Rules of road question

John_Rambo

I got clotheslined by a truck driver a few years ago, opened his door and kicked it open wider. I slammed in to his door and grabbed on to a handle, he grabbed me by the back of my top and bag strap. Both our efforts left me dangling from his door with my bike carrying on it's happy way for about fifty metres before flopping over.

After he told me he saved my life we carried on with our lives.

eeeee

Back on topic the law says cyclists are allowed to undertake slower moving traffic of the left.
You would be liable in an accident as your daughter was wrong to open the door onto the cyclist through a lack of care and attention.
I think as she's under 18 it would be on you like not wearing a seatbelt but I'm not 100% sure on that.

Sleeper12

tomasrojo wrote:

"weekend warriors in their lycra gear that should be locked up"

Ah hang on. There's a big difference between midweek cyclists and middle aged overweight weekend warriors. Have you had the misfortune to be behind these. Cycle in the middle of the road doing their tour de France up howth hill. Very dangerous. Bendy roads and they won't move from the centre line. Definitely lock them up.

Sleeper12

2RockMountain wrote:

How about the mid-week warriors in Lycra like myself - should I be locked up too?

Mid week they seem to obey the rules of the road

20/20

nee wrote: »

Back on topic the law says cyclists are allowed to undertake slower moving traffic of the left..

Well that is just another stupid law in favour of cyclists. Just because the bike can move faster then slow moving traffic don't make it right to undertake at 35kph. It may be time to tell your daughter that sometimes lying is ok and she did look and the arse on the bike was going to fast.

hullaballoo

You would have to wonder at the legal mind that came up with the exceptions for cyclists passing on the left.

The wording means that the cyclist must not overtake on the left if the person inside the car has decided to stop to let someone out of the car. So it doesn't matter that the cyclist has no way of knowing why the car is stopped, only the driver knows that (and maybe passengers if the driver has communicated the reason for stopping.)

The corollary of that is that if your passenger gets out and clatters a cyclist, the cyclist has been in an accident while performing an illegal manoeuvre which, imo, means liability is very questionable and not quite the 100% case most of you have suggested.

Orion

hullaballoo wrote: »

The wording means that the cyclist must not overtake on the left if the person inside the car has decided to stop to let someone out of the car. So it doesn't matter that the cyclist has no way of knowing why the car is stopped, only the driver knows that (and maybe passengers if the driver has communicated the reason for stopping.

From the OP: "i came to a standstill in traffic and my daughter who was in rear seat passenger side goes to get out of car"

This was a car stopped in traffic not pulled in to let someone out. Pretty clear cut that there was no indication that it was stopped to let someone out.

Orion

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Bendy roads and they won't move from the centre line.

The former is the reason for the latter. It's safer to take prime position to stop angry drivers like your good self from atttemping a dangerous overtaking manoeuvre.

Here's an example. Cycling on a road that has two consecutive 90 degree turns (about 300 metres apart). In between them boy racer asshat decides he wants to overtake me - right about here.



Now those cars and people weren't there. But still a blind corner. Right around the corner a 2 km straight with plenty of opportunity to overtake. So what did I do? I signalled for him to slow down, he ignored it so I moved right into the middle of the road to stop him overtaking. When I got around the corner I moved back to the left and let the ignorant, foul-mouthed little prick to fly by me with his lovely hand-gestures out the window. People like him are the reason I wear a RoadID bracelet with my next of kin's contact details on it. So maybe next time you see the "weekend warriors" taking the centre line you might understand why we do.

hullaballoo

There doesn't need to be any indication or anything other than stopping the car for one of the listed purposes.

In case you missed my point, it is a clearly bizarre provision and I doubt the intention was to create a defence for drivers but that's what the provision does because that's what those words mean.

BoatMad

hullaballoo wrote: »

You would have to wonder at the legal mind that came up with the exceptions for cyclists passing on the left.

The wording means that the cyclist must not overtake on the left if the person inside the car has decided to stop to let someone out of the car. So it doesn't matter that the cyclist has no way of knowing why the car is stopped, only the driver knows that (and maybe passengers if the driver has communicated the reason for stopping.)

The corollary of that is that if your passenger gets out and clatters a cyclist, the cyclist has been in an accident while performing an illegal manoeuvre which, imo, means liability is very questionable and not quite the 100% case most of you have suggested.

intersting, I espect in any accident , it would be for a court to decide who was in the right or to sign a percentage of blame, which i think they would probably do, . It means that cyclists must maintain an awareness of stopped cars, as does cars maintain a lookup for approaching cyclists

nothing is clearly cut , cyclists clearly have limited rights to pass on the left

Orion

hullaballoo wrote: »

There doesn't need to be any indication or anything other than stopping the car for one of the listed purposes.

