Left hooking a cyclist with no lights?

GreeBo

Averagevegan wrote: »

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.

It gets even more exciting at that junction when the left turn has a green light but straight on is red....if you have queuing bikes and already left turning cars...what happens when the straight on lights go green?
Whammo.

Though as a car you can avoid this if you mount the curb and drive through the pub car park...which I also often see!

Lumen

Macy0161 wrote: »

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.

Nope.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2012/si/332/made/en/print

(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.”,

monkeybutter

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.

Sweet I'll tell that you told me that to the coppers if they try to stop me for undertaking on the m50

Lumen

monkeybutter wrote: »

Sweet I'll tell that you told me that to the coppers if they try to stop me for undertaking on the m50

Quoting some random muppet on the internet probably won't help, but in my experience undertaking is one of the "you know it when you see it" things.

If the Gardai see you (for instance) pulling out of lane 3 into lane 2 and then back out again a few cars later, at speed, they will quite rightly do you for it.

GreeBo

Lumen wrote: »

Quoting some random muppet on the internet probably won't help, but in my experience undertaking is one of the "you know it when you see it" things.

If the Gardai see you (for instance) pulling out of lane 3 into lane 2 and then back out again a few cars later, at speed, they will quite rightly do you for it.

If they see you passing on the left of cars they will do you, irrespective of what lane you then move into.
You cannot pass on the left (other than the previously posted caveats)

Chips Lovell

Overtaking is a manoeuvre. If you aren't departing from your lane (or even your line) you aren't overtaking.

smacl

Lumen wrote: »

Quoting some random muppet on the internet probably won't help

And here was me thinking that beaker was one of the more systematic muppets

Macy0161

Lumen wrote: »

Nope.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2012/si/332/made/en/print

But that's the point I'm making!

If the car is stopped at lights I can't how 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"

Grassey

GreeBo wrote: »

It gets even more exciting at that junction when the left turn has a green light but straight on is red....if you have queuing bikes and already left turning cars...what happens when the straight on lights go green?
Whammo.

I wait at the left of the cycle lane so other cyclists turning left can pass me by in lane. That said I'm pretty sure the left turn light turns off, second delay, then green light for straight (and/or left depending on if pedestrian has pressed button).
I'd stick out the right arm, look over shoulder so drivers behind me approaching the junction are aware that I am proceeding forward. Only been cut off by a handful of cnuts in BMWs this way who want to jump the lights.

ted1

Lumen wrote: »

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.

Tbh, That sounds like illegal undertaking.

Lumen

ted1 wrote: »

Tbh, That sounds like illegal undertaking.

Maybe, but I think it is covered in this case by...

Road Traffic Act wrote:

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

TheChizler

Lumen wrote: »

Nope.



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

I worded my post poorly, obviously if you overtake someone you have to be going faster than them, I wasn't referring to the slow moving traffic exception that was unfortunate wording.

I purely mean legally overtaking is passing someone, you don't have to change lanes to do it. The above exception which references overtaking traffic in other lanes would reinforce that view.

Anyway I'll leave it there, there's enough argument about the definition of overtaking in the motors forum, I can't even remember how this was relevant to the OP.

Lumen

TheChizler wrote: »

I purely mean legally overtaking is passing someone, you don't have to change lanes to do it. The above exception which references overtaking traffic in other lanes would reinforce that view.

Right, OK.

In practice I believe that the likelihood of triggering AGS depends their judgement about whether you're just caught in the natural traffic flow or acting the maggot with the intention of getting to your destination sooner.

Kaisr Sose

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.

No cyclist will be totally invisible at that junction. It’s very well lit, and seeing as you say you can see the ninjas, you should be on the look out for them, use your mirrors, indicate, signal, check, manoeuvre. If you do all that, at that junction, you should never hit a cyclist. Is a couple of seconds to check all is clear really worth the hassle of explaining an incident to a Garda?

If you take the cycle lane, you are in the wrong. It’s not your lane.

Victor

Weepsie wrote: »

There's a big difference between undertaking and overtaking

Undertaking is something done by funeral directors.

Lumen

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

If you take the cycle lane, you are in the wrong

Not true unless the cycle lane is mandatory, which it isn't in this case.

Averagevegan

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

and seeing as you say you can see the ninjas.

No, I knew they were behind as i had overtaken them but could not actually see them.

People who think you can see a blacked out moving object past the glare of headlights just don't or won't live in the real world.

I think most garda would understand why I'm in the cycle lane and it's a lot easier than explaining to the insurance company etc etc why a cyclist T-boned my passenger side door.

I came here looking for a better option than occupying the cycle lane, and so far none has been offer. So I will assume it is still the best option.

Sadly a lot of cyclist have a chip on their shoulder about using lights. Those guys need to get a grip as they give responsible cyclist a bad name.

Lumen

Averagevegan wrote: »

Sadly a lot of cyclist have a chip on their shoulder about using lights.

You're unlikely to find anyone on here advocating not using lights, but if we're going to speculate about ninja motivations my guess is that they simply can't be bothered. It's not an active choice.

This isn't a cyclist-specific issue either - look at the number of people driving around with a busted headlight. Those car ninjas also just can't be bothered to sort it out because...ah sure, well I still have one working light.

