Left hooking a cyclist with no lights?

Averagevegan

With all these ninjas doing the rounds.
Is it better to occupy the cycle lane at the junction in order to prevent undertaking and left hooking?
I understand this is a ****ty thing to do for cyclists who are going straight on, but some road layouts don't give much of a choice.
Maybe better safe than sorry.

An example would be here
//goo.gl/maps/apeDE4LLQVS2

TheChizler

I'm not sure I follow...

I thought left-hooking was waiting to turn right in the left of the lane while vehicles pass on the right, and making the turn either once there's a gap or the lights change?

Hrududu

TheChizler wrote: »

I'm not sure I follow...

I thought left-hooking was waiting to turn right in the left of the lane while vehicles pass on the right, and making the turn either once there's a gap or the lights change?

Isn't that a U turn?

TheChizler

Hrududu wrote: »

Isn't that a U turn?

A u-turn would be turning back the way you came, this is just a right turn. But I think we're all working off different definitions.

Grassey

I believe he means pull the car up tight to the curb on the left of car to prevent cyclists heading straight through (or left) from filtering up the inside so that when he turns left he doesn't hit them.

Correct, it is a ****ty thing to do if you are encroaching on a marked cycle lane, and likewise only forcing the issue you face back on the drivers behind you.

Wishbone Ash

I thought it meant driving a LHD vehicle in countries which drive on the left (i.e. steering wheel on wrong side).

OP - it shouldn't really affect cyclists going straight on as they should be passing you on your right if you intend to turn left and have indicated so.

magicbastarder

i always understood left hooking to be where a car will pass a cyclist and immediately turn left on top of them, instead of waiting behind and taking the left behind the cyclist.

Weepsie

There's a big difference between undertaking and overtaking on the left, the latter which bikes are nearly expected to do yet gets misconstrued as undertaking which is is not most of the time.

Also, the way your wording it, I'm thinking you're in a car. If you start occupying that cycle lane, you can be in trouble as your car is not allowed in it.

magicbastarder wrote: »

i always understood left hooking to be where a car will pass a cyclist and immediately turn left on top of them, instead of waiting behind and taking the left behind the cyclist.

This is my understanding too.

Averagevegan

TheChizler wrote: »

I'm not sure I follow...

I thought left-hooking was waiting to turn right in the left of the lane while vehicles pass on the right, and making the turn either once there's a gap or the lights change?

It could be my bad choice of words, maybe sideswiping a cyclist when turning left?

To turn left at the junction at churchtown and Beaumont ave you have to cross the cycle lane, if there is a nija going straight on they no hope of me seeing them.
I guess in all cases the cyclist is undertaking and is at fault? But the lanes only merge 30m ahead of the junction so not really possible for cyclist traveling straight on to filter to the right to overtake the left turning car.

TheChizler

Grassey wrote: »

I believe he means pull the car up tight to the curb on the left of car to prevent cyclists heading straight through (or left) from filtering up the inside so that when he turns left he doesn't hit them.

Oh I thought we were talking about bikes here! Wouldn't have a problem if they were at the top of the lane about to turn and it was a dashed cycle lane, but doing it for more than a second or two or in a mandatory lane would be kinda sh***y.

Edit: FYI this was the definition of left hook I was going by. The other commonly used one seems to be literally driving through a cyclist as you turn left.

Chips Lovell

If they're overtaking you on the inside when you're turning left, then its their own fault if they hit you. If they want to overtake a left turning vehicle, they need to do so on the outside.

Averagevegan

Grassey wrote: »

I believe he means pull the car up tight to the curb on the left of car to prevent cyclists heading straight through (or left) from filtering up the inside so that when he turns left he doesn't hit them.

Correct, it is a ****ty thing to do if you are encroaching on a marked cycle lane, and likewise only forcing the issue you face back on the drivers behind you.

It maybe ****ty but it appears to be the safest option? Assuming there will be a ninja going straight on.

Wishbone Ash

Averagevegan wrote: »

...I guess in all cases the cyclist is undertaking and is at fault?...

In all cases? What about the motorist crossing the track without yielding?

Averagevegan

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

If they're overtaking you on the inside when you're turning left, then its their own fault if they hit you. If they want to overtake a left turning vehicle, they need to do so on the outside.

But if I am slowing for the junction and they maintain their speed are they still undertaking.
This junction is a mess

Averagevegan

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

In all cases? What about the motorist crossing the track without yielding?

This is what am wondering, I am yielding but with a black out cyclist traveling at 25kph how can I be sure when it is safe to turn?

Chips Lovell

The fault will lie with the overtaker. If you overtake someone and pull across them, it's your fault. If they overtake you after you've signalled and begun to move left, then it's their fault.

TheChizler

Averagevegan wrote: »

This is what am wondering, I am yielding but with a black out cyclist traveling at 25kph how can I be sure when it is safe to turn?

Do it slowly and check your mirrors, as normal?

amcalester

Averagevegan wrote: »

But if I am slowing for the junction and they maintain their speed are they still undertaking.
This junction is a mess

I use this junction a lot and you're right it is a mess, the cycle should split and divert cyclists going straight into the right hand land, and those turning left into the left hand lane. Obviously that doesn't happen.

