Left hooking a cyclist with no lights?

NickNickleby

droidus wrote: »

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

Astonishingly, having cycled across Dublin City for ten years, and motorcycled for the following ten years, I have NEVER heard of it described like that. I've encountered it, when struck by a car turning left across me, but I called it : " ****ing eejit not looking where you're going". Three times in 20 years, not bad I suppose, and fortunately the worst outcome was a sore right leg (and I think a bent left front wing on the car, but I never found out because she took off like a bat out of hell - my leg only started hurting when I got into work).

When I saw the thread title, I though perhaps a pedestrian had assaulted a cyclist after an accident, which perhaps was caused by the pedestrian walking out in front of an unlit bike. It reminded me of the time I witnessed a cyclist overtaking stopped cars and through a pedestrian light. Thanks to some fancy footwork, the pedestrian was not knocked down, but there was contact. The cyclist aggressively called the pedestrian a 'dopey something-or-other' and was then laid on the flat of his back with his bike. Pretty shocking, but the cyclist had chosen the wrong guy to tangle with, he was a real rough ****er.

axer

In fairness I can completely see what the OP is talking about. This is the big problem with cycle tracks and the misunderstanding of what they are legally. They are not traffic lanes but many cyclists are under the impression that they are and tbh I can see why there is that misunderstanding. Every day I see idiots on bikes undertaking cars that are indicating left and are likely to turn before or as the cyclist is passing both day and night. It is awful for a driver to have to hope that a cyclist without lights won't cycle up the inside of a car turning left even though the car driver may have done everything correctly. Who wants to be the person who seriously injures or kills another road user even if 100% correct.

As someone who commutes by bike every work day I think for those terrible junctions you should illegally block the lane (obviously not after recently passing out a cyclist or when you know one is coming i.e. do it as safely as possible) and don't do it if you are just stuck in traffic if it can be avoided. Its stupid that someone should have to break the law in order to protect themselves from hitting another road user even if the other road user is 100% wrong.

I strongly disagree with those who say just follow the law and check your mirrors as being enough.

NickNickleby

axer wrote: »

In fairness I can completely see what the OP is talking about. This is the big problem with cycle tracks and the misunderstanding of what they are legally..........
.......I strongly disagree with those who say just follow the law and check your mirrors as being enough.

Hope you're wearing your hard hat.

GreeBo

07Lapierre wrote: »

Interesting how in that video the rest of the lemmings continue to undertake the car that clearly has right of way and is already turning left.

There are plenty of examples of what the OP is talking about.
Every single morning, Sandford/Eglington Rd junction coming out of town.
Cars will be stopped at the lights, first in line, indicating left.
Every single cyclist will pull up alongside the car and force the car to wait to turn left until they have all gone. Its non sensical and delays the entire road.
If the bikes let the car turn, as is its right, it would all be freed up in a couple of seconds.

Here

Grassey

axer wrote: »

In fairness I can completely see what the OP is talking about. This is the big problem with cycle tracks and the misunderstanding of what they are legally. They are not traffic lanes but many cyclists are under the impression that they are and tbh I can see why there is that misunderstanding.

I'm fairly certain on road, mandatory (solid line) lanes are traffic lanes. Any traffic looking to cross left across it must yield to traffic (bikes) in that lane, similar to anyone on right lane of a motorway can't just cut across the lane to their left for the craic.

Averagevegan

Grassey wrote: »

I'm fairly certain on road, mandatory (solid line) lanes are traffic lanes. Any traffic looking to cross left across it must yield to traffic (bikes) in that lane, similar to anyone on right lane of a motorway can't just cut across the lane to their left for the craic.

On the motorway you would move to the left lane before turning left. In this situation do you move to the left (cycle lane) before turning left?

Grassey

Clearly not as motorised vehicles are prohibited from that lane.

