Cyclist/ Bus incident at Portland Row

Leroy42

brocbrocach wrote: »

I'd say 90% of junctions in Dublin are designed like this. Don't know if I'd call it bad design though as otherwise you'd be forcing the cyclist to cross a lane of fast traffic before the light. Not ideal at all.
In fact the pedestrian light on the road to the left often stops the left-turning green from coming on at the same time as the onward green, which gives cyclists a 10 second window to filter up the left of the cars and cycle through the junction.

People saying cyclists should never filter up the left are in cloud cuckoo land.

It is terrible design. You are making the cyclists go up the left on cars that are stationery, only for the light to change and then cars then turn. When the light was red the cyclist was doing everything perfect, light turns green and suddenly they are in danger.

Why have the pedestrian light produce the filter at all. Safer thing is to simply stop all the traffic and then the green light for all directions.

It has simply added danger into a situation where it didn't need to exist.

Moflojo

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, it will probably upset the commenters on the Independent but here's the most popular theory, that covers precisely this issue (getting squeezed by something big turning left): http://www.rudi.net/node/16395

That's really interesting, thanks for sharing. Very interesting point regarding pedestrian guard rails being a source of danger.

JBokeh

As someone with a rigid truck licence and an articulated one, I wince every time I see someone go up along the left of a truck, or even just ride to the right in their blind spots.

Bus in the picture would have had a relatively low driver position compared to most big vehicles too, and likely a glass door on the passenger side, but it would still be hugely unwieldy to drive around a city. The proposed "city cab" design they're trying to get on 8 leggers would have a similar design, which IMO is totally useless, not fit for purpose on sites/ quarries, and still won't stop people going up the inside

P_1

Know the spot well and it's not a nice left to take at all. Hopefully the cyclist recovers quickly.

tomasrojo

Deedsie wrote: »

If there is a cycle lane then the cyclists have right of way regardless of who was at the junction first. The vehicle turning left has to cross the cycle lane so it is only fair to wait till any approaching cyclists have passed through before making the turn.

However at a regular junction without a cycle lane the cyclist should take up a position behind the left turning vehicle and wait their turn to go through the junction.

I certainly see your point, but in practice it's best to wait behind in both cases, if it's a large vehicle with extensive blind spots.

I'm not sure whether using a cycle track substantially alters the legal situation if a case goes to court either. Does anyone know of cases where a driver was found guilty of careless driving or such like for injuring or killing a cyclist in a cycle track (e.g. a cycle track that "invited" the cyclist to pass a left-turning vehicle on the inside)? ("A grey area", as Deedsie said.)

Lumen

Blanket rules make for poor safety.

Passing HGVs on left is often perfectly safe. If you can't assess whether it's safe then don't do it, but that applies to every situation including getting on a bike at all.

Women often get squashed because they're attempting to respect the rules around keeping left and using the cycle lane. This is a classic example of why cycle lanes are a bad idea.

Chuchote

Lumen wrote: »

Blanket rules make for poor safety.

Very true. It's also true that there are times it's safe to pass an HGV. But I'm so very cautious of whales - HGVs of any sort, including buses, coaches, vans and those brutes of cars that for some reason timid little Mr Pooters and Mammy Murphys like to drive at the moment, that I'll normally stay behind them or step off my bike and take it onto the pavement to walk around them.

Moflojo

Lumen wrote: »

Passing HGVs on left is often perfectly safe.

Completely disagree with that statement. It's rarely safe, and never perfectly safe.

Passing a high-sided vehicle is a catch 22 situation: The safest way to get around the vehicle is to do so as quickly as possible before the vehicle pulls off or changes direction, but you can't go too quickly because you're cycling towards a giant blind spot - you simply can't see what's on the far side of the vehicle.

Lumen

Moflojo wrote: »

Completely disagree with that statement. It's rarely safe, and never perfectly safe.

Passing a high-sided vehicle is a catch 22 situation: The safest way to get around the vehicle is to do so as quickly as possible before the vehicle pulls off or changes direction, but you can't go too quickly because you're cycling towards a giant blind spot - you simply can't see what's on the far side of the vehicle.

OK. Well I do it all the time and have NEVER had an issue (in about eight years of daily fast commuting through Dublin city centre traffic).

So I'm either deluded or awesome, or maybe it's just not that hard to do safely.

