to put a slant on the situation and transfer the fault back to the customer, the reality is we don't know how she opened the door nor does it matter.

would you blame the customer for not checking the condition of tyres and brakes, having a quick look over the engine, maybe doing a breathalyser test on the driver in the event of an accident, or is it a reasonable expectation that a vehicle for hire should be in good roadworthy condition and the driver the same?

I agree that the taxi driver stopped in a bad place. I agree he should have looked. I agree he should have warned her to wait before exiting until he could assure her it was safe to do so. He was negligent. That much is for sure.
BUT:
To say it doesn't matter is a bit silly. We are human beings, we have been given a sense of responsibility. When you exit a taxi, would you just throw a door open without even a glance saying "Ah shure, it's the drivers faultterfcuk"? When I exit a taxi, a plane, a train, the door at work, no matter, I will still make sure I don't run into someone or clatter someone. It's basic common sense. I also said I was making these comments from a non-legal point of view. I am old fashioned that way.
You argue "It's always someone else's fault" and therefore it is OK not to pay attention when out and about? Step out into the road, throw open doors, nevermind, it's someone else's fault. And it's even encouraged, because, Wahey! Big payout!
Not all of us see every day life as an opportunity to slip, fall and rake in the cash. Some of us still believe in (dirty word alert) common sense.
That is where you look before throwing open a door and not just blame it on everyone else and hope for a large payout.

ted1

TallGlass wrote: »

Taxi driver is liable. This is why taxi drivers have public liability insurance. Tell him to **** off if he contacts your sister and tell him if he wants to contact her again do it via the Garda.

I may not be using correct terms. But I can tell you something if a taxi driver started demanding my name, I would be swiftly calling the Garda. They can have my name if needed.

No need to get so hostile and aggressive.

Jan Laco

There is more chance your sister will get more bother from taking unnecessary sick time off work than from the incident itself.

Peppa Pig

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Speaking from a non legal point of view, just throwing open a door without looking is a bit of a silly thing to do. The sensible person in me thinks that any person doing that does carry some responsibility and it is a sad reflection of today's "everything is someone else's fault, who can I sue?" society that anyone would suggest otherwise.

Agree, but only for people standing beside the car door.
How is a passenger supposed to check for a cyclist coming up behind the car?
They would need to do a 180 degree turn to look out the back window. There is also a huge blind spot between the back and side windows. So even looking behind is not enough.

If I let anyone out of my car, I check the passenger mirror and if there is any obstruction tell them to wait until it passes. That's the only sensible option.

cdebru

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I agree that the taxi driver stopped in a bad place. I agree he should have looked. I agree he should have warned her to wait before exiting until he could assure her it was safe to do so. He was negligent. That much is for sure.
BUT:
To say it doesn't matter is a bit silly. We are human beings, we have been given a sense of responsibility. When you exit a taxi, would you just throw a door open without even a glance saying "Ah shure, it's the drivers faultterfcuk"? When I exit a taxi, a plane, a train, the door at work, no matter, I will still make sure I don't run into someone or clatter someone. It's basic common sense. I also said I was making these comments from a non-legal point of view. I am old fashioned that way.
You argue "It's always someone else's fault" and therefore it is OK not to pay attention when out and about? Step out into the road, throw open doors, nevermind, it's someone else's fault. And it's even encouraged, because, Wahey! Big payout!
Not all of us see every day life as an opportunity to slip, fall and rake in the cash. Some of us still believe in (dirty word alert) common sense.
That is where you look before throwing open a door and not just blame it on everyone else and hope for a large payout.

Do you think if you keep saying throw open the door it will convince everyone it was the passengers fault ? As already pointed out the passenger doesn't have mirrors nor indeed X-ray vision, in your desire to apply personal responsibility all you are doing is trying to remove the responsibility from the taxi driver who acted recklessly.

Now if she saw the cyclist coming and still opened the door on him that would be different but she didn't and it is unreasonable to suggest all taxi passengers should climb up on their honkers to look out the rear window before opening the door just in case the taxi driver doesn't know how to do his job properly.

dr.fuzzenstein

cdebru wrote: »

Do you think if you keep saying throw open the door it will convince everyone it was the passengers fault ? As already pointed out the passenger doesn't have mirrors nor indeed X-ray vision, in your desire to apply personal responsibility all you are doing is trying to remove the responsibility from the taxi driver who acted recklessly.