I would assume its more akin to motorists who turn across bus lanes at the junction where they are not allowed use it for that stretch.
Now that you mention it though the amount of lads on the M50 that go from far right lane across 3 lanes to an exit in 1 move without looking....

padjocollins

to my mind, the car wants to turn left but cross the cycle path. The car driver should ensure that it's safe to do so . Cyclists should beware of the car wanting to turn. Car driver should indicate in plenty of time. If traffic is heavy behind the car, it's probably a good thing for the cyclist to let the driver off. I'm always looking to make eye constact with the driver or the cyclist where there is more potential for an accident.
Thats how i see it, been cycling forever but only once in dublin recently and a 4 x 4 turned straight into me (i wanted to go on straight). No damage and driver didn't stop to see if i was allright.

generally , i'm very careful and value my health more than my rights and don't
go for the confrontatonal approach, people make mistakes and you can avoid most accidents if 1 person sees the other person that is going to make that mistake before it becomes and accident.

GreeBo wrote: »

Interesting how in that video the rest of the lemmings continue to undertake the car that clearly has right of way and is already turning left.

There are plenty of examples of what the OP is talking about.
Every single morning, Sandford/Eglington Rd junction coming out of town.
Cars will be stopped at the lights, first in line, indicating left.
Every single cyclist will pull up alongside the car and force the car to wait to turn left until they have all gone. Its non sensical and delays the entire road.
If the bikes let the car turn, as is its right, it would all be freed up in a couple of seconds.

Here

smacl

Grassey wrote: »

I'm fairly certain on road, mandatory (solid line) lanes are traffic lanes. Any traffic looking to cross left across it must yield to traffic (bikes) in that lane, similar to anyone on right lane of a motorway can't just cut across the lane to their left for the craic.

It is just crap road design. Without needing any extra road space the straight ahead cycle lane should merge with the straight ahead traffic lane before the junction and the left turning lane should either be shared usage or have the cycle lane kept on the path as it is up until that point. You have a situation where the flow of cycle traffic and car traffic has to cross whichever way you look at it, so better do it in an orderly and unambiguous way slightly before the junction. The T-junction coming the other way used to be as bad, but has since been corrected.

axer

Grassey wrote: »

I'm fairly certain on road, mandatory (solid line) lanes are traffic lanes. Any traffic looking to cross left across it must yield to traffic (bikes) in that lane, similar to anyone on right lane of a motorway can't just cut across the lane to their left for the craic.

I think this proves my point and why the situation is so dangerous for everyone (obviously more-so for the cyclists). So many cyclists believe they have right of way because they are on a cycle track but that is not the case. Cycle tracks live in the netherworld between traffic lanes and nothing. While motorised vehicles cannot drive on the tracks and there are restrictions to parking depending on the line, cycle tracks themselves are not traffic lanes.

Averagevegan

Grassey wrote: »

Clearly not as motorised vehicles are prohibited from that lane.

I would assume its more akin to motorists who turn across bus lanes at the junction where they are not allowed use it for that stretch.
Now that you mention it though the amount of lads on the M50 that go from far right lane across 3 lanes to an exit in 1 move without looking....

If a cyclist passes on the left is it still considered undertaking?

Maybe an extra filter light is needed at this junction.

smacl

OT, but funny the stuff you see on Google streets. At the same junction even.

Grassey

I guess the council are confused also then. The left turn by UCD up Foster's Ave has a sign telling left turning motorists to yield to cyclists proceeding straight through the junction.

magicbastarder

Grassey wrote: »

I'm fairly certain on road, mandatory (solid line) lanes are traffic lanes. Any traffic looking to cross left across it must yield to traffic (bikes) in that lane, similar to anyone on right lane of a motorway can't just cut across the lane to their left for the craic.

a lot of the time (but not all of the time), the mandatory - solid white line cycle lane - will 'downgrade' to a broken white line approaching a junction. there's a junction near me where it does this southbound, but for whatever reason, not nortbound. the junction is not identically laid out on each side though.

TheChizler

Averagevegan wrote: »

If a cyclist passes on the left is it still considered undertaking?

Maybe an extra filter light is needed at this junction.

Undertaking is a made up word, but generally means passing on the left. Or directing a funeral.

