....He points out the cyclists must keep left and that cycle lanes are obligatory. Other people refute the cycle lane point but not the keep left bit. ...
My typo; he points out that cycle lanes are not obligatory.He's wrong. (same in UK too)
http://www.dailyedge.ie/11-things-you-might-not-know-about-cycling-in-ireland-907851-May2013/
https://cyclist.ie/2012/10/cyclists-welcome-changes-to-traffic-regulations/
I think keep left is the same. Its and advisory for similar reasons.
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.
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?
Fair enough, I'm not familiar with the junction.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.
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.
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.
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.
The video looks staged to me.
You can see the collision coming a mile off, but the cyclist does nothing.
.... 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, ...
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.
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
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.
....but their actions were foreseeable. Maybe if the cyclist was taking it easier and more aware of what could happen,...
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?