You shouldn't block the cycle lane though.

Averagevegan

TheChizler wrote: »

Do it slowly and check your mirrors, as normal?

Mirrors in the real world only work if you can see the cyclist (lights). If they have no lights them then?

Chips Lovell

Law states:

(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.”,

If the above applies, then you have right of way. If you can't see them, then it's a different matter and it's their fault they didn't have lights.

Idleater

Averagevegan wrote: »

This junction is a mess

The design of the cycle lane on that stretch is a mess, and puts a "correctly" going straight-on cyclist on the left of traffic in a specific left turn lane.

The lines are solid, so you should really treat that cycle lane as another full lane of traffic and yield to it when crossing (turning). You also should not enter it to "block" those already in it.

That's a lot of should's but there are a lot of similar junctions like that that do not account for actual traffic patterns (cyclists are traffic).

Common sense as always should apply, but if you were to collide with a straight on going cyclist, I would say that you would be at fault at that particular junction.

Obviously as many other posters have said, it would not be beyond reasonable expectation to find cyclists going straight on from either the RHS lane or even the left turn lane, especially if more vehicles take command of the left turn by using the cycle lane.

Averagevegan

amcalester wrote: »

I use this junction a lot and you're right it is a mess, the cycle should split and divert cyclists going straight into the right hand land, and those turning left into the left hand lane. Obviously that doesn't happen.

You shouldn't block the cycle lane though.

For what is there now, occupying the cycle lane when turning left is the safest option for everyone. It's not ideal but it's the best option?

Macy0161

My car commute takes me left at Donnybrook Bus Garage. Can't say I've ever had a problem spotting cyclists without lights to be honest. Check of the mirrors, check of the blind spot off you go. And that's a downhill where bikes generally carrying a decent speed.

Not sure I get the logic of blocking the cycle lane - if you're stopped, they'll just go around the outside and back in front. If you're moving, I don't see how they would be coming that fast for you not to see them? If the cycle lane is solid lines, it's mandatory, so no motorised vehicles allowed.

amcalester

Averagevegan wrote: »

Mirrors in the real world only work if you can see the cyclist (lights). If they have no lights them then?

Lights would obviously make it easier to see the cyclist but it's not like that junction is in the middle of dark sky preserve, it's well a well light-up area so if you're looking you should see any cyclists.

Weepsie

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

The fault will lie with the overtaker. If you overtake someone and pull across them, it's your fault. If they overtake you after you've signalled and begun to move left, then it's their fault.

This is the important part right? Signalling does not give right of way. -- I see you've updated with the law and the

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,

-- That there can be considered a little vague.

That said, if I see a car signal left that's ahead of me I move to its right or just slow down as that's the common sense thing to do.

Be ultra vigilant with mirrors and checking and you should be fine.

Macy0161

Weepsie wrote: »

Be ultra vigilant with mirrors and checking and you should be fine.

And the blind spot, especially if it's an area that you have concerns about.

lawred2

Averagevegan wrote: »

With all these ninjas doing the rounds.
Is it better to occupy the cycle lane at the junction in order to prevent undertaking and left hooking?
I understand this is a ****ty thing to do for cyclists who are going straight on, but some road layouts don't give much of a choice.
Maybe better safe than sorry.

An example would be here
//goo.gl/maps/apeDE4LLQVS2

maybe you just worry about following the rules of the road and leave others to do the same

amcalester

Macy0161 wrote: »

My car commute takes me left at Donnybrook Bus Garage. Can't say I've ever had a problem spotting cyclists without lights to be honest. Check of the mirrors, check of the blind spot off you go. And that's a downhill where bikes generally carrying a decent speed.

Not sure I get the logic of blocking the cycle lane - if you're stopped, they'll just go around the outside and back in front. If you're moving, I don't see how they would be coming that fast for you not to see them? If the cycle lane is solid lines, it's mandatory, so no motorised vehicles allowed.

This section is a "mandatory" cycle lane.

TheChizler

Averagevegan wrote: »

Mirrors in the real world only work if you can see the cyclist (lights). If they have no lights them then?

It's not like not having a light renders them invisible, you can see pedestrians can't you? They should have one but just be aware of who you pass out on the way to the junction, look carefully, check your blind spot, and make the turn slowly.

Averagevegan

amcalester wrote: »

Lights would obviously make it easier to see the cyclist but it's not like that junction is in the middle of dark sky preserve, it's well a well light-up area so if you're looking you should see any cyclists.

There is traffic behind so you are trying to see a blacked out cyclist coming from behind a set of headlights using a 8cm patch of glass.

You lads must have x-ray vision!

I will ask the garda as they might have a more practical view of it.

Cyclist will be cyclist.

Averagevegan

TheChizler wrote: »

It's not like not having a light renders them invisible, you can see pedestrians can't you? They should have one but just be aware of who you pass out on the way to the junction, look carefully, check your blind spot, and make the turn slowly.

Coming from behind a set of head lights, yes it does.

For now I will occupy the cycle lane at the junction. So apologies in advance to any cyclist going straight on. But at least you'll know why.