Lumen

I have this problem on my motorbike turning left southbound on Portobello bridge.

Stopped at the lights, left indicator on, positioned far left in lane, lights go green, cyclists streaming past on the left completely ignoring my road position and indicator.

If there's space when I get to the lights I get into the cycle lane and block them.

If there isn't, I just sit there and wait for a gap. Ninjas are a problem though.

Relatedly, I almost took out a ninja on Morehampton road the other night. The main lane was partially blocked so I pulled left round the obstruction into the non-mandatory cycle lane, which is (as far as I know) legal. Checked my mirrors, did a lifesaver, didn't see the ninja until I did a second lifesaver and slammed on the brakes.

I don't know what the legal position would be If I'd run him over. Maybe the insurance would have compensated him with a deduction for contributory negligence, but the point is to try and work out the best way to avoid running them over in the first place.

axer

Grassey wrote: »

I guess the council are confused also then. The left turn by UCD up Foster's Ave has a sign telling left turning motorists to yield to cyclists proceeding straight through the junction.

Everyone is confused because of stupid ambiguous laws.

Lumen

TheChizler wrote: »

Undertaking is a made up word, but generally means passing on the left. Or directing a funeral.

I think undertaking is practically defined not by the passing, but by the pulling back out again.

For instance, you can drive in a bus lane, passing several kilometres of cars, and you will be guilty of one offence: driving in a bus lane.

If you use the bus lane for 50m and rejoin the main lane, you're guilty of two offences: using a bus lane and undertaking.

Averagevegan

magicbastarder wrote: »

a lot of the time (but not all of the time), the mandatory - solid white line cycle lane - will 'downgrade' to a broken white line approaching a junction. there's a junction near me where it does this southbound, but for whatever reason, not nortbound. the junction is not identically laid out on each side though.

This one down grades to dashed lines at the traffic lights, so I guess after the lights I can drive in the lane and cyclist must yield?

Are the cyclist merging with motorist or the other way round?

smacl

TheChizler wrote: »

Undertaking is a made up word, but generally means passing on the left. Or directing a funeral.

Or a pedge to do something even

Idleater

Lumen wrote: »

I think undertaking is practically defined not by the passing, but by the pulling back out again.

For instance, you can drive in a bus lane, passing several kilometres of cars, and you will be guilty of one offence: driving in a bus lane.

If you use the bus lane for 50m and rejoin the main lane, you're guilty of two offences: using a bus lane and undertaking.

You are the second person I know to understand the term undertaking as the manoeuvre out of and back into a lane. The first being my advanced driving instructor, and an instructor for the Gardaí.

__..__

TheChizler wrote: »

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.

I was talking about rain drops on mirrors when it's dark with cars behind you with headlights on. But there are numerous scenarios where visibility in mirrors would be lacking.

Lumen

Idleater wrote: »

You are the second person I know to understand the term undertaking as the manoeuvre out of and back into a lane. The first being my advanced driving instructor, and an instructor for the Gardaí.

Yeah, well that's not a coincidence. My education in these matters comes from a rather red-faced and agitated member of AGS. :pac:

Macy0161

Grassey wrote: »

I guess the council are confused also then. The left turn by UCD up Foster's Ave has a sign telling left turning motorists to yield to cyclists proceeding straight through the junction.

In fairness to the council, they're not trying to address the OP issue at that junction. That junction was notorious for motorists taking out cyclists that were legitimately there/ there ahead of the vehicles. In my experience, vehicles are much more aware of cyclists at this junction since that sign went up.

GreeBo wrote: »

There are plenty of examples of what the OP is talking about.
Every single morning, Sandford/Eglington Rd junction coming out of town.
Cars will be stopped at the lights, first in line, indicating left.
Every single cyclist will pull up alongside the car and force the car to wait to turn left until they have all gone. Its non sensical and delays the entire road.
If the bikes let the car turn, as is its right, it would all be freed up in a couple of seconds.