Now if she saw the cyclist coming and still opened the door on him that would be different but she didn't and it is unreasonable to suggest all taxi passengers should climb up on their honkers to look out the rear window before opening the door just in case the taxi driver doesn't know how to do his job properly.

You seem to be ignoring half my post, may try reading it again?
I won't reiterate it now, can't be bothered. So let's get back to the issue.
Would you just throw open a door of a car? I would at least try a glance. Its called courtesy and common sense, you should look it up.
It says you look before stepping out on the road, throw a door open or the likes. If you just open doors without looking and step out blindly you will lead a very difficult life. Of course you can just say "not my problem begrandtofcuk", but personally I prefer to avoid hassle to begin with.
I'm not even talking about the OP's sister here, but some people seem to live their lives on a purely legalistic basis, "I will follow my course and if something happens, not my fault, who can I sue?". It's what made Ireland into the country it is today. :rolleyes:

Peppa Pig

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

"I will follow my course and if something happens, not my fault, who can I sue?".

In the scenario under discussion, there is only one party acting like this and it is the driver.

Yet you appear to be laying some of the the blame on the passenger for not having eyes in the back of her head or a neck that can do a 180 swivel.

foggy_lad

It is about time that taxi drivers had to do a CPC like all other professional drivers, with a bit of training they might remember how to pull over properly to pick up fares or allow them alight safely from their vehicle.

dr.fuzzenstein

Peppa Pig wrote: »

In the scenario under discussion, there is only one party acting like this and it is the driver.

Yet you appear to be laying some of the the blame on the passenger for not having eyes in the back of her head or a neck that can do a 180 swivel.

As I said, the driver carriers blame for stopping in a bad spot and not looking out for his passenger and other road users.
I was only arguing that blindly relying on other people to tell you the way is clear is daft. If I'm ever a passenger, I half open the door, that way you can peer out and see if the way is clear. No 180 degree swivel needed. This should be common sense when stopped in someone else's vehicle in the middle of the road, like this donut taxi driver. If a taxi stopped beside a cycle lane, would you just throw the door open without a care in the world?

Odyssey 2005

While I agree with a lot of Dr. fuzzes posts on boards in general I am finding it very difficult to figure out his/her thinking on this one. There should be no need for the young lady to look over her shoulder,out the back window or anywhere else. As I said earlier what if she was blind !. This was 100% avoidable and 100% the drivers fault, there is no blame whatsoever apportionable to the op's sister.
On a side note Dr F. I hope I never have the pleasure to have you in my car,cos you seem to throw every door you open and that could prove very expensive for me to repair .

cdebru

foggy_lad wrote: »

It is about time that taxi drivers had to do a CPC like all other professional drivers, with a bit of training they might remember how to pull over properly to pick up fares or allow them alight safely from their vehicle.

They are not professional drivers, they have no more qualifications for driving than any other private car motorist.

dr.fuzzenstein

Odyssey 2005 wrote: »

While I agree with a lot of Dr. fuzzes posts on boards in general I am finding it very difficult to figure out his/her thinking on this one. There should be no need for the young lady to look over her shoulder,out the back window or anywhere else. As I said earlier what if she was blind !. This was 100% avoidable and 100% the drivers fault, there is no blame whatsoever apportionable to the op's sister.
On a side note Dr F. I hope I never have the pleasure to have you in my car,cos you seem to throw every door you open and that could prove very expensive for me to repair .

I'm arguing the opposite!
People on here argue "once you're in a taxi, it is the driver's responsibility what happens next, so don't bother looking, just fling the door open and if by lucky chance you nail a cyclist, it's the driver's fault, because he didn't warn you.
What I say, if I am in another car and STOPPED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE (lovely) ROAD FFS, I will exercise a little bit of caution when opening the (lovely) door, pardon the language. I cannot see what is so difficult about this concept. Odyssey, you should not worry about me in your car but everyone else in this thread. But of course I am arguing with the new (lots of love from the Fuzz)

edit:
Not disputing that taxi driver is obviously an idiot for stopping where he did. Professional driver my backside.