In case you missed my point, it is a clearly bizarre provision and I doubt the intention was to create a defence for drivers but that's what the provision does because that's what those words mean.

I understand what you're saying and legally yes it's ambiguous. But in the OP's case there could be no reasonable assumption that the motorist had stopped to let a passenger out - they were stopped in traffic and a passenger decided to alight. That puts the onus on the car passenger not the cyclist who was proceeding through traffic.

Orion

BoatMad wrote: »

It means that cyclists must maintain an awareness of stopped cars, as does cars maintain a lookup for approaching cyclists

nothing is clearly cut , cyclists clearly have limited rights to pass on the left

As a cyclist I do have an awareness of stopped (as in pulled in to the side) cars. But this was a line of traffic and the passenger should have checked. I cycle in traffic a lot (as do many others here). If there is a line of traffic at the lights I'm not going to assume that every car has a passenger about to get out - they are just stopped at the lights and I will pass them on the left up to the lights (and yes I do stop at them myself).

hullaballoo

BoatMad wrote: »

intersting, I espect in any accident , it would be for a court to decide who was in the right or to sign a percentage of blame, which i think they would probably do, . It means that cyclists must maintain an awareness of stopped cars, as does cars maintain a lookup for approaching cyclists

nothing is clearly cut , cyclists clearly have limited rights to pass on the left

Put it this way. If you had asked me a few hours ago where most of the blame lies when a cyclist gets doored, I would have said with the person who opened the door. (Still and all, you're right, the law works in cases like this by balancing the evidence and apportioning blame. Sometimes that can mean that the person suing - the plaintiff - is found to be 50% or more liable but will still get an award of compensation.)

Having now seen the provision linked to above regarding cyclists passing on the left, it is a curveball that someone defending can use to make liability more of an unknown quantity and make everyone feel a bit nervous and ends up with the plaintiff either risking trying to defeat that defence in court or taking a lesser amount in settlement (which is most likely.)

Of course, there would be another school of thought that says that even though the provision is badly worded, it can't mean what it means because it's plainly stupid to have a situation where a cyclist has to stop behind every stationary car or else overtake it on the right. Nonetheless, stupid laws have existed in force here before and unfortunately, a stupid law is still a law.

BoatMad

hullaballoo wrote: »

Put it this way. If you had asked me a few hours ago where most of the blame lies when a cyclist gets doored, I would have said with the person who opened the door. (Still and all, you're right, the law works in cases like this by balancing the evidence and apportioning blame. Sometimes that can mean that the person suing - the plaintiff - is found to be 50% or more liable but will still get an award of compensation.)

Having now seen the provision linked to above regarding cyclists passing on the left, it is a curveball that someone defending can use to make liability more of an unknown quantity and make everyone feel a bit nervous and ends up with the plaintiff either risking trying to defeat that defence in court or taking a lesser amount in settlement (which is most likely.)

Of course, there would be another school of thought that says that even though the provision is badly worded, it can't mean what it means because it's plainly stupid to have a situation where a cyclist has to stop behind every stationary car or else overtake it on the right. Nonetheless, stupid laws have existed in force here before and unfortunately, a stupid law is still a law.

Many laws are written specifically with a degree of indecision or lack of clarity , because its simply impossible for the legal drafter to document all the situations and what is applicable and what is not. thats why we have civil courts, thats a primary part of their activity

whats it means is that both the cyclist and the motorist have a duty of care and neither has unrestricted rights

I see no issue with that

hullaballoo

Orion wrote: »

I understand what you're saying and legally yes it's ambiguous. But in the OP's case there could be no reasonable assumption that the motorist had stopped to let a passenger out - they were stopped in traffic and a passenger decided to alight. That puts the onus on the car passenger not the cyclist who was proceeding through traffic.

No, but the provision doesn't say anything about what the cyclist knows/assumes/can infer from the circumstances. It specifically says that a cyclist cannot overtake on the left if the car is stopped for the purposes listed.

What the cyclist knows about the reason for the car being stopped is irrelevant.

Once the car is stopped for one of the listed purposes, then it becomes illegal for the cyclist to overtake on the left, even where the cyclist has no way of knowing for what reason the car has stopped.

You are quite rightly trying to look at it through a lens of reason and good sense but the words mean what they mean and your reason and good sense don't come into the equation!

BoatMad

Orion wrote: »

As a cyclist I do have an awareness of stopped (as in pulled in to the side) cars. But this was a line of traffic and the passenger should have checked. I cycle in traffic a lot (as do many others here). If there is a line of traffic at the lights I'm not going to assume that every car has a passenger about to get out - they are just stopped at the lights and I will pass them on the left up to the lights (and yes I do stop at them myself).