Chuchote

Passing trucks (site is American so replace 'right' with 'left' in all cases):

http://iamtraffic.org/resources/interactive-graphics/what-cyclists-need-to-know-about-trucks/

Trucks make wide turns. They cannot physically make a right turn from the right curb, so they will often leave a large, inviting opening on their right prior to a turn. They will also move straight into the intersection before starting to turn. When a truck turns right across your path, it is almost impossible to escape its rear wheels. So don’t get caught in a spot where this can happen! Be aware of what kind of situation can lead to a potential crash and avoid it.

mr spuckler

passing any moving slowly vehicle on the inside as you approach a left turn, regardless of whether they're indicating or not, is very risky.

however, passing a stopped or slow moving truck where there is plenty of space and no upcoming left turn is quite often not dangerous, once you have your wits about you and are aware of whether the truck is inching left or the possibility of someone crossing in front of the truck.

it's all about applying common sense in those situations - like lumen i've been commuting in the city for years and never had an issue.

Moflojo

Lumen wrote: »

So I'm either deluded or awesome, or maybe it's just not that hard to do safely.

Or maybe you've just been lucky. Anyway, I wish you continued luck on fast commute Lumen but I disagree with your attitude on this particular topic. The problem with your approach of "use your common sense and don't be an idiot" is that the blanket rules are created specifically for people who lack common sense, or cycling experience, or are perhaps a little dim.

Chuchote

For me, common sense involves keeping well away from things that can kill me.

mr spuckler

Chuchote wrote: »

For me, common sense involves keeping well away from things that can kill me.

that list is pretty much endless

Lumen

Moflojo wrote: »

Or maybe you've just been lucky. Anyway, I wish you continued luck on fast commute Lumen but I disagree with your attitude on this particular topic. The problem with your approach of "use your common sense and don't be an idiot" is that the blanket rules are created specifically for people who lack common sense, or cycling experience, or are perhaps a little dim.

People who are stupid or lack common sense should probably walk or take the bus rather than cycle or operate a motor vehicle.

I think there's more value in explaining the specific reason why passing long vehicles can be dangerous and letting people apply it sensibly.

As for passing high-sided vehicles that's just a case of "don't go pelting into a space you can't see properly" which is as close to common sense as you can get.

Roadhawk

Not to throw fuel on the fire but did the bike have a front light?

Chuchote

Roadhawk wrote: »

Not to throw fuel on the fire but did the bike have a front light?

Not to add to Roadhawk's fuel, but did the bus indicate

radia

With all this talk of undertaking, let's also not forget the possibility that the cyclist had already stopped at the junction when the bus subsequently arrived and pulled up beside her.

traprunner

Moflojo wrote: »

Or maybe you've just been lucky. Anyway, I wish you continued luck on fast commute Lumen but I disagree with your attitude on this particular topic. The problem with your approach of "use your common sense and don't be an idiot" is that the blanket rules are created specifically for people who lack common sense, or cycling experience, or are perhaps a little dim.

This blanket rule/law that you say is for people 'who lack common sense, or cycling experience, or are perhaps a little dim' results in people getting killed! The blanket rule is that law is that cyclists can pass/filter on the left. You do realise that?

Moflojo

traprunner wrote: »

This blanket rule/law that you say is for people 'who lack common sense, or cycling experience, or are perhaps a little dim' results in people getting killed! The blanket rule is that law is that cyclists can pass/filter on the left. You do realise that?

I don't fully understand what you're saying, but the "blanket rule" that I advocated for earlier in the thread was "Do not pass high-sided vehicles on the inside."

traprunner

Moflojo wrote: »

I don't fully understand what you're saying, but the "blanket rule" that I advocated for earlier in the thread was "Do not pass high-sided vehicles on the inside."

Apologies for the confusion. The blanket rule I'm on about is the actual legal one.

average_runner

Maybe cycle lanes need to be separate from the road, ie a kerb between them and then have lights for bikes at junctions, bikes like cars etc will only when green light is present.

Effects

average_runner wrote: »

Maybe cycle lanes need to be separate from the road, ie a kerb between them and then have lights for bikes at junctions, bikes like cars etc will only when green light is present.

See you're thinking of the 25th Century there. We prefer to go backwards in Ireland for the time being.

Heading towards the Matt Talbot bridge they have just removed the cycle lane to make more room for the bus lane.



http://irishcycle.com/2016/08/31/second-dublin-cycle-track-removed-and-replaced-with-bus-lane/comment-page-1/

traprunner

Effects wrote: »

See you're thinking of the 25th Century there. We prefer to go backwards in Ireland for the time being.

