Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Left hooking a cyclist with no lights?

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,754 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


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

    If you're stopping at the junction and there is no cyclist on your inside, it seems reasonable as they cyclist would need to undertake you to get past given you're ahead of them when the lights change. If you're a few cars behind the junction, it is unreasonable as the cyclist may correctly pass you on the inside to get to the junction while the lights are still red. Problem is this could leave you making an unexpected move at a junction which may be counterproductive.

    Personally, as a cyclist approaching a junction with potentially left turning traffic, I take the lane to avoid getting 'left hooked' which is essentially the same manoeuvre in reverse.


  • Options
    #33
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    Averagevegan wrote: »
    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.

    I fully agree that the cyclists should have lights, should not be moving up your left hand side if you're indicating to turn left I just don't think it's the issue you're making it out to be.

    Remember most people posting here also drive so face the exact same issues as you do and manage fine

    The guards will give you the same advice as was given here, basically mirror, signal, mirror, maneuver.


  • Options
    #34
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    smacl wrote: »
    If you're stopping at the junction and there is no cyclist on your inside, it seems reasonable as they cyclist would need to undertake you to get past given you're ahead of them when the lights change. If you're a few cars behind the junction, it is unreasonable as the cyclist may correctly pass you on the inside to get to the junction while the lights are still red. Problem is this could leave you making an unexpected move at a junction which may be counterproductive.

    Personally, as a cyclist approaching a junction with potentially left turning traffic, I take the lane to avoid getting 'left hooked' which is essentially the same manoeuvre in reverse.

    Except you're allowed do it, while in this instance the OP is not.


  • Options
    #35
    Grassey
    Registered Users Posts: 2,393 ✭✭✭Grassey


    Averagevegan wrote: »
    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.

    If the cyclist is backlit by car headlights then they should be visible no?
    Would a bicycle light be lost in the stronger car head lights and be rendered useless?


  • Options
    #36
    Wishbone Ash
    Registered Users Posts: 24,995 ✭✭✭✭Wishbone Ash


    Averagevegan wrote: »
    ....I will ask the garda as they might have a more practical view of it.....
    :eek:

    Most Gardai haven't a clue about road traffic regulations and will merely give their own opinion which is usually from a motorists point of view.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Averagevegan
    Registered Users Posts: 49 ✭Averagevegan


    smacl wrote: »
    Personally, as a cyclist approaching a junction with potentially left turning traffic, I take the lane to avoid getting 'left hooked' which is essentially the same manoeuvre in reverse.

    Agree.

    But unfortunately this cycle lane is raised until approx 30m before the turn so cyclist do not have a realistic option to take the lane with bumper to bumper but moving traffic.


  • Options
    #38
    Averagevegan
    Registered Users Posts: 49 ✭Averagevegan


    Wishbone Ash wrote: »
    :eek:

    Most Gardai haven't a clue about road traffic regulations and will merely give their own opinion which is usually from a motorists point of view.


    To be fair, it would more practical than most of the half baked nonsense posted here.


  • Options
    #39
    Nekarsulm
    Registered Users Posts: 11,219 ✭✭✭✭Nekarsulm


    This kind of scenario is one of the reasons cars have small indicator lights on the side of the front wings, just ahead of the door.
    Any cyclist sho is stopped beside a car which is indicating left and doesn't let it go first when the lights ahead turn green , but tries to "beat it" away from the line can hardly be surprised when they get run over.


  • Options
    #40
    __..__
    Registered Users Posts: 452 ✭✭__..__


    TheChizler wrote: »
    Do it slowly and check your mirrors, as normal?


    I think cyclists think that mirrors are magic and that drivers always see everything in them.
    Mirrors are a bitch when they have drops on rain on them at night with all sorts of light behind you. Driver never sees everything in his mirrors all the time. He's human and they are just mirors. Cyclists shouldnt depend on the driver to save their life everytime they make a mistake.
    When I'm on the bike I am always fully aware that drivers may not see me in their mirrors despite their best intentions.