Whatever about whether it's sensible from the perspective of the cyclists safety, if the car is stopped at lights, isn't there there "a reasonable expectation" that the cyclists will be past the vehicle before the vehicle executes the movement? Which is what the regulations say, rather than being stopped at lights with an indicator on giving right of way?

TheChizler

Lumen wrote: »

I think undertaking is practically defined not by the passing, but by the pulling back out again.

Not directed at you but I've only ever heard this definition used by people trying to justify overtaking on the left on a dual-carriageway when they shouldn't. The law refers to overtaking as passing someone who's going slower than you, no reference to lanes. Undertaking is commonly used to refer to doing that on their left as opposed to right.

Moot point anyway as the law is clear on when cyclists are allowed or not allowed to do it.

Lumen

Macy0161 wrote: »

Whatever about whether it's sensible from the perspective of the cyclists safety, if the car is stopped at lights, isn't there there "a reasonable expectation" that the cyclists will be past the vehicle before they execute the movement? Which is what the regulations say, rather than being stopped at lights with an indicator on giving right of way?

This is really quite simple. Don't pass to the left of a vehicle which is indicating left.

For it to be a "pass" you have to start behind it. So if you approach a red light and a vehicle is sitting there indicating left, take up a position behind it, and wait. Then there's no conflict. This will result in being shoaled by idiots but hey, you can't change the world.

If it's at the lights not indicating left and you take up a position parallel to the left of it, then you have right of way, it needs to yield. But all the cyclists behind it should yield to it.

Therefore in a sane sort of world with the same rules as we have, the first couple of bikes would go through, and a gap would form as those behind wait, and the car would turn left, and then everyone would carry on with their lives.

But that's not the world we live in. :pac:

Averagevegan

Macy0161 wrote: »

isn't there there "a reasonable expectation" that the cyclists will be past the vehicle before the vehicle executes the movement? Which is what the regulations say, rather than being stopped at lights with an indicator on giving right of way?

Not if both cyclists and motorists are traveling from the lower churchtown road. The junctions are only 200m apart so both cyclist and motorist will be arriving at the junction within 1 sec of each other.

The other alternative is to gun it off the lights at the lower churchtown road and hope to pass all the cyclist before the second junction.

Lumen

TheChizler wrote: »

Not directed at you but I've only ever heard this definition used by people trying to justify overtaking on the left on a dual-carriageway when they shouldn't. The law refers to overtaking as passing someone who's going slower than you, no reference to lanes. Undertaking is commonly used to refer to doing that on their left as opposed to right.

Nope.

Road Traffic Act 1964 wrote:

(3) A driver shall overtake on the right and shall not move in towards the left until it is safe to do so.

(4) Notwithstanding paragraph (3) of this bye-law, a driver may overtake on the left—

(a) where the driver of the vehicle about to be overtaken has signalled his intention to turn to the right and the driver of the overtaking vehicle intends, after having overtaken, to go straight ahead or to turn to the left,

(b) where the driver of the overtaking vehicle intends, after having overtaken, to turn left at a road junction and has signalled this intention,

(c) in slow-moving traffic, when vehicles in the traffic lane on the driver's right are moving more slowly than the overtaking vehicle.

More recent versions of this act are wordier but retain (c).

Macy0161

Lumen wrote: »

This is really quite simple. Don't pass to the left of a vehicle which is indicating left.

Not arguing the point that a cyclist shouldn't (and I wouldn't), just the point the "as is the cars right".

Sense would say not to do it, but my (non-legally qualified) reading of the law doesn't put cyclists filtering on the left of a car stopped at lights indicator on, legally in the wrong. Perhaps a ignorant, or stupid, but just not legally wrong.

GreeBo

TheChizler wrote: »

The law refers to overtaking as passing someone who's going slower than you,

Actually thats incorrect, the law refers to slow moving.
Not slower than you or slower than any defined speed for that matter.

Basically the ambiguity is to make it not be illegal to drive in lane 1 while traffic is queuing in any outer lanes (such as traffic jams on dualer or M50)