Odyssey 2005

Last edited by dr.fuzzenstein; Today at 15:52. Reason: Grrrr! Am I typing Chinese?
Il have a special fried rice so !:)

dr.fuzzenstein

I have a black belt in origami!
Ok, try a little experiment. Sit in you own car, front or back. Open the door just a crack. Look over your shoulder. Wow! You can see what's coming up behind you!
Common sense ninja at your service. (Vanishes in cloud of smoke)

cdebru

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I have a black belt in origami!
Ok, try a little experiment. Sit in you own car, front or back. Open the door just a crack. Look over your shoulder. Wow! You can see what's coming up behind you!
Common sense ninja at your service. (Vanishes in cloud of smoke)

So you expect everyone to open the door a crack peer down the road, then throw it open once clear and duck and roll whilst the way is clear, all the time keeping an eye for snipers on the taller buildings just in case.
Or alternatively the driver could just do his f***ing job and pull in correctly.

cdebru

foggy_lad wrote: »

It is about time that taxi drivers had to do a CPC like all other professional drivers, with a bit of training they might remember how to pull over properly to pick up fares or allow them alight safely from their vehicle.

BTW CPC is a complete waste of time, far better to get them to do something like an institute of advanced motoring course and test, that would actually improve their driving skills, I get the impression that some of them aren't completely au fait with where their vehicle is in relation to the footpath. Their observation skills even in respect of prospective customers leave a lot to be desired, their grasp of the rules of the road regarding changing lanes and merging with other traffic appear to be non existent, never mind awareness of hazards and risk.

dr.fuzzenstein

cdebru wrote: »

So you expect everyone to open the door a crack peer down the road, then throw it open once clear and duck and roll whilst the way is clear, all the time keeping an eye for snipers on the taller buildings just in case.
Or alternatively the driver could just do his f***ing job and pull in correctly.

Of course. I never disagree with that.
But you argue "I am in a taxi, therefore I will throw open the door without any consideration for others, because it's not my job to look out for others. We are in the middle of the road, but that is not my problem".
I disagree with that and I will continue to disagree with that and I could do so for a thousand posts.

cdebru

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Of course. I never disagree with that.
But you argue "I am in a taxi, therefore I will throw open the door without any consideration for others, because it's not my job to look out for others. We are in the middle of the road, but that is not my problem".
I disagree with that and I will continue to disagree with that and I could do so for a thousand posts.

No if there is an obvious obstruction, pedestrian, cyclist other car, street furniture etc then obviously you shouldn't throw open or fling open or even open the door in an ordinary manner but it is not up to passengers to go out of their way to check for possible hazards that the driver should be aware of and not be putting his passengers in the way of as part of his basic job

schemingbohemia

cdebru wrote: »

No if there is an obvious obstruction, pedestrian, cyclist other car, street furniture etc then obviously you shouldn't throw open or fling open or even open the door in an ordinary manner but it is not up to passengers to go out of their way to check for possible hazards that the driver should be aware of and not be putting his passengers in the way of as part of his basic job

If you were a passenger in a private car and "doored" a cyclist, would you expect your driver to be responsible financially for this incident, or would you take responsibility like an adult?

dr.fuzzenstein

schemingbohemia wrote: »

If you were a passenger in a private car and "doored" a cyclist, would you expect your driver to be responsible financially for this incident, or would you take responsibility like an adult?

I wonder what kind of response we would get in the cycling forum if we floated the idea that looking out for bikes when alighting from vehicles is not necessary. I wager it would be along the lines of introducing a bicycle pump to one's rectum...

Of course the discussion over the last few pages is purely academic as far as OP's sister is concerned, no good to her. I simply said that one should be careful when exiting a va-hicle, it was meant to be a general comment. I made the mistake not to take into consideration that we're living in modern Ireland. If you're fat, it's McDonald's fault. If your liver weighs 35 pounds, it's the fault of the producer/pub/supermarket, if you step out onto the road without looking, it's the car's fault, if you fall on your arse, it's the fault of whoever owns the patch of ground you're on, I could go on and on and on. It all boils down to the same thing: Personal responsibility is dead. Common sense a joke. Go through life without looking or caring about others. Do not excercise any caution whatsoever in any situation. Nothing is your fault. If you get hurt, sue. if someone else gets hurt through your actions, deny all responsibility and find someone to sue.

