Priority question

tnegun

Who has priority at these junctions? The cyclist continuing straight or the car turning into the side road?


https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3770169,-6.5875124,3a,75y,340.82h,71.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSSxTgs6MGPxTUVVIQnKsjA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

cdaly_

The absence of 'Yield' marking/signs says the cyclist is in another lane on the main road and so has right of way over a driver turning right. A driver turning left has to cross another lane and so should give way.

The driver encroaching on the cycle lane instead of stopping behind the stop line* says that nobody gives a sh*t about cyclists...



* They're plainly not moving off what with the Google car approaching from their right.

check_six

tnegun wrote: »

Who has priority at these junctions? The cyclist continuing straight or the car turning into the side road?


https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3770169,-6.5875124,3a,75y,340.82h,71.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSSxTgs6MGPxTUVVIQnKsjA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Are we talking about a cyclist in the cycle track? 'Cause if we are this is an excellent example of how dangerous cycle track layouts are. Here the cyclist does not cede priority, but in other cases they do and the poxy inconsistent nonsense layouts make it difficult to guess which it is.

If the cyclist is in the lane there is no doubt whatsoever. They have priority like any other vehicle on the major lane continuing straight ahead. Bad cycle track design causes dangerous junctions all over the place.

And people think cycle tracks are safer!

tnegun

Yeah this is what I was getting at I'm of the opinion that the cyclist has priority but the complete lack of any yield or other markings for vehicles means its frequently ignored at everyone of this junctions making the track useless and it safer to travel on the road.

TheBlaaMan

I dont see the issue. A cyclist, whether in the cycle lane or on the main lane, has priority over traffic coming out of the side road on the left (where that car is encroaching) and over a car travelling either direction on the main road that wants to make a turn into that side road. Its black and white and not open to any other interpretation

DavyD_83

Legally, I would say cyclist 100% has priority.
In reality, you need ot make eye contact with the driver, make it clear that they are an inconsiderate prick and try to get past the front of car before they move without being squished by the Google car.
If you can't make eye contact, particularly if the driver is looking to their left, do not go in front of the car unless you want to be hit You'll be legally in the right, but cars hurt.

The other question is whether the cyclist in cycle lane or the Google car (if turning left) have priority?

I'm pretty sure that cyclist gets right of way as car is crossing his lane essentially, but the fact he comes off path onto road will lead a lot of cars to see the cyclist as 'coming out of nowhere'/'joining the road'; so again there is the legally correct V cycle-craft/staying alive approaches.

amcalester

DavyD_83 wrote: »

Legally, I would say cyclist 100% has priority.
In reality, you need ot make eye contact with the driver, make it clear that they are an inconsiderate prick and try to get past the front of car before they move without being squished by the Google car.
If you can't make eye contact, particularly if the driver is looking to their left, do not go in front of the car unless you want to be hit You'll be legally in the right, but cars hurt.
.

I learned this the hard way, back in my early days of commuting I tired to move around an encroaching but stopped car when he decided to go for. Hit the front wheel arch and went over the bonnet and ended up on the road the far side of the car.

Chips Lovell

Traffic travelling straight has priority. However, that doesn't mean you should go up the inside of a left turning vehicle:

"(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.”,

tnegun

Just to be clear I'm not concerned with the car coming from the minor road its traffic on the main road accessing the minor. The yielding to a car indicating left if fine with a shared lane but this is dedicated until the junction were motor traffic must cross a cycle lane.
Edit: Also the position of the stop line implies cyclists have priority for at least half of the junction

Chips Lovell

Hmmmm, I don't think there's anything in the law stating that the rule for overtaking on the left doesn't apply to someone in a cycle lane.

Personally, I would never go up the inside of left turning traffic, cycle lane or no cycle lane.

DavyD_83

Chips Lovell wrote: »

Hmmmm, I don't think there's anything in the law stating that the rule for overtaking on the left doesn't apply to someone in a cycle lane.

Personally, I would never go up the inside of left turning traffic, cycle lane or no cycle lane.

Wasn't trying to turn this into another left turning vehicles thread. I was more calling out the annoying off-road to on-road switch for the cyclist.

At this point I really think the 'what should I do to proceed safely and efficiently' answer is fast more important than the question of the most legal action.
When you break the laws, just don't get in the way of those working within the law .

tnegun

Chips Lovell wrote: »

Hmmmm, I don't think there's anything in the law stating that the rule for overtaking on the left doesn't apply to someone in a cycle lane.

Personally, I would never go up the inside of left turning traffic, cycle lane or no cycle lane.

I hear you and I would never do that either, for this section I stay on the road but I've seen it countless times cars coming from behind a cyclist in the lane and turning left through the junction. There is nothing to indicate the car or bike should yield.

Chips Lovell

I'd always ride near the centre of a lane while passing through a junction. Deters anyone from overtaking you on the right and immediately cutting across you to turn left.

If a vehicle ahead is waiting to turn left, I'd either wait behind them near the centre of the lane or overtake on the right, depending on the circumstances.

tnegun

That's all fair enough but the question here is for the cyclist using this lane. They are being cut up by cars coming from behind them or turning right coming from the other direction. I'm trying to figure out who actually has priority at this junction.

Trojan

This is a cycle lane I wouldn't use because of this type of junction. It's why on-road cycle lanes are better, IMO.

ED E

Trojan wrote: »

This is a cycle lane I wouldn't use because of this type of junction. It's why on-road cycle lanes are better, IMO.

