Video of a cyclist being hit by a car in Dublin

2 questions.

Where did you see keep left is legal vs advisory.
Likewise where did you see you can't overtake on the right.
 
Boards has a good thread on cycling legislation where the various SIs are quoted to back up the details.

Cyclists may still overtake on the right just as all other traffic is entitled to do so long as they don't breach any other legislation in the process, such as crossing a continuous line, impeding oncoming traffic, etc.. The updates in SI332 covering cyclists overtaking on the left has not made it illegal to overtake on the right. SI322 also details the exceptions in which cyclists are not permitted to pass to the left.

The keeping left piece (Obligation to drive on the left and to use traffic lanes) applies to progressing normally in a lane, not overtaking.

17.—(1) A driver shall drive as near to the left hand side of the roadway as is necessary in order to allow, without danger or inconvenience to traffic or a pedestrian, approaching traffic to pass him on his right and overtaking traffic to overtake him on his right.
Click to expand...

This also means that a cyclist should not cycle so close to the kerb that they are in danger of hitting an obstacle, as that would result in danger to themselves and/or others.
 
Many articles suggest overtaking on the right as a cyclist is safer because drivers expect to be overtaken on the right, and you're not in trucks and cars blind spot. I'm on the fence about it myself.
 
I think the bottom line here is that cyclists need to take care on the road as, whether they are right or wrong, they will come out the worst in any collision with a car.
As a cyclist I don't consider cycling on the right of a continuous line of cars as overtaking. To me overtaking is when you move out to pass someone and then move back in. I also think overtaking when approaching a junction is dangerous. I certainly wouldn't do it if I was in a car. If the video showed a car doing what the cyclist was doing would everyone think it was ok?
 
Purple said:
I think the bottom line here is that cyclists need to take care on the road as, whether they are right or wrong, they will come out the worst in any collision with a car.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, and is often said, very little to be gained being in the right and dead/ seriously injured.


Purple said:
As a cyclist I don't consider cycling on the right of a continuous line of cars as overtaking. To me overtaking is when you move out to pass someone and then move back in. I also think overtaking when approaching a junction is dangerous. I certainly wouldn't do it if I was in a car. If the video showed a car doing what the cyclist was doing would everyone think it was ok?
Click to expand...

The cyclist was approaching the next junction (Leeson St. Bridge) to turn right. Where the video starts he's after the point where the lane starts to widen and split into two lanes. What's not clear is how long he has been to the outside. If the video showed a car overtaking other traffic to turn right ahead without crossing the central white line, I'd see nothing wrong with it.

I've cycle that road 2/3 times a month. I go straight through, so stay in the cycle lane to the left and I've come very close to being taken out by oncoming traffic turning right onto Sussex Terrace a few times. So it's not much safer on the inside.
 
Leo said:
The cyclist was approaching the next junction (Leeson St. Bridge) to turn right. Where the video starts he's after the point where the lane starts to widen and split into two lanes. What's not clear is how long he has been to the outside. If the video showed a car overtaking other traffic to turn right ahead without crossing the central white line, I'd see nothing wrong with it.

I've cycle that road 2/3 times a month. I go straight through, so stay in the cycle lane to the left and I've come very close to being taken out by oncoming traffic turning right onto Sussex Terrace a few times. So it's not much safer on the inside.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, I'm not familiar with the junction.
 
If you watch closely. He starts in the cycle lane about 2~3 cars back. Hes not super close to the side van, has ok visibility, and sees the car and isn't going fast. He's almost stopped when the car hits him. Can't reverse on a bicycle. He might have been better speeding up. But he did nothing wrong here. Except not to expect exceptionally worse driving than normal.

I don't know why there all the fixation on the cyclists, or the rules of cycling. The driver drove into the junction without looking right or straight ahead. Almost no comments on that. Abysmal situational awareness. Even allowing that visibility was partially obscured by the van. Their reaction was glacially slow. I will give them they took it slow. Which prevented this from being worse.

