Vehicles blocking Cyclists passing

Chips Lovell

Mod Note

carter10 wrote: »

Typical cyclist attitude, moan about drivers but ignore the 5 cyclists breaking the red light.

a.) Read the charter. This isn't a forum for ranting about cyclists.

and b.) Did you even read the thread? it's full of cyclists disagreeing with each other about the topic raised. Who're the typical cyclists?

Seriously though, read the charter before posting again.

Artifacting

I'm not exactly sure where you expect the bus to go? It's definitely filling the full lane width. It's quite a tight lane.

Sometimes you just have to wait. There's no absolute right to overtake / undertake. Patience is necessary. If there's no space there's not much anyone can do other than wait until there is. That's just the nature of using roads. It's a city that was laid out in Georgian and Victorian times for horse and cart traffic. So a lot of the time the lanes are pretty squeezed in.

The only cities that I see working well have proper underground metro systems that avoid the need for so much surface traffic.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Seriously? Can you explain how this bus is "blocking" you? DB get a lot of stick here, and rightly so, but this is absolutely not one of those justifiable cases.

This thread is incredibly odd...

flatface

traffic blocking filtering? Oh the humanity. Sounds like the sort of silly gripe from some motorists - cyclists blocking my way.

So much cyclist filtering is completely pointless, you may save a few car lengths that takes all of a few seconds to cycle.
Queue in the traffic and wait for the traffic to take off again.

jim o doom

I am a cyclist and motorcyclist, I will be regularly at the head of the traffic indicating left, with no cyclist on my inside.

In this situation a cyclist is not legally entitled to undertake me, I am indicating that I am turning left and am at the head of the traffic.

Regularly, just as the lights change about 5 cyclists will cycle up my inside as I am attempting to turn left. Dangerous to them, and illegal.

So now if I'm at the head of the traffic turning left, I cut off the cycle lane which means nobody is able to undertake me.

Generally I'm only on the motorcycle during the really cold months and on the bicycle about mid Feb to November, so cycling a lot more than driving. As this is so annoying (and I'm not a moron), I obviously never undertake a left indicating vehicle.

In other words, through experience on the road in the city, I fully understand why a vehicle would "block the way" for a cyclist, as despite the number of good cyclists, it is the bad ones you have to plan for.

galwayllm

Weepsie wrote: »

Mod-No such thing as road tax. Any more mention of such nonsense and the thread will be swiftly closed as it will derail into yet another back and forth thread of endless whataboutery.

My apologies! I had no idea this was a contentious issue! I'll edit my post now.

The tax man

I'll give this thread a week tops before it's shut.There's only ever one direction these take and it's well underway. I'm sure the mods have better things to be doing with their lives.

amcalester

jim o doom wrote: »

I am a cyclist and motorcyclist, I will be regularly at the head of the traffic indicating left, with no cyclist on my inside.

In this situation a cyclist is not legally entitled to undertake me, I am indicating that I am turning left and am at the head of the traffic.

Regularly, just as the lights change about 5 cyclists will cycle up my inside as I am attempting to turn left. Dangerous to them, and illegal.

So now if I'm at the head of the traffic turning left, I cut off the cycle lane which means nobody is able to undertake me.

Generally I'm only on the motorcycle during the really cold months and on the bicycle about mid Feb to November, so cycling a lot more than driving. As this is so annoying (and I'm not a moron), I obviously never undertake a left indicating vehicle.

In other words, through experience on the road in the city, I fully understand why a vehicle would "block the way" for a cyclist, as despite the number of good cyclists, it is the bad ones you have to plan for.

There are a lot of people using the road who do not think about what they are doing, and sometimes you have to make their decision for them.

I would equate taking the lane as a cyclist to reduce the risk of close passes with your example of moving left to stop cyclists passing on the left.

galwayllm

07Lapierre wrote: »

D’ya reckon all these drivers don’t know the rules of the road? How many have a full driving license ( my bet is all of them)
What we need is more enforcement of existing laws for all road users.

https://youtu.be/FKhKwsfv7vQ

Lol.. If only they did!

Hardly any know the rules from what I can see! But they all do lessons

noodler

I find it incredible that a cyclist feels a bus driver should make space in its own lane for a bike.

I honestly question your view of the world if you think the bus driver was the one at fault in the video OP.

amcalester

galwayllm wrote: »

Lol.. If only they did!