Theres nothing wrong with making that assumption , however in the case where an accident occurs between you and a passenger attempting to alight m it will be for a court to decide if you "assumptions" were valid

all it means is that you have limited rights to pass on the left , hence that means , a court may decide you had exceeded those rights by a particular degree and would assign blame accordingly

Orion

hullaballoo wrote: »

You are quite rightly trying to look at it through a lens of reason and good sense but the words mean what they mean and your reason and good sense don't come into the equation!

I fcuking hate lawyers - present company included

BoatMad

hullaballoo wrote: »

No, but the provision doesn't say anything about what the cyclist knows/assumes/can infer from the circumstances. It specifically says that a cyclist cannot overtake on the left if the car is stopped for the purposes listed.

What the cyclist knows about the reason for the car being stopped is irrelevant.

Once the car is stopped for one of the listed purposes, then it becomes illegal for the cyclist to overtake on the left, even where the cyclist has no way of knowing for what reason the car has stopped.

You are quite rightly trying to look at it through a lens of reason and good sense but the words mean what they mean and your reason and good sense don't come into the equation!

its not that clearcut, a judge would have to decide , taking into account many factors , had you any advance warning, ( for example indicators on) , what was your speed ( i.e. were you travelling too fast to maintain an aproproate level of awareness and self protection etc

these things are never clearcut

Orion

hullaballoo wrote: »

Once the car is stopped for one of the listed purposes, then it becomes illegal for the cyclist to overtake on the left, even where the cyclist has no way of knowing for what reason the car has stopped.

OK - what if a car is stopped at traffic lights and that was the only reason the car was stopped. Then, because the car is stopped a passenger decides "sure this is a grand place to get out" - which appears to be the case in the OP. Car stopped for road traffic reasons but passenger took advantage. That doesn't change the initial reason the car stopped so the cyclist is perfectly right to continue on the left.

I hate myself right now - I'm starting to sound like a lawyer

BoatMad

Orion wrote: »

OK - what if a car is stopped at traffic lights and that was the only reason the car was stopped. Then, because the car is stopped a passenger decides "sure this is a grand place to get out" - which appears to be the case in the OP. Car stopped for road traffic reasons but passenger took advantage. That doesn't change the initial reason the car stopped so the cyclist is perfectly right to continue on the left.

I hate myself right now - I'm starting to sound like a lawyer

again , these are issues that a judge would be called on to decide, speculating here about potential judicial decisions isn't productive in reality

the fact is rarely is any party totally blameless in an accident

hullaballoo

Orion wrote: »

OK - what if a car is stopped at traffic lights and that was the only reason the car was stopped. Then, because the car is stopped a passenger decides "sure this is a grand place to get out" - which appears to be the case in the OP. Car stopped for road traffic reasons but passenger took advantage. That doesn't change the initial reason the car stopped so the cyclist is perfectly right to continue on the left.

I hate myself right now - I'm starting to sound like a lawyer

Yes, I should clarify that I don't think that the point I am making about that SI apply in the circumstances to this case. It seems that your interpretation of the facts is undeniably what happened and in that case, the car is not stopped for the purpose of people alighting but a different purpose, not included in the exceptions.

I was just pointing out that the provision has created an ambiguity for cyclists who are looking to overtake a stationary car on the left so that they may end up doing something illegal but without having the means to know that they are doing something illegal, which is what I find remarkable.

FanadMan

Sleeper12 wrote:

Put this another way. Do you indicate every time you pass a cyclist? I don't because they are not in my driving lane

I'm not a cyclist but every time I overtake a bike I indicate. They might not see it beforehand but if I have to cross the line I have to indicate - think that's kinda in the rules of the road. If I meet a walker.....same thing. (best thing is it really annoys my father who thinks indicators are just the lights that flash when you put the alarm on lol)

In saying that, I just wish that some cyclists would follow the same rules. Granted it's not all cyclists - we all generally only remember the bad cyclists/drivers/truckers etc. As a pedestrian I've been fecked out of it for walking across at a green light cos a cyclist was trying to break a red light (just like some drivers do).

We all use the road. If we learn and adhere to the rules of the road and most importantly keep our eyes open and our mind on the job there would be less of these and many other threads going.

ragazzo

hullaballoo wrote: »

Yes, I should clarify that I don't think that the point I am making about that SI apply in the circumstances to this case. It seems that your interpretation of the facts is undeniably what happened and in that case, the car is not stopped for the purpose of people alighting but a different purpose, not included in the exceptions.

I was just pointing out that the provision has created an ambiguity for cyclists who are looking to overtake a stationary car on the left so that they may end up doing something illegal but without having the means to know that they are doing something illegal, which is what I find remarkable.