  • Options
    #41
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,248 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    If i was cycling along that bike track and I intended going straight on, if there was a car ahead of me (indicating that it was going to turn left), I'd stop behind the car. Once the lights go green, the car turns left and I would proceed straight on. At least, IMO, that's how it should work.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,754 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    amcalester wrote: »
    Except you're allowed do it, while in this instance the OP is not.

    Fair enough, but would you really want to be at a junction on the inside of a car indicating to turn left? Whatever about a car, if it was a larger vehicle it such as a HGV it makes sense not to leave this space available to the cyclist regardless of whether they technically have a right to be there. The problem I have with many cycle lanes is that they're poorly designed and can leave the cyclist in a vulnerable position at a junction. As a cyclist I ignore cycle lanes in these circumstances. If a motorist does similar with the specific aim of limiting the vulnerability of cyclists I've no problem with it, even if they're technically in the wrong for doing so. YMMV.


  • Options
    #43
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    smacl wrote: »
    Fair enough, but would you really want to be at a junction on the inside of a car indicating to turn left? Whatever about a car, if it was a larger vehicle it such as a HGV it makes sense not to leave this space available to the cyclist regardless of whether they technically have a right to be there. The problem I have with many cycle lanes is that they're poorly designed and can leave the cyclist in a vulnerable position at a junction. As a cyclist I ignore cycle lanes in these circumstances. If a motorist does similar with the specific aim of limiting the vulnerability of cyclists I've no problem with it, even if they're technically in the wrong for doing so. YMMV.

    Absolutely agree with you, but knowing this particular junction as both a cyclist and motorist I just don't see that it is as big an issue as the OP is making out.


  • Options
    #44
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,754 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Averagevegan wrote: »
    Agree.

    But unfortunately this cycle lane is raised until approx 30m before the turn so cyclist do not have a realistic option to take the lane with bumper to bumper but moving traffic.

    Some cycle lanes are best avoided for this reason, e.g. this dead end on Nutgrove that just stops for no good reason. In this case the best option is just to stick with the traffic, which if bumper to bumper will probably be slower than the cyclist anyway.


  • Options
    #45
    ED E
    Registered Users Posts: 36,167 ✭✭✭✭ED E


    smacl wrote: »
    Some cycle lanes are best avoided for this reason, e.g. this dead end on Nutgrove that just stops for no good reason. In this case the best option is just to stick with the traffic, which if bumper to bumper will probably be slower than the cyclist anyway.

    Thats a BMX track not a cycle lane.


  • Options
    #46
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    smacl wrote: »
    Some cycle lanes are best avoided for this reason, e.g. this dead end on Nutgrove that just stops for no good reason. In this case the best option is just to stick with the traffic, which if bumper to bumper will probably be slower than the cyclist anyway.

    That section used to be on my commute home but I switched to Dodder Park road as it is an awful stretch to cycle.


  • Options
    #47
    Macy0161
    Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    Averagevegan wrote: »
    To be fair, it would more practical than most of the half baked nonsense posted here.
    Seriously, what half baked nonsense have you got? Check your mirrors, check your blind spot, proceed with caution, don't illegally block a mandatory cycle lane. Plenty saying cyclists should have lights and saying cyclists shouldn't be going up the inside of an indicating vehicle in the circumstances you outlined.

    What exactly were you looking for? Just an OK to illegally block a mandatory cycle lane?


  • Options
    #48
    Grassey
    Registered Users Posts: 2,393 ✭✭✭Grassey


    smacl wrote: »
    Some cycle lanes are best avoided for this reason, e.g. this dead end on Nutgrove that just stops for no good reason. In this case the best option is just to stick with the traffic, which if bumper to bumper will probably be slower than the cyclist anyway.

    Such a confusing lane... do you take the dip into road lane, or continue straight into the invisible car illegaly parked?


  • Options
    #49
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    __..__ wrote: »
    I think cyclists think that mirrors are magic and that drivers always see everything in them.
    Mirrors are a bitch when they have drops on rain on them at night with all sorts of light behind you.
    Maybe my mirrors are better than most (they are heated though) but I never have an issue seeing anything coming up a cycle lane when I'm turning next to one.