As been said already its good example for drivers and cyclists to see.
 
The video looks staged to me.

You can see the collision coming a mile off, but the cyclist does nothing.
 
AlbacoreA said:
I don't know why there all the fixation on the cyclists, or the rules of cycling. The driver drove into the junction without looking right or straight ahead. Almost no comments on that.
Click to expand...

Other than the very first comment in the thread?

Brendan Burgess said:
It's hard to make out here and it seems that the driver is clearly in the wrong for pulling out onto a main road in front of oncoming traffic.
Click to expand...
 
Whatever abou
AlbacoreA said:
I don't know why there all the fixation on the cyclists, or the rules of cycling. The driver drove into the junction without looking right or straight ahead. Almost no comments on that. Abysmal situational awareness. Even allowing that visibility was partially obscured by the van. Their reaction was glacially slow. I will give them they took it slow. Which prevented this from being worse.
Click to expand...

I don't get the obsession either: it looks like an attempt to say "you broke the rules, you got what you deserve". It looks to me like neither party broke the rules in terms of their position on the road or the basic manoeuvres each was doing, but both parties had a significant input to what happened.

Apart from the road safety aspect, it's interesting from another perspective too: people have a tendency to see video footage as an objective record of what happened. It's not: it is literally one point of view, and a limited one at that.

From the drivers perspective, they see an empty cycle lane and one lane of traffic stopped in front of a box junction (the whole purpose of which is to allow traffic to cross in exactly this circumstance). The oncoming bike is masked by the van, and can't be seen, so they move forward at a slow pace. What happens next depends on information we don't have: at one end of the scale, the driver is focussing on the possibility traffic coming from their left hand side. They should periodically look to the right to make sure it is still clear, but they don't. This is a serious mistake. At the other end of the scale, they do actually see the cyclist and they start a game of chicken with them, or they're on the phone and haven't a clue what's going on around them. I'd like to think I'd never be at that end of the scale, and I'd like to think I wouldn't be at the mistake end either, but can any driver say they've never made such a mistake?

Meanwhile, in conditions that could hardly be worse, the cyclist is proceeding at pace down the right hand side of a line of cars and vans stopped in traffic. As the overtake the van, their view to the side is completely blocked, and their view forward only opens up as they approach the front of the van. Anything could happen: a pedestrian crossing the road in front of the van, for example, or as happened in this case, a car emerging from the side road they should be aware of. Due care and attention? Maybe, maybe not: it depends on the actual amount that could be seen, and their judgement on stopping distances on the night. When they do see the car, they should slow down and prepare to stop unless they have eyeballed the driver and are 100% sure they've seen them. As with the driver, it's a mistake that they don't (or alternatively, that they didn't leave themselves sufficient stopping space).

There's little point in saying the cyclist had right of way and the driver should have stopped. As I said in a previous post, the cemeteries are full of people who had the right of way. You should use the roads with due care and attention: if either one of the parties had been doing this, the collision wouldn't have happened. That's what normally happens: someone makes a mistake and it either has no consequence, or someone else compensates. The reason the collision did happen was because they both failed to do what they should have done.
 
Last edited:
Gordon Gekko said:
The video looks staged to me.

You can see the collision coming a mile off, but the cyclist does nothing.
Click to expand...

Only in hindsight. The cyclists' expectation was that the driver would look, see him and stop.

IMHO, that driver was extremely lucky to hit a young good natured young man. If she had hit an older, crankier cyclist, it would be a different story altogether.
 
newtothis said:
.... It looks to me like neither party broke the rules in terms of their position on the road or the basic manoeuvres each was doing, ...
Click to expand...

You seem to be trying to imply what the cyclist did something wrong/dangerous, when they didn't, and somehow its on a parity with driving straight into something with looking at it. I wouldn't agree at all.
 