So, in short, if you're happier dooring a cyclist because looking out for him is not your job, fine, who am I to argue. You may explain to the cyclist why it is better that he is in a heap on the ground. Just hope he doesn't have a pump handy...

cdebru wrote: »

No if there is an obvious obstruction, pedestrian, cyclist other car, street furniture etc then obviously you shouldn't throw open or fling open or even open the door in an ordinary manner but it is not up to passengers to go out of their way to check for possible hazards that the driver should be aware of and not be putting his passengers in the way of as part of his basic job

Yes, I get that, but you're expecting a lot from a Taxi driver.

cdebru

schemingbohemia wrote: »

If you were a passenger in a private car and "doored" a cyclist, would you expect your driver to be responsible financially for this incident, or would you take responsibility like an adult?

If I was the driver and I let a passenger exit in a dangerous place I would accept responsibility for it after all I am in charge of the vehicle, if I was a passenger I would expect the same.
That's based on the presumption that the vehicle is stopped for the purpose of allowing the passenger to exit.
These are not unavoidable situations you pull in at a safe place that is the responsibility of the driver end of story.

cdebru

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I wonder what kind of response we would get in the cycling forum if we floated the idea that looking out for bikes when alighting from vehicles is not necessary. I wager it would be along the lines of introducing a bicycle pump to one's rectum...

Of course the discussion over the last few pages is purely academic as far as OP's sister is concerned, no good to her. I simply said that one should be careful when exiting a va-hicle, it was meant to be a general comment. I made the mistake not to take into consideration that we're living in modern Ireland. If you're fat, it's McDonald's fault. If your liver weighs 35 pounds, it's the fault of the producer/pub/supermarket, if you step out onto the road without looking, it's the car's fault, if you fall on your arse, it's the fault of whoever owns the patch of ground you're on, I could go on and on and on. It all boils down to the same thing: Personal responsibility is dead. Common sense a joke. Go through life without looking or caring about others. Do not excercise any caution whatsoever in any situation. Nothing is your fault. If you get hurt, sue. if someone else gets hurt through your actions, deny all responsibility and find someone to sue.

So, in short, if you're happier dooring a cyclist because looking out for him is not your job, fine, who am I to argue. You may explain to the cyclist why it is better that he is in a heap on the ground. Just hope he doesn't have a pump handy...



Yes, I get that, but you're expecting a lot from a Taxi driver.

As a cyclist the idea of passing responsibility to people other than the licensed, insured driver of the vehicle for the safety of other road users is more worrying as I said it is not an unavoidable situation, you don't have to stop the vehicle and allow passengers to exit where they can door a cyclist.
The personal responsibility is the person in charge of the vehicle you are the one trying to pass on their personal responsibility to other road users to the passengers in their vehicle.

dr.fuzzenstein

So, in short, when in a taxi, just throw the door open, not my problem. Gotcha.

Odyssey 2005

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

So, in short, when in a taxi, just throw the door open, not my problem. Gotcha.

So you'd still throwing fookin doors Dr. fuzz...??

dr.fuzzenstein

Odyssey 2005 wrote: »

So you'd still throwing fookin doors Dr. fuzz...??

I can't fciking believe that I spent 10 bloody pages arguing to watch out when exiting a car and people accuse ME of throwing doors open.
Fine everyone do what they want, if you see a cyclist, door the cnut if it makes you happy.

cdebru

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I can't fciking believe that I spent 10 bloody pages arguing to watch out when exiting a car and people accuse ME of throwing doors open.
Fine everyone do what they want, if you see a cyclist, door the cnut if it makes you happy.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

So, in short, when in a taxi, just throw the door open, not my problem. Gotcha.

No when driving any vehicle it is the responsibility of the driver to allow the passengers to exit safely by pulling in to safe position and not putting other road users at risk by allowing passengers to exit the vehicle into a lane of traffic.
Now you are just being ridiculous no one is suggesting it is OK to door a cyclist, just that the responsibility to ensure a vehicle is stopped in a manner that would prevent cyclists being doored is with the driver.

d31b0y

In fairness, I said at the very start of the thread that the onus was on the driver to pick a safe place for a passenger to alight but some of the comments put forward on this thread go a little far. Common sense would suggest that you check the coast is clear before exiting a vehicle.