    Of course nobody should assume that they can be seen but if you can't see you need to slow down and look more thoroughly.


  • Options
    #50
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    Grassey wrote: »
    Such a confusing lane... do you take the dip into road lane, or continue straight into the invisible car illegaly parked?

    In my experience there's usually a car parked blocking the dip as well so that's out.


  • Options
    #51
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,754 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    amcalester wrote: »
    Absolutely agree with you, but knowing this particular junction as both a cyclist and motorist I just don't see that it is as big an issue as the OP is making out.

    Just saw the link in the OP. That's a cycle lane where you can go straight on the inside of a left turning lane. This is crappy and dangerous design pure and simple. If the cycle lane wasn't there, a cyclist wouldn't be in that position at all at the junction, they'd be in the other lane. Funny enough if you look at the same junction from the other side, you see how it should be done. The road design strategy seems correct at the T-junction but not the straight ahead quite often around there.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,536 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    Averagevegan wrote: »
    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.
    You’ll be forcing the cyclists to weave, there will be another driver on in a minute giving out about drivers who weave.

    Op indicate early. Don’t block the cycle lane, take the turn when you can clearly pass the cycling lane. Use your mirrors and proceed.


  • Options
    #53
    Grassey
    Registered Users Posts: 2,393 ✭✭✭Grassey


    amcalester wrote: »
    In my experience there's usually a car parked blocking the dip as well so that's out.

    I know, it's why I'll go the slightly longer way down the dodder and up through Churchtown using the nice cycling infrastructure provided, rather than that farce and/or bumper to bumper traffic... not that the Nutgrove road surface is any better to the Nutgrove BMX trail.


  • Options
    #54
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    Averagevegan wrote: »
    Left hooking a cyclist with no lights?

    Never ever heard this term before (outside of boxing)!

    Is it really a term used on the road?


  • Options
    #55
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    Grassey wrote: »
    I know, it's why I'll go the slightly longer way down the dodder and up through Churchtown using the nice cycling infrastructure provided, rather than that farce and/or bumper to bumper traffic... not that the Nutgrove road surface is any better to the Nutgrove BMX trail.

    I do the same.


  • Options
    #56
    droidus
    Registered Users Posts: 1,545 ✭✭✭droidus


    LordSutch wrote: »
    Never ever heard this term before (outside of boxing)!

    Is it really a term used on the road?

    Yup, left hook and right hook, two of the most common accidents for bicycles and motorbikes.


  • Options
    #57
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,248 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    LordSutch wrote: »
    Never ever heard this term before (outside of boxing)!

    Is it really a term used on the road?




  • Options
    #58
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,598 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    unfortunately it's quite hard to see the left hook in that video as it's probably 50m or 100m away from the camera.

    was it Deedsie here who has one on camera, being left hooked by a van (may have been near harold's cross or terenure?)


  • Options
    #59
    __..__
    Registered Users Posts: 452 ✭✭__..__


    TheChizler wrote: »
    Maybe my mirrors are better than most (they are heated though) but I never have an issue seeing anything coming up a cycle lane when I'm turning next to one.

    Of course nobody should assume that they can be seen but if you can't see you need to slow down and look more thoroughly.


    No. Your mirrors are no better. Try telling it to a lie detector that you have never missed anything in your mirrors while driving. :)


  • Options
    #60
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    __..__ wrote: »
    No. Your mirrors are no better. Try telling it to a lie detector that you have never missed anything in your mirrors while driving. :)
    Well I'd pass cause I wouldn't know if I did! :P

    What I mean is in a well lit area if your mirror is clear and properly adjusted as it should be and you miss something it's cause your own observation was lacking.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,754 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    droidus wrote: »
    Yup, left hook and right hook, two of the most common accidents for bicycles and motorbikes.

    Not to mention that other thankfully less current hazard to cyclists, the George Hook :pac:


Advertisement