AlbacoreA said:
You seem to be trying to imply what the cyclist did something wrong/dangerous, when they didn't, and somehow its on a parity with driving straight into something with looking at it. I wouldn't agree at all.
Click to expand...

The only danger was to themselves. When you see a car emerging from a side road, do you not assume they will move out, unless you are sure they've seen you? If you're approaching a side road, and you're blinded by other vehicles as to what might be emerging, do you not slow down to a pace where you can stop if needed? When passing out vans and busses and the like in stopped traffic are you not hyper vigilant as to what might appear at the front of them (typically, a pedestrian out of nowhere)? If you have any sense of self preservation, or concern for pedestrians, surely you'd do all of that?

The cyclist (and video) sees the car moving forward into a space that is completely clear, apart from the approaching cyclist themselves. They are probably thinking "what an imbecile, are they blind?". But that's not what the driver sees. The driver has (probably) already checked their right hand side and seen the way as clear from that direction. They are almost certainly looking to their left once they are moving, conscious a car or bus travelling at speed could arrive from there at any time, and probably through a less than clear windscreen due to the rain. They are travelling slowly, which says to me they are taking care. Should they look back to their right? Absolutely! It was a stupid, stupid, mistake to proceed as far as they did without looking in front of them. Note: I know I'm making assumptions here: as I said, if they are on the phone or whatever, all bets are off and they should be dealt with accordingly.

All road users should act on the basis that other road users will do things that are wrong. All people make mistakes. Some people are downright dangerous. If you behave as if nobody makes mistakes, and dangerous drivers don't exist, you will eventually come to grief.

By the way, I frequently cycle in Dublin and also drive there. I really don't get the whole cyclist/driver war. I've seen some horrendous acts by both cyclists and drivers: from my perspective, the worst of each are as bad as each other. I think it would help if all drivers were forced to cycle in traffic for a day, and equally if all cyclists had some experience in driving. There might be a little less aggravation between the two, and we all might just get along better and safer as a result.
 
How about all cars drive at walking space in case someone dives off the pavement in front of them. Bet no one will suggest that as a practical. There's no need for exaggerated statements.
Brendan said all that need to be said in the opening post.

Brendan Burgess said:
It's hard to make out here and it seems that the driver is clearly in the wrong for pulling out onto a main road in front of oncoming traffic. But an experienced cyclist would see that the van on the left hand side is stopped and drivers entering the road often assume that all traffic is stopped. If I had been in that position, I would have been cycling slowly beside cars which are stopped for traffic. However as the cyclist said, he expected the car to stop. - Brendan
Click to expand...

I assume Brendan posted it not to discuss the right and wrong which is obvious. But perhaps to discuss how best to use this junction.

The canal has a lots of junctions like this, and they are all tricky because of the heavy traffic of cyclists, cars and pedestrians, and all the cross road/bridges and crossing traffic of all kinds. On the other side of the canal at this junction is the "Canal Way Cycle Route" which is fine for slow cyclists and people going short distance. its mixed use lane. But its poorly designed for the distance commuter. Which is why a lot of the cycling commuter use this side of the canal. There is heavy cycling traffic on this route in the video.

I got into the habit of dismounting at the lights, and crossing the road on foot when turning right, at some of the canal bridges. It was just easier.
 
AlbacoreA said:
How about all cars drive at walking space in case someone dives off the pavement in front of them. Bet no one will suggest that as a practical. There's no need for exaggerated statements.
Brendan said all that need to be said in the opening post.



I assume Brendan posted it not to discuss the right and wrong which is obvious. But perhaps to discuss how best to use this junction.

The canal has a lots of junctions like this, and they are all tricky because of the heavy traffic of cyclists, cars and pedestrians, and all the cross road/bridges and crossing traffic of all kinds. On the other side of the canal at this junction is the "Canal Way Cycle Route" which is fine for slow cyclists and people going short distance. its mixed use lane. But its poorly designed for the distance commuter. Which is why a lot of the cycling commuter use this side of the canal. There is heavy cycling traffic on this route in the video.