In regards to the original query though, the taxi driver doesn't have a leg to stand on were he to try make a claim against the passenger.

SeanW

cdebru wrote: »

If he had pulled in the cyclist couldn't have gone up the inside, but he didn't and left the cycle lane clear and the cyclist was perfectly entitled to use the cycle lane.

Passing on the inside is a dangerous manoeuvre, which is why motorists are almost totally forbidden from doing it under almost all circumstances (a motorist can only pass on the left if the car to be undertaken is signalling to turn right, for example).

Passing on the left is a privilege which is limited by the law as the post above yours shows. If you see a vehicle signalling left whether to make a turn or to let out passengers you cannot undertake them unless you won't get in their way. Full stop.

Budawanny

SeanW wrote: »

Passing on the inside is a dangerous manoeuvre, which is why motorists are almost totally forbidden from doing it under almost all circumstances (a motorist can only pass on the left if the car to be undertaken is signalling to turn right, for example).

Passing on the left is a privilege which is limited by the law as the post above yours shows. If you see a vehicle signalling left whether to make a turn or to let out passengers you cannot undertake them unless you won't get in their way. Full stop.

This is plain and simply wrong.
The lane on the left has priority for turning left , not the one on the right.
The cyclist/car on inside has the right of way on the left lane irrespective of cars speed or presence .

If you follow your logic cycle lanes are banned because every bike is "passing".

total rubbish.

SeanW

You are allowed to pass on the left, but there are restrictions.

Passing on the inside is so dangerous that motorists are under severe limitations. If you're on a motorway and some fool is doing 50kph in the passing lane, 50kph is effectively the speed limit because the rules against passing on the inside are so severe.

Cyclists (and buses) are given more leeway - ye are allowed to undertake more freely than motorists - but it's NOT a license to undertake with carefree abandon. Which is what the cyclist in the OP may have done.

cdebru

SeanW wrote: »

Passing on the inside is a dangerous manoeuvre, which is why motorists are almost totally forbidden from doing it under almost all circumstances (a motorist can only pass on the left if the car to be undertaken is signalling to turn right, for example).

Passing on the left is a privilege which is limited by the law as the post above yours shows. If you see a vehicle signalling left whether to make a turn or to let out passengers you cannot undertake them unless you won't get in their way. Full stop.

The cycle lane is a traffic lane, you cannot load or unload passengers except when pulled in safely if you leave the cycle lane free on the inside then cyclists are free to use it, same way you can't load or unload passengers from a middle or right hand lane in a multi lane road, it is simply not safe.

And how would a cyclist or any other road user know if you intend to turn left, or let out passengers ? Just putting on a left turn signal doesn't give you any right of way it is merely an indication of your intention, and it certainly doesn't give you right of way to enter or cross a cycle lane.

SeanW

cdebru wrote: »

If I was the driver and I let a passenger exit in a dangerous place I would accept responsibility for it after all I am in charge of the vehicle.

Both the taxi driver and the cyclist were in charge of "Road Vehicles"

cdebru wrote: »

The cycle lane is a traffic lane, you cannot load or unload passengers except when pulled in safely if you leave the cycle lane free on the inside then cyclists are free to use it

The laws quoted by Spook_ie clearly contradict this: they clearly indicate that a cyclist may undertake slow moving or stationary traffic to his/her hearts content, excluding 3 cases, one of which is a vehicle stationary for the purposes of loading/unloading passengers.

I really do not understand how complicated this is: the laws quoted by Spook appear to me at least to be both simple and clear. Like "Red light means stop and wait" or "don't ride on footpaths"

And how would a cyclist or any other road user know if you intend to turn left, or let out passengers ? Just putting on a left turn signal doesn't give you any right of way it is merely an indication of your intention.

You just answered your own question.

Of course, I am well aware of the fact that cyclists consider laws to be only for other other people. I see it all the time while walking in pedestrian areas in Dublin City, and I see it all the time here on boards where cyclists advocate designing stuff (and laws) around non-motorist stupidity. (No surprises for guessing that particular poster had "cycl" in his/her username).