Hardly any know the rules from what I can see! But they all do lessons

Which didn’t work, so why introduce something new when it has been shown to not work before?

punisher5112

Greentree UK.... I would love for you to sit in the driving seat of a bus especially on the video you posted bad mouthing how the bus blocks you.

The bus just about fits inside the lane it's in along those railings.

I drive that way occasionally and we were trained in such tight spaces to take up the inside space as believe me cyclists will try anything and it's in no way a safe place to be going up the inside of a vehicle weighing up to 19 ton.

Ethereal Cereal

jim o doom wrote: »

Regularly, just as the lights change about 5 cyclists will cycle up my inside as I am attempting to turn left. Dangerous to them, and illegal.

Nope, thats a perfectly legal action for cyclist to do.

jim o doom wrote: »

So now if I'm at the head of the traffic turning left, I cut off the cycle lane which means nobody is able to undertake me.

That's illegal, see reference below. For you own benefit, I would cease this behavior because if you cause an accident you could find yourself foul of the law.

https://www.cyclemanual.ie/manual/designing/4-5-left-turns/

"Where a single traffic lane with a kerbside cycle lane approaches a left turn, the straight ahead cycle lane should be continuous through the junction. Left turning motorists are expected to yield to any straight ahead cyclists before turning left."

Chips Lovell

Ethereal Cereal wrote: »

Nope, thats a perfectly legal action for cyclist to do.

Actually, it's not. That's a road design manual you've cited, not the law. The 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.”,

gctest50

Ethereal Cereal wrote: »

That's illegal,

What section is it illegal under ?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/

AndrewJRenko

galwayllm wrote: »

You have do have lessons to drive a car on the road, and a motorbike. All for road safety.

So maybe cyclists should have to do one also. It's clear that a large amount of them have no idea how it works.

Do you need someone to explain to you the difference in risk and danger between a 10-20 kg bike doing 10-20 kmph and a 1-5 tonne vehicle doing 20-150 kmph?

Greentree_uk

oh wow this escalated quickly. really did not expect this..

gctest50

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you need someone to explain to you the difference in risk and danger between a 10-20 kg bike doing 10-20 kmph and a 1-5 tonne vehicle doing 20-150 kmph?

Some of the 10-20km/h crew might learn they are squishy


This illegal carry on demonstrates it through the medium of comedy :

amcalester

Ethereal Cereal wrote: »

See link above, what you are suggesting is an illegal and dangerous action.



Except in this case, the cyclist are in on the right side of the law and the driver is taking the illegal action.

The cycling manual? It’s not law.

Have you a link to the specific law being broken in my example above?

AndrewJRenko

gctest50 wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you need someone to explain to you the difference in risk and danger between a 10-20 kg bike doing 10-20 kmph and a 1-5 tonne vehicle doing 20-150 kmph?

Some of the 10-20km/h crew might learn they are squishy

Most cyclists I know are well aware of their squishiness.

It's the idiot speeding drivers with the phone in their hand overtaking close enough to detect bad breath that need more lessons. It's not cyclists that kill 2 or 3 people each week on the roads and maim many more.

greenwaving

jim o doom wrote: »

I am a cyclist and motorcyclist, I will be regularly at the head of the traffic indicating left, with no cyclist on my inside.

In this situation a cyclist is not legally entitled to undertake me, I am indicating that I am turning left and am at the head of the traffic.

Regularly, just as the lights change about 5 cyclists will cycle up my inside as I am attempting to turn left. Dangerous to them, and illegal.

So now if I'm at the head of the traffic turning left, I cut off the cycle lane which means nobody is able to undertake me.

Generally I'm only on the motorcycle during the really cold months and on the bicycle about mid Feb to November, so cycling a lot more than driving. As this is so annoying (and I'm not a moron), I obviously never undertake a left indicating vehicle.

In other words, through experience on the road in the city, I fully understand why a vehicle would "block the way" for a cyclist, as despite the number of good cyclists, it is the bad ones you have to plan for.