I got into the habit of dismounting at the lights, and crossing the road on foot when turning right, at some of the canal bridges. It was just easier.
Click to expand...

As it happens, I agree pretty much everything you say, and I know exactly what you mean: I frequently cycle the same route. I agree with Brendan too "If I had been in that position, I would have been cycling slowly beside cars which are stopped for traffic", which is exactly the point I was making.

The issue I have is with those quoting sections of rule books to prove they are right, or those who claim cyclists good/drivers bad; it's kind of irrelevant. Yes, of course the driver was "wrong", but their actions were foreseeable. Maybe if the cyclist was taking it easier and more aware of what could happen, the collision wouldn't have happened. A call to move at walking pace? Hardly. All I'm calling for is a bit more understanding from drivers of cyclists (and motorcycles), and from cyclists of drivers.

Thinking of motorcycles, when I saw the video I couldn't help but think what would have happened if it had been a motorbike travelling at speed on the outside of the line of stationary traffic: something that is frequently seen. It really doesn't bear thinking about.
 
newtothis said:
....but their actions were foreseeable. Maybe if the cyclist was taking it easier and more aware of what could happen,...
Click to expand...

The cyclist was in my opinion was not going too fast, he moved from the cycle lane, changed lane and travelled two car lengths, then was pretty much stopped when the car hit him. Also remained on his feet (I think). If he was going too fast, he wouldn't have been able to come to a stop and/or stay on his feet. Also the camera is on the car, the whole time. The video doesn't support either assertion of going to fast, or not being aware. He just expected the car to stop, by the time he realised it wasn't, it was too late to react.

The rules were given to correct things that were incorrect about the law, and best practise. Why would you have issue with that?
Its a misunderstanding, that is dangerous, and causes conflict. They thought it important enough to change the law. Its seems appropriate to correct it here.

At the end of the day we're all human, and make mistakes.
What saved serious injury here was the things they did right. One of which was both were moving relatively slowly.
 
AlbacoreA said:
The cyclist was in my opinion was not going too fast, he moved from the cycle lane, changed lane and travelled two car lengths, then was pretty much stopped when the car hit him. Also remained on his feet (I think). If he was going too fast, he wouldn't have been able to come to a stop and/or stay on his feet. Also the camera is on the car, the whole time. The video doesn't support either assertion of going to fast, or not being aware. He just expected the car to stop, by the time he realised it wasn't, it was too late to react.

The rules were given to correct things that were incorrect about the law, and best practise. Why would you have issue with that?
Its a misunderstanding, that is dangerous, and causes conflict. They thought it important enough to change the law. Its seems appropriate to correct it here.

At the end of the day we're all human, and make mistakes.
What saved serious injury here was the things they did right. One of which was both were moving relatively slowly.
Click to expand...

I think we probably agree more than we disagree: as you say, he did slow down. I didn't say he was going too fast, I said maybe he was. But as you say yourself: "by the time he realised it wasn't [about to stop], it was too late to react": a basic principle is to leave yourself time to react, especially where the events unfolding are predictable. Referring back to your earlier example on that point: it is not predictable that some person will randomly jump off a pavement into oncoming traffic, so we don't in general drive at a walking pace. However, if I'm driving on a suburban street and I see a group of children on the pavement playing with a ball, it is predictable that something bad is possible or even likely to happen, and I would slow to a walking pace.

In my experience in situations like this (a car about to or actually pulling out in front of me), I'd assume they hadn't seen me (the reason for not them not seeing me is irrelevant), unless I'd seen the whites of their eyes and know I've been seen. That wasn't possible in this case, as it was dark. I'd like to think in that situation, I'd carry the assumption in any case and stop in time. As you say though, we all make mistakes.

You should read the situation and road ahead and ride or drive accordingly. The fact the cyclist slowed says they did; the fact the collision happened says they didn't. We're splitting hairs at this point: as I said, I think we agree more than disagree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top