This is a big issue.


Women and children are deterred from cycling without off road infra. We want to build inclusive infra for them but in doing so we build cycle tracks that half the userbase will never ever use. I'm one of them.

Macy0161

Chips Lovell wrote: »

Hmmmm, I don't think there's anything in the law stating that the rule for overtaking on the left doesn't apply to someone in a cycle lane.

The cyclist is not overtaking on the left. The cycle lane is a lane of traffic, so traffic from the right should yield.

check_six

Here's a doozy at the corner of the Clonsilla Link Road. https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3884741,-6.4177162,3a,75y,269.18h,58.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNKgpXsCKnwtfn2O8gPk6Zg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Notice how there is a Yield sign painted on to the cycle track at the pedestrian crossing. Therefore cyclists would have to yield to pedestrians waiting to cross.

However, what would you see from a car?
"Is that a yield sign for cyclists going straight on? Maybe. That suits me, I'm turning left!"

I've seen scary left turns in front of cyclists there too. Possibly due directly to this layout.

Chips Lovell

tnegun wrote: »

That's all fair enough but the question here is for the cyclist using this lane. They are being cut up by cars coming from behind them or turning right coming from the other direction. I'm trying to figure out who actually has priority at this junction.

In both the scenarios above, yes they have priority. But I wouldn't stay in the lane if I were the cyclist. Moving out will reduce likelihood of the first scenario.

Chips Lovell

Macy0161 wrote: »

The cyclist is not overtaking on the left. The cycle lane is a lane of traffic, so traffic from the right should yield.

I've heard that argument made before, but I've yet to find any legislation stating this.

tnegun

Its so disappointing this lane is brand new and full of issues like this

tnegun

Chips Lovell wrote: »

In both the scenarios above, yes they have priority. But I wouldn't stay in the lane if I were the cyclist. Moving out will reduce likelihood of the first scenario.

Problem is its mostly kids/teenagers I see using it and getting cut up, so they're not going to take the road. Also have had aggressive drivers shouting at me to get into the lane because its there and looks great to anyone who doesn't cycle!

Chips Lovell

Ignore them. Anyone shouting out their window at a cyclist is unlikely to be a reasonable person.

Macy0161

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I've heard that argument made before, but I've yet to find any legislation stating this.

I haven't time to go rooting for legislation, (and I know they aren't legislation) but the Rules of the Road are clear on this...

Changing traffic lanes
Don’t move from one traffic lane to another without good reason.
You must give way to traffic already in the lane into which you are moving.

Type 17

If a layout looks confusing, consider the following principles:

Traffic going straight on always has priority over traffic turning (unless otherwise marked).
Traffic turning left always has priority over traffic turning right (unless otherwise marked).

That gives you an idea of priority, but you'd be mad to rely on it alone, without checking, making eye contact, etc

cython

Macy0161 wrote: »

I haven't time to go rooting for legislation, (and I know they aren't legislation) but the Rules of the Road are clear on this...

Great, if it were a lane, but in any legislation I've seen pains are gone to so that the term cycle track is used rather than any conflation with the word lane, so I don't think that can be applied reliable.

DavyD_83

check_six wrote: »

Here's a doozy at the corner of the Clonsilla Link Road. https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3884741,-6.4177162,3a,75y,269.18h,58.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNKgpXsCKnwtfn2O8gPk6Zg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Notice how there is a Yield sign painted on to the cycle track at the pedestrian crossing. Therefore cyclists would have to yield to pedestrians waiting to cross.

However, what would you see from a car?
"Is that a yield sign for cyclists going straight on? Maybe. That suits me, I'm turning left!"

I've seen scary left turns in front of cyclists there too. Possibly due directly to this layout.

I've only just realised that the triangle on the road is a yield sign. I've always seem it as some sort of awkward end of lane indicator. (Don't think I've ever been at that specific junction, but you see them around).
Yeh, I'm definitely not the best source for the fully legal guidance.

Steoller

tnegun wrote: »

Who has priority at these junctions? The cyclist continuing straight or the car turning into the side road?


https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3770169,-6.5875124,3a,75y,340.82h,71.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSSxTgs6MGPxTUVVIQnKsjA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

The cyclist has priority. If, as has been suggested, the cycle track does not constitute a seperate lane in law, then it must in legal terms be a part of the main carriageway. motorists crossing a carriageway to access an entrance or minor road must yield to traffic already in that carriageway. So a car turning right into the minor road, should yield to cyclists on the cycletrack in this instance.

As an aside, The infrastructure there is as good as I've seen in Ireland, it's a good surface, wide and clearly marked, but I have been lefthooked at that junction in the past.

what_traffic

check_six wrote: »

Here's a doozy at the corner of the Clonsilla Link Road. https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3884741,-6.4177162,3a,75y,269.18h,58.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNKgpXsCKnwtfn2O8gPk6Zg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Notice how there is a Yield sign painted on to the cycle track at the pedestrian crossing. Therefore cyclists would have to yield to pedestrians waiting to cross.

That has no meaning.
No point for the road marking at a traffic light like this anyhow.
The marking on the road means nothing anyhow unless it has a sign to go with it.
Example here in Galway City - Seamus Quirke Road at an uncontrolled junction
https://goo.gl/maps/6sqt5t22vFs
but no sign to match.

magicbastarder

that road in clonsilla is another example of a road provided with a bus/bike lane and a bike path, which further confuses motorists.