Heading towards the Matt Talbot bridge they have just removed the cycle lane to make more room for the bus lane.


http://irishcycle.com/2016/08/31/second-dublin-cycle-track-removed-and-replaced-with-bus-lane/comment-page-1/

In a way that doesn't bother me. The buses will be forced to drive at the speed I'm moving at because I will take prime position there. Although I think they really should have removed one of the lanes for general traffic.

Leroy42

traprunner wrote: »

In a way that doesn't bother me. The buses will be forced to drive at the speed I'm moving at because I will take prime position there. Although I think they really should have removed one of the lanes for general traffic.

It bothers me because it is a complete waste of money. As you said, it actually makes no difference in terms of traffic flow, new space hasn't been created as the bus would have used the cycle lane anyway if no cyclists is there and it can't use that piece of road regardless of what is painted on it if there is a cyclist on it.

But what it does do is row back on the last few thinking of increasing the number of cycle lanes and cycling infrastucture so that is worrying.

In a decision in lack of road space, the cyclist was the one to lose out!

Rakish Paddy

average_runner wrote: »

Maybe cycle lanes need to be separate from the road, ie a kerb between them and then have lights for bikes at junctions, bikes like cars etc will only when green light is present.

Head down to the grand canal cycle path anywhere between Leeson St. and Mount St. areas, and see how much respect the average cyclist on that path has for bike-specific traffic lights in a segregated bike lane. The place is a nightmare for pedestrians - it's almost impossible to cross (with the pedestrian green light) at any busy time without having eejits hurtling towards you on bikes. Even the professional cyclists are ignoring them - both yesterday and today I had a Cyclone bicycle courier plow through the red light at high speed when pedestrians had the green man. I think you'd need either automatically lowered barriers or a feckin' (wide) lollipop lady to make cyclists obey the lights.

average_runner

Rakish Paddy wrote: »

Head down to the grand canal cycle path anywhere between Leeson St. and Mount St. areas, and see how much respect the average cyclist on that path has for bike-specific traffic lights in a segregated bike lane. The place is a nightmare for pedestrians - it's almost impossible to cross (with the pedestrian green light) at any busy time without having eejits hurtling towards you on bikes. Even the professional cyclists are ignoring them - both yesterday and today I had a Cyclone bicycle courier plow through the red light at high speed when pedestrians had the green man. I think you'd need either automatically lowered barriers or a feckin' (wide) lollipop lady to make cyclists obey the lights.

I actually run down there a good bit, so yeah i do see what your talking about, but walkers do it all the time at other junctions, cars do it also. Its just how bad we are as a society

buffalo

Leroy42 wrote: »

It bothers me because it is a complete waste of money. As you said, it actually makes no difference in terms of traffic flow, new space hasn't been created as the bus would have used the cycle lane anyway if no cyclists is there and it can't use that piece of road regardless of what is painted on it if there is a cyclist on it.

But what it does do is row back on the last few thinking of increasing the number of cycle lanes and cycling infrastucture so that is worrying.

In a decision in lack of road space, the cyclist was the one to lose out!

Before it was a general traffic lane, with a cycle lane within it. Private car traffic regularly encroached on the cycle lane, and certainly any time I used it there wasn't much benefit from it.

The bus lane, which has taken from the general traffic area, should make it the cycle lane area (or whatever you want to call it) less busy and allow cyclists to make quicker progress more safely and easily.

I'm not sure how the cyclist is 'losing out' here.

traprunner

average_runner wrote: »

I actually run down there a good bit, so yeah i do see what your talking about, but walkers do it all the time at other junctions, cars do it also. Its just how bad we are as a society

It is a societal issue and all that's done to to hide the fact is to put a sticky plaster over it by introducing new fines / penalty point offences that aren't enforced.

cdaly_

buffalo wrote: »

Before it was a general traffic lane, with a cycle lane within it. Private car traffic regularly encroached on the cycle lane, and certainly any time I used it there wasn't much benefit from it.

The bus lane, which has taken from the general traffic area, should make it the cycle lane area (or whatever you want to call it) less busy and allow cyclists to make quicker progress more safely and easily.

I'm not sure how the cyclist is 'losing out' here.

I think the cyclist gains. Where a cycle lane is painted, car drivers will often assume that, so long as they stay outside the painted line, that they are giving the cyclist adequate room even though this is likely not the case. With no lane painted, an overtaking manoeuvre is required which is likely to result in more space given.