Also, your post is wandering towards "you people" territory.

Averagevegan

Lumen wrote: »

You're unlikely to find anyone on here advocating not using lights, but if we're going to speculate about ninja motivations my guess is that they simply can't be bothered. It's not an active choice.

This isn't a cyclist-specific issue either - look at the number of people driving around with a busted headlight. Those car ninjas also just can't be bothered to sort it out because...ah sure, well I still have one working light.

Also, your post is wandering towards "you people" territory.

Show me a car that regularly drives around with no lights of any kind that does also piss off their fellow motorist. There is a reason people flash drivers who have forgotten to turn on their lights.

The fact that you are trying to frame this as a cyclist versus motorist issue is sad. This is just a safety issue not part of some underground political conflict......this is not about fighting the man.

The safest option is to occupy the cycle lane, I am still glad I asked, because I wish their was a better option.

Lumen

Averagevegan wrote: »

The fact that you are trying to frame this as a cyclist versus motorist issue is sad

I am not. I am gently suggesting that your phrasing is bordering on antagonistic.

cython

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Overtaking is a manoeuvre. If you aren't departing from your lane (or even your line) you aren't overtaking.

If that's really the case, then the wording of the law (already posted, but reposting here) is a contradiction in terms (my emphasis):

(5) A driver may only overtake on the left—

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

( b ) where the driver of the overtaking vehicle intends, after overtaking, to turn left at the next 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.

If you posit that overtaking must involve a change in lane or line, then passing on the left in slow moving traffic in this manner can't be defined as overtaking (since they must already be in different lanes for this scenario to arise), but it is there in black and white that it is.

Lumen

Interestingly, I _think_ that provision (b) allows motorcycles to use a non-mandatory cycle lane to pass a line of stopped traffic if the motorcycle is indicating left with the intention of turning left.

For instance, on Cuffe St westbound here.

Kaisr Sose

Averagevegan wrote: »

No, I knew they were behind as i had overtaken them but could not actually see them.

People who think you can see a blacked out moving object past the glare of headlights just don't or won't live in the real world.

I think most garda would understand why I'm in the cycle lane and it's a lot easier than explaining to the insurance company etc etc why a cyclist T-boned my passenger side door.

I came here looking for a better option than occupying the cycle lane, and so far none has been offer. So I will assume it is still the best option.

Sadly a lot of cyclist have a chip on their shoulder about using lights. Those guys need to get a grip as they give responsible cyclist a bad name.

I am a cyclist and motorist. I have cycled and driven through this junction many times in daylight and nighttime. I do have a problem with motorists that left hook me there or those that mount the kerb before turning. That is not fair on any cyclist that is coming along, whether they have lights or not. It’s pure selfish. You turn left if it’s safe to do so. If you have passed a ninja before the junction then you have seen them and know they are coming along. Why block their path? Just be vigilant. What cost a few seconds to check ?
I don’t like to see ninja cyclists but it is bright enough for me to see cyclists without lights along there.
It is stupid, dangerous and inconsiderate to cycle without lights. I wish the Garda would do more to tackle those with no lights, poor lights and those that are too strong for road use. They don’t seem to be interested/don’t have the resources.

AndrewJRenko

I'm not really getting the 'ninja' issue. This is a well-lit junction. It isn't hard to see anyone at this junction if you look around - cyclist or pedestrian.

I'd recommend to any cyclist going straight on that they should pull up on the left side of the front of the right hand lane, well away from the left turning traffic.

Weepsie

cython wrote: »

If that's really the case, then the wording of the law (already posted, but reposting here) is a contradiction in terms (my emphasis):


If you posit that overtaking must involve a change in lane or line, then passing on the left in slow moving traffic in this manner can't be defined as overtaking (since they must already be in different lanes for this scenario to arise), but it is there in black and white that it is.

Wouldn't the change in lane or line be then to go get into the right hand lane ahead of the slower moving traffic and therefore is precisely overtaking.

tomasrojo

I remember reading on a Dutch blog that the recommendation there was for drivers to move carefully into the cycle lane (if there was no separating kerb) before turning on the nearside.

It might have been completely wrong though. Hardly an authoritative source.

cython

Weepsie wrote: »

Wouldn't the change in lane or line be then to go get into the right hand lane ahead of the slower moving traffic and therefore is precisely overtaking.

Not sure if I was unclear, but I was saying there is no need for a change in lane/line to class as overtaking, and IMO it's not necessarily accurate to assume that there will be a change in lane either before or after the passing. Take for example heading west on Leeson Street Lower - both lanes exist in parallel there the whole way to Wexford Street, at which point they both merge into one lane - plenty of scope for one lane moving faster than the other, and while the merge at the end may class as a change in line (not strictly a lane change, IMHO, as it's a merge for both), that's a bit tenuous. Regardless of this, if the lane on the left is moving faster, it meets the definition in the law of overtaking on the left, even before coming to the point of the merge, and regardless of the lanes that the cars started in.

GreeBo

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Overtaking is a manoeuvre. If you aren't departing from your lane (or even your line) you aren't overtaking.

Err where did you get that idea from?

The Dictionary wrote:

catch up with and pass while travelling in the same direction.