What if there is an ASL? Would you still do the same? I am not sure of the legalities of cutting off the cycle lane as you stop at the lights but regardless it seems like an asshole thing to do on purpose especially if there is an ASL ahead of you that would allow the cyclists to safely stop in front.
Personally I would never "block off a cycle" lane just to ensure that I couldn't be undertaken. I just use my mirrors and wait if necessary as the cyclist passes - it only slows me down by a matter of seconds, means cyclists aren't forced/tempted to filter between lanes to reach the top of the junction and is generally safer for everyone imo

jim o doom

greenwaving wrote: »

What if there is an ASL? Would you still do the same? I am not sure of the legalities of cutting off the cycle lane as you stop at the lights but regardless it seems like an asshole thing to do on purpose especially if there is an ASL ahead of you that would allow the cyclists to safely stop in front.
Personally I would never "block off a cycle" lane just to ensure that I couldn't be undertaken. I just use my mirrors and wait if necessary as the cyclist passes - it only slows me down by a matter of seconds, means cyclists aren't forced/tempted to filter between lanes to reach the top of the junction and is generally safer for everyone imo

First of all, I don't know wwhat an ASL is, can you tell me what it is?

Secondly, as Baron de Charlus posted above, it is illegal for a cyclist to undertake a vehicle which has moved to turn and is indicating as such.. every single day I drive into town, somewhere between 2 to 5 cyclists in a row break the law and prevent me from turning left at a set of lights which I am currently at the head of.. when I'm on the motorbike.

So my choices are to allow these folk screw me over, and look at me confused thinking that they are in the right when I either beep or shout "IM TURNING LEFT" at them, OR I can prevent it from happening by blocking the head of the lane.

Since I'm at the head of the traffic, and on a powerful motorcycle, the moment the lights change (when all traffic is entitled to start moving), I am gone.

I am not blocking anyone from moving, when the light changes, I am merely preventing dangerous riders (who are unaware or don't care that they should not be undertaking a left turning vehicle) from undertaking me.

Trucks have "DO NOT UNDERTAKE WHEN VEHICLE TURNING LEFT" emblazoned on the rear of the truck.. because commen sense alone isn't enough for the average road user, cyclist or otherwise.

If I see cyclists in my rear view and I'm at the head of the traffic, I'm going to continue my current road usage, and prevent them from undertaking me when the lights change.

Someone else wondered about what liability I would have if I caused an accident - how would I cause an accident? A stationary vehicle indicating left, the only accident would be someone cycling or driving into me when I'm not moving, which is their fault completely.

plodder

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Actually, it's not. That's a road design manual you've cited, not the law. The 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,

If the lights are red, then there wouldn't be a reasonable expectation that the turning vehicle will execute the movement to the left before the cycles overtakes etc. Or if the lights change suddenly, then it's up to the cyclist to beware imo.

I think that provision most typically applies when traffic is moving. It annoys me when driving, when a lot of cyclists seem unaware of it though and it's probably that what makes motorists block the lane to prevent it happening - or the opposite situation when cycling home yesterday and patiently waiting for a motorist signalling left, to go ahead and do it. In fairness to him/her, they wouldn't have known whether I was going to just barrel through anyway.

jim o doom

Ethereal Cereal wrote: »

See link above, what you are suggesting is an illegal and dangerous action.



Except in this case, the cyclist are in on the right side of the law and the driver is taking the illegal action.

As you can see, it is in fact illegal (as posted by Baron de Charlus), your incorrect view of what a cyclist is entitled to do in the cycling lane is endemic in Dublin city.

This incorrect information and attitude is exactly why I choose to block the head of the lane when turning left.

Additionally.. do you think it's remotely safe to undertake left turning vehicles? Say the vehicle is large, has a blind spot and no idea a cyclist is there.

Sounds like a potential serious injury or death for the cyclist who might foolishly undertake the left turning vehicle really. Something commen sense might dictate you SHOULDN'T be doing.

jim o doom

plodder wrote: »

If the lights are red, then there wouldn't be a reasonable expectation that the turning vehicle will execute the movement to the left before the cycles overtakes etc. Or if the lights change suddenly, then it's up to the cyclist to beware imo.

I think that provision most typically applies when traffic is moving. It annoys me when driving, when a lot of cyclists seem unaware of it though and it's probably that what makes motorists block the lane to prevent it happening - or the opposite situation when cycling home yesterday and patiently waiting for a motorist signalling left, to go ahead and do it. In fairness to him/her, they wouldn't have known whether I was going to just barrel through anyway.

The problem with what you are stating is that the moment the vehicle at the head of the traffic goes to turn, there will not be a single cyclist, but a continual stream of bicycles preventing said vehicle from turning.