So, besides the fact that cyclists simply ignore most road laws and treat them as theoretical, can you indicate - at least theoretically - why the laws quoted by Spook_ie, clearly indicating limits on cyclists privilege of (the dangerous maneuvre of) passing on the inside, don't actually apply when they say they they do.

dr.fuzzenstein

SeanW wrote: »

Both the taxi driver and the cyclist were in charge of "Road Vehicles"

The laws quoted by Spook_ie clearly contradict this: they clearly indicate that a cyclist may undertake slow moving or stationary traffic to his/her hearts content, excluding 3 cases, one of which is a vehicle stationary for the purposes of loading/unloading passengers.

I really do not understand how complicated this is: the laws quoted by Spook appear to me at least to be both simple and clear. Like "Red light means stop and wait" or "don't ride on footpaths"

You just answered your own question.

Of course, I am well aware of the fact that cyclists consider laws to be only for other other people. I see it all the time while walking in pedestrian areas in Dublin City, and I see it all the time here on boards where cyclists advocate designing stuff (and laws) around non-motorist stupidity. (No surprises for guessing that particular poster had "cycl" in his/her username).

So, besides the fact that cyclists simply ignore most road laws and treat them as theoretical, can you indicate - at least theoretically - why the laws quoted by Spook_ie, clearly indicating limits on cyclists privilege of (the dangerous maneuvre of) passing on the inside, don't actually apply when they say they they do.

But is a vehicle allowed to come to a stop in lane 2 of a roadway to unload goods or passengers? The cycle lane is a traffic lane, what does the law say, for example, if a taxi stops on lane 2 of a dual carriageway to let passengers out?
I bet you in this case the "I'll just open the door without looking" brigade would think twice, but as I stressed, this is just my commen sense point and does not in any way change the fact that the taxi driver stopped in an unsafe place. Which some people may argue is the very definition of taxi driver.

RainyDay

SeanW wrote: »

Of course, I am well aware of the fact that cyclists consider laws to be only for other other people. I see it all the time while walking in pedestrian areas in Dublin City, and I see it all the time here on boards where cyclists advocate designing stuff (and laws) around non-motorist stupidity. (No surprises for guessing that particular poster had "cycl" in his/her username).

So, besides the fact that cyclists simply ignore most road laws and treat them as theoretical, can you indicate - at least theoretically - why the laws quoted by Spook_ie, clearly indicating limits on cyclists privilege of (the dangerous maneuvre of) passing on the inside, don't actually apply when they say they they do.

Still banging the anti-cyclist drum, despite that fact that you've been presented with clear evidence repeatedly that many drivers and many pedestrians and many cyclists ALL ignore most road laws and treat them as theoretical. It must be great to be able to ignore the facts and be plain prejudiced...

dr.fuzzenstein

RainyDay wrote: »

Still banging the anti-cyclist drum, despite that fact that you've been presented with clear evidence repeatedly that many drivers and many pedestrians and many cyclists ALL ignore most road laws and treat them as theoretical. It must be great to be able to ignore the facts and be plain prejudiced...

Amen to that brother. Unless the Gards get off their hole and actually start enforcing the odd law, nothing too strenuous, only like, every now and then, to make people aware that any kind of crap is not on, this will not improve.
The problem is that we're all just happy to pull the piss ourselves and simply point the finger at everyone else when pulled up on it.
Unless there's a bit of pressure on the government to start leaning on the Gardai to start doing something (fat chance of that), things will continue as they are. So it looks like muppetry on Irish roads will continue for a good while.

roverrules

Point of interest. Does anyone have links to what the definitions of cycle tracks, paths, lanes etc are?

I notice that the SI 332/2012 has a section mentioning cycle tracks as being defined as

14. (1) A cycle track shall be indicated by—

(a) traffic sign number RUS 009 (with-flow cycle track) provided in association with traffic sign number RRM 022 (continuous white line) or RRM 023 (broken white line) which latter signs may be marked on the right hand edge of the cycle track or on the right hand and left hand edges of the cycle track,

(b) traffic sign number RUS 059 (contra-flow cycle track) provided in association with traffic sign number RRM 022 (continuous white line) which may be marked on the right hand edge of the cycle track or on the left hand edge of the cycle track or on both sides, or

(c) traffic sign number RUS 058 (shared track for pedal cycles and pedestrians).

