Do cyclists have a right of way when turning left onto a road when driving in the gutter?

[490808]

Driving back home this morning I spotted a cyclist about 15m back from a crossroads on my left. I was about 25m meters back, my right of way or so I thought so didn't change road position. Cyclist doesn't stop and makes a left turn riding very close to the curb in the gutter. I didn't exactly have to swerve as there was still room for me to pass but probably not within the prescribed 1.5m (speed limit was 60km/h).

So do cyclist have an automatic right of way when turning left because there are several other junctions where I regularly notice cyclists doing exactly the same?

[marhay70]

A very wise old legal eagle, long since departed to the great Bar in the sky, once told me " if you want to lose a case under the RTA, then tell the court you had right of way"
As far as I know cyclists should not undertake traffic which has signalled to turn left.

[DeletedUser]

Given they think they gave right of way on pavements, footpaths and pedestrianised areas I’d say they reckon they do.

[Cyclepath]

Yeah I don't think motorists are expected to hang back if they're already ahead of the bike. When I'm driving I do it anyway because many cyclists seem to think they have the right of way regardless and i don't want to be responsible for an accident. When I'm cycling I actually feel embarrassed when a car sits waiting for me to pass it on the inside. I usually pull out a bit from the kerb and signal them to turn.

I'm also confused as to whether the presence of a cycle lane changes the priority...

[JayRoc]

Driving back home this morning I spotted a cyclist about 15m back from a crossroads on my left. I was about 25m meters back, my right of way or so I thought so didn't change road position. Cyclist doesn't stop and makes a left turn riding very close to the curb in the gutter. I didn't exactly have to swerve as there was still room for me to pass but probably not within the prescribed 1.5m (speed limit was 60km/h).

So do cyclist have an automatic right of way when turning left because there are several other junctions where I regularly notice cyclists doing exactly the same?

If you mean that you overtook someone who was on your left (cyclist) when you intended to take the next left hand turn, they absolutely had Right of Way. If they had been going straight on, the same applies.

[JayRoc]

There is no such thing as Undertaking. Filtering on the left is accounted for in the rules of the road.


If a pedal cyclist filters on the left or overtakes on the left of a motor vehicle who has already indicated they will be turning left at the next opportunity, technically the driver of the motor vehicle has Right of Way.

But this is not well known, apparently ...so the best and safest course of action is to yield to ANY traffic in a lane to your left, be it pedal cycle or motor vehicle.

[490808]

If you mean that you overtook someone who was on your left (cyclist) when you intended to take the next left hand turn, they absolutely had Right of Way. If they had been going straight on, the same applies.

I wasn't turning. They were on a side road didn't stop at the junction and just turned out of the road just in front of me as if there was no one else on the road.

[Peregrinus]

They turned into the road that you were already on?

[JayRoc]

I wasn't turning. They were on a side road didn't stop at the junction and just turned out of the road just in front of me as if there was no one else on the road.

Oh sorry, I get you now. No, you were completely in the right. They absolutely should have yielded.


Tbh if a cyclist is in a bike lane, and they are turning left into another bike lane, it's probably safe enough to do although technically still against the rules...but no excuse for it if they're turning into someone else's lane. Daft behaviour

[marhay70]

Oh sorry, I get you now. No, you were completely in the right. They absolutely should have yielded.


Tbh if a cyclist is in a bike lane, and they are turning left into another bike lane, it's probably safe enough to do although technically still against the rules...but no excuse for it if they're turning into someone else's lane. Daft behaviour

Wait! You mean there are rules?

[490808]

Oh sorry, I get you now. No, you were completely in the right. They absolutely should have yielded.


Tbh if a cyclist is in a bike lane, and they are turning left into another bike lane, it's probably safe enough to do although technically still against the rules...but no excuse for it if they're turning into someone else's lane. Daft behaviour

It seems that some cyclists consider the gutter/close into the pavement to be a bike lane.

[Peregrinus]

It seems that some cyclists consider the gutter/close into the pavement to be a bike lane.

So do some motorists, in my experience.

[DeletedUser]

We’ve inherited that bollocks from Boards too eh ?

Rightly point out that a cyclist or cyclists do something illegal and it’s …. Cue “b-b-but motorists …!!!”

If that Hill St Blues character ends up here we’re decked.

[JayRoc]

We’ve inherited that bollocks from Boards too eh ?

Rightly point out that a cyclist or cyclists do something illegal and it’s …. Cue “b-b-but motorists …!!!”

If that Hill St Blues character ends up here we’re decked.

The "bollocks from boards" is because of polarising generalisations such as yours from earlier in this thread, to be fair. Posts like yours and Renko's are as bad as each other as far I am concerned.

At the end of the day, I am not responsible for defending the behaviour of other cyclists , we are not some homogenous group...but the obvious truth is that an irresponsible motorist is a danger to others while (generally) an irresponsible cyclist is mostly only a serious danger to themself.