Surely a certain amount of common sense is applicable in these cases. Letting passengers embark or disembark or loading/unloading goods would mean a vehicle should have pulled into the left, ie, as close to the kerb/side of road as possible. This leaves little option for cyclists to pass on the inside. Arguing that it is ok to stop in the middle of the road and proceed to unload/load passengers or goods is a bit of a stretch. Try it in rush hour traffic and see the reaction.

Lawyers arguing that it is ok to stop in the middle of the road without bothering to pull as close to the left as possible and without warning swing open a door into the path of an oncoming cyclist is laughable and is hardly an argument that would stand up in any court interested in fairness, equity and justice.

If one intends to unload/load passengers or goods then stop as close as possible to left side of road. Other traffic can then overtake on the right and danger is averted.
It is fairly simple and easy to follow.

Sleeper12

Orion wrote:

The former is the reason for the latter. It's safer to take prime position to stop angry drivers like your good self from atttemping a dangerous overtaking manoeuvre.

But we only have this issue with weekend cyclists. How is it safe during the week to cycle at the side road but not at the weekend.? I'll leave it there. It's for a discount thread.

Chuchote

ciaeim wrote: »

tonight while driving through town i came to a standstill in traffic and my daughter who was in rear seat passenger side goes to get out of car, she never looked and almost caught a cyclist with the door, my question is do cyclists have the right to pass on the left ? I cycle a lot myself and am unsure as whether u can pass on left or not ,, this is just for information purposes only, no one got hurt thank god and all went on our merryway.. so single lane, stopped in traffic, daughter opens door without looking, cyclist passes on inside . who is wrong in eyes of the law?

Yes, you can pass a lane of waiting traffic on the left. No, you shouldn't open a car door without looking.

Claeim, there's a great way of teaching kids to be aware of cyclists - use counting cyclists as a game on car journeys.

I hope your daughter has got over the shock of nearly injuring someone.

Sleeper12

FanadMan wrote:

I'm not a cyclist but every time I overtake a bike I indicate. They might not see it beforehand but if I have to cross the line I have to indicate - think that's kinda in the rules of the road. If I meet a walker.....same thing. (best thing is it really annoys my father who thinks indicators are just the lights that flash when you put the alarm on lol)

I drive a jeep. Usually I have no need to cross a white line while passing a cyclist. I mostly drive in & around Dublin. I pass a lot of cyclists every day and a lot pass me in traffic. If I indicate while passing a cyclist & there's plenty of room for both of us cars behind would assume I'm turning right or changing lane. After a while of me using my indicator for no reason they would ignore my indicating. That's not good. Nor a safe way to drive

CalamariFritti

ciaeim wrote: »

tonight while driving through town i came to a standstill in traffic and my daughter who was in rear seat passenger side goes to get out of car, she never looked and almost caught a cyclist with the door, my question is do cyclists have the right to pass on the left ? I cycle a lot myself and am unsure as whether u can pass on left or not ,, this is just for information purposes only, no one got hurt thank god and all went on our merryway.. so single lane, stopped in traffic, daughter opens door without looking, cyclist passes on inside . who is wrong in eyes of the law?

If your daughter is liable to do such things, for example because she's quite young, then it is your responsibility as a driver/parent to teach her to check first. It's what parents are supposed to do. Not check on boards if its by any chance someone else's fault.

This may sound a bit harsh, but its the truth all the same.

Sleeper12

FanadMan wrote:

I'm not a cyclist but every time I overtake a bike I indicate. They might not see it beforehand but if I have to cross the line I have to indicate - think that's kinda in the rules of the road. If I meet a walker.....same thing. (best thing is it really annoys my father who thinks indicators are just the lights that flash when you put the alarm on lol)

Why is everyone crossing a white line while passing a cyclist? I've seen people cross the white line to make a left hand turn but this is just bad driving

TheQuietFella

ciaeim wrote: »

tonight while driving through town i came to a standstill in traffic and my daughter who was in rear seat passenger side goes to get out of car, she never looked and almost caught a cyclist with the door, my question is do cyclists have the right to pass on the left ? I cycle a lot myself and am unsure as whether u can pass on left or not ,, this is just for information purposes only, no one got hurt thank god and all went on our merryway.. so single lane, stopped in traffic, daughter opens door without looking, cyclist passes on inside . who is wrong in eyes of the law?

You are in my opinion. You are the driver of the vehicle and your passenger

exited the vehicle in a place which appeared unsafe to do so.

This is just another case of 'nothing to do with me, not my fault syndrome'

magicbastarder

TheQuietFella wrote: »

This is just another case of 'nothing to do with me, not my fault syndrome'

you did notice that the OP came into the cycling thread to confirm whether her daughter was in the wrong? not exactly washing her hands of the situation in the way you suggest.