Which would seem to now put all on road and on path cycle facilities as cycle tracks.

So does a cycle track have the same legal standing as a lane? I would wonder what the legal standpoint actually is?

galwaycyclist

roverrules wrote: »

Point of interest. Does anyone have links to what the definitions of cycle tracks, paths, lanes etc are?

I notice that the SI 332/2012 has a section mentioning cycle tracks as being defined as



Which would seem to now put all on road and on path cycle facilities as cycle tracks.

So does a cycle track have the same legal standing as a lane? I would wonder what the legal standpoint actually is?

Yes in Ireland all cycle facilities within a road are "cycle tracks", this is regardless of whether they are on the roadway or footway parts of the road.

In my reading of the legislation, cycle tracks do not come under the definition of traffic lane. The courts might take a different view of this as some might think it reasonable to treat cycle tracks as a lane. Also to my knowledge the state has not published any reasoning why cycle tracks are not lanes.

In Ireland, the legal term for a separate road dedicated to bicycles, or bicycles and people on foot, is a "cycleway".

SeanW

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

But is a vehicle allowed to come to a stop in lane 2 of a roadway to unload goods or passengers? The cycle lane is a traffic lane, what does the law say, for example, if a taxi stops on lane 2 of a dual carriageway to let passengers out?
I bet you in this case the "I'll just open the door without looking" brigade would think twice, but as I stressed, this is just my commen sense point and does not in any way change the fact that the taxi driver stopped in an unsafe place. Which some people may argue is the very definition of taxi driver.

The laws against undertaking are severe and absolute, no amount of fnckwittery on the part of the undertaken legally justifies undertaking outside of strict limits.

Literally, for example if there were a gob****e doing 30kph in the overtaking lane of a 2 lane motorway, and I were approaching from behind, I would find the speed limit to be 30kph, because the law absolutely does not give me the right to pass the fool on the inside. If I tried to pass, and the fool cut into me to reach an exit or something, the accident would be my fault, because no matter how bad a gob****e the other driver was, I would be at root fault for illegally passing on the inside. Full stop. That's how bad undertaking is considered to be.

You as cyclists have additional rights to undertake, but it is still a dangerous thing to do which is why those 3 restrictions are there. You have additional rights to undertake, it is not an absolute.

RainyDay wrote: »

Still banging the anti-cyclist drum, despite that fact that you've been presented with clear evidence repeatedly that many drivers and many pedestrians and many cyclists ALL ignore most road laws and treat them as theoretical. It must be great to be able to ignore the facts and be plain prejudiced...

Yes, most road users treat at least some road laws as theoretical, but cyclists are the most blatantly hypocritical about it. The "laws are for everyone else" brigade on here is almost exclusively made of those whose handles include "bike" or "cycl" or otherwise identify as cyclists. It's this hypocritical attitude that makes it much harder to ignore all the cyclists hogging footpaths, footbridges, running red lights.

dr.fuzzenstein

It is not undertaking (well, overtaking on the inside) if the vehicle is stationary.
If a car had broken down on the outside lane, would you sit there for 3 days until it is removed?
Otherwise we would also not be allowed to pass vehicles turning right.

SeanW

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

It is not undertaking (well, overtaking on the inside) if the vehicle is stationary.
If a car had broken down on the outside lane, would you sit there for 3 days until it is removed?
Otherwise we would also not be allowed to pass vehicles turning right.

Passing vehicles turning right is explicitly listed in the ROTR as an exception to the rules against undertaking.

I.E. a motorist may not pass another vehicle on the inside except in limited circumstances, one of which is that the vehicle to be undertaken is stopped or slowed down for the purposes of making an imminent right turn, which it is signalling for.

The broken down vehicle would probably have its emergency lights on, so it would be fairly obvious that something is up. If not explicitly legal to pass it, you would probably be OK if you passed it with extreme caution.

dr.fuzzenstein

Anyway, the whole "passing on the inside" thing seems a bit of a red herring to me, this is more loading/unloading, very different from two moving vehicles and one passing the first on the inside.
And still the issue with the cycle track. One would not blame the cyclist for cycling on a cycle track, we complain about them not using it, so we can't blame the cyclist for getting doored on a cycle track.