[Cyclepath]

The "bollocks from boards" is because of polarising generalisations such as yours from earlier in this thread, to be fair. Posts like yours and Renko's are as bad as each other as far I am concerned.

At the end of the day, I am not responsible for defending the behaviour of other cyclists , we are not some homogenous group...but the obvious truth is that an irresponsible motorist is a danger to others while (generally) an irresponsible cyclist is mostly a serious danger to themself.

Tbh I hate this binary argument that seems to engage a lot of folks. It's divisive to makes it tribal. I'm both a cyclist and a motorist and hate this stupid 'war' that seems to be encouraged by media twats.

People do stupid stuff on the roads regardless of their mode of transport. The uncomfortable truth is that the consequences are much more serious when a motor vehicle is involved.

We also seem to have a blind spot where cars are concerned. We seem to think that everyone has an inalienable right to take up roadspace in their own personal transport. That's just not a sustainable position. If you want to inhabit a city it isn't possible to continue adding cars ad infinitum. Morally I can't justify taking up quarter the space of a Bus just for myself. We're fast approaching a situation where driving in the city will become such a miserable and unworkable mode of transport that people will be forced onto Buses, trains, bikes, scooters, etc.

[DeletedUser]

The "bollocks from boards" is because of polarising generalisations such as yours from earlier in this thread, to be fair. Posts like yours and Renko's are as bad as each other as far I am concerned.

At the end of the day, I am not responsible for defending the behaviour of other cyclists , we are not some homogenous group...but the obvious truth is that an irresponsible motorist is a danger to others while (generally) an irresponsible cyclist is mostly only a serious danger to themself.

Oh here we go. Am out.

[Norman Breaks]

To try to swerve the convo back on track:
The cyclist was on a road perpendicular to you and turned left on to the road you were on and were going straight through the junction on. He hugged he curb tight and you didn't really have to alter your course in this case. You're just wondering what the general rule is in a case like this.
As a motorist when I have to but a cyclist because I want to, the cyclist should have stopped, or at least slowed down for you to pass.
As a motorist I would be keeping a keen eye on the cyclist to see if he was slowing down or not and I would probably slow down anyway to let him do what he was going to do anyway, but at least I'll be going slower and more controlled incase he swerves or hits the curb or a rock or whatever. Prob try to do a quick lane check to the right if I need to swerve out.

[Peregrinus]

Obviously, traffic entering from the side needs to yield to traffic proceeding along the road unless there are signs or signals that provide otherwise. This applies to bicycle traffic in exactly the same way that it applies to motor traffic.

Equally obviously, "yield" is a somewhat flexible concept. Entering from the side, I have to yield to an approaching vehicle that is only 20 metres from the junction, but not to an approaching vehicle that is, say, 200 metres away. Where do you draw the line?

The answer is that if I am sufficiently far ahead of you when I enter that you won't have to alter your speed or direction in response to my entry, I can enter the road. But if I'm so close that you will have to change speed or direction, then I should yield.

OP says that he was, in fact, able to avoid the cyclist without swerving, but he says nothing about changing his speed, and he also reckons that he passed excessively closely to the cyclist so I'd say, yeah, the cyclist certainly should have yielded in this case. But because a bike takes up relatively little road space and is easier to avoid without changing course, there probably are circumstances where the road is wide enough and the oncoming vehicle far away enough that a cyclist can enter where a motorist would have to yield.

[Cyclepath]

I misunderstood the original question but when I'm cycling I don't tend to merge into traffic unless there's a marked bike lane with a solid line. As I turn left I'll obviously check that no cars are encroaching on it but I can't see a problem doing this if the bike lane is there and I'm not forcing anyone to give way.

[490808]

Past back the same way today and checked something.

I wasn't sure but the junction that the cyclist came out of had a Stop Sign on it with a big Stop written across the junction.

[BrianD3]

I used to do this all the time when I was a kid/teenager and it was definitely the done thing by others too. Attitude was "I'm narrow, I can hug the kerb so I don't have to yield" Basically making my own cycle lane. I'd say a lot of the obnoxious behaviour of adult cyclists stems from the things they did as a kid and never grew out of.

[Kaiser]

If I'm reading the OP wrong then apologies but I had this scenario a few weeks ago in Dublin.

I was at the top of a junction waiting to turn left with my indicator on. Lights go green and just as I'm about to move I see this woman on a bike at my rear bumper fully intending to peddle on inside/undertaking me - nearly hit the stupid wagon.

In a scenario like that whoever is top of the queue has RoW IMO - cyclist, motorist or whatever.

[490808]

Different scenario but still similar, seems to boil down to cyclists thinking if they keep close into the curb they can ignore what cars are doing around them.

I don't want to tar all cyclists with the same brush as there are plenty of good safe cyclists but there are some that don't seem to have the slightest clue what danger they are putting themselves in.

[CelticRambler