A vechile indicating left at the head of the traffic is the lead vehicle, and it is turning left. Common sense is not something a lot of road users have, so you can either hope the cyclist on the inside isn't a fool, or you can ensure they cannot undertake you. I'm going with the option that doesn't rely on a member of the public to be intelligent.

Chips Lovell

I think if the lights are red and the vehicle is anywhere near the head of the queue, it's better to be safe than sorry.

Moving aside from legalities, it's never a good idea to pass on the left or stay in the left while crossing a junction. You can't rely on people to indicate, so you should never put yourself in a position where someone you think is going straight could turn across you.

Take the lane and merge with traffic and move back in again when you've crossed the junction and its safe for people behind you to overtake.

Macy0161

jim o doom wrote: »

The problem with what you are stating is that the moment the vehicle at the head of the traffic goes to turn, there will not be a single cyclist, but a continual stream of bicycles preventing said vehicle from turning.

There maybe/ there may not be. But you're chosing to block cyclists from filtering to a safer position, essentially so they may not delay you. You can dress it up as a measure for the cyclists, but it's really to deal with your own impatience.

Weepsie

jim o doom wrote: »

As you can see, it is in fact illegal (as posted by Baron de Charlus), your incorrect view of what a cyclist is entitled to do in the cycling lane is endemic in Dublin city.

This incorrect information and attitude is exactly why I choose to block the head of the lane when turning left.

Additionally.. do you think it's remotely safe to undertake left turning vehicles? Say the vehicle is large, has a blind spot and no idea a cyclist is there.

Sounds like a potential serious injury or death for the cyclist who might foolishly undertake the left turning vehicle really. Something commen sense might dictate you SHOULDN'T be doing.

You missed this part though

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

If you're stopped at a light, as noted above, there is not a reasonable expectation that you will execute the movement.

Do you block mandatory bike lanes when doing this?

greenwaving

jim o doom wrote: »

First of all, I don't know wwhat an ASL is, can you tell me what it is?

Secondly, as Baron de Charlus posted above, it is illegal for a cyclist to undertake a vehicle which has moved to turn and is indicating as such.. every single day I drive into town, somewhere between 2 to 5 cyclists in a row break the law and prevent me from turning left at a set of lights which I am currently at the head of.. when I'm on the motorbike.

So my choices are to allow these folk screw me over, and look at me confused thinking that they are in the right when I either beep or shout "IM TURNING LEFT" at them, OR I can prevent it from happening by blocking the head of the lane.

Since I'm at the head of the traffic, and on a powerful motorcycle, the moment the lights change (when all traffic is entitled to start moving), I am gone.

I am not blocking anyone from moving, when the light changes, I am merely preventing dangerous riders (who are unaware or don't care that they should not be undertaking a left turning vehicle) from undertaking me.

Trucks have "DO NOT UNDERTAKE WHEN VEHICLE TURNING LEFT" emblazoned on the rear of the truck.. because commen sense alone isn't enough for the average road user, cyclist or otherwise.

If I see cyclists in my rear view and I'm at the head of the traffic, I'm going to continue my current road usage, and prevent them from undertaking me when the lights change.

Someone else wondered about what liability I would have if I caused an accident - how would I cause an accident? A stationary vehicle indicating left, the only accident would be someone cycling or driving into me when I'm not moving, which is their fault completely.

ASL = Advanced stop line

(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

My understanding is that it's only illegal for a cyclist to undertake you if they can't preform the manoeuver before you start to move off. So a cyclist can legally undertake you to reach the top of the line of traffic (ASL or no ASL) if you are stopped regardless of your indicator.

To be honest if one of the things that dictates how you drive in the city is about preventing "folk from screwing you over" you might be better off the road. I see people break the law everyday - cyclists and motor vehicle users - if I got angry every time it would make for a very unpleasant journey. And if it influenced how I drove it would probably mean I was not particularly safe on the road. Take a deep breath next time and relax. They are only delaying you for a matter of seconds with their "illegal activity" and assuming you are in a car then your mirrors should provide you with the visibility required to be aware of their presence.

RayCun

Macy0161 wrote: »

There maybe/ there may not be. But you're chosing to block cyclists from filtering to a safer position,

but the cyclists are in a safe position - behind a vehicle - and choosing to go to a dangerous position - the left of a turning vehicle. So safety doesn't seem to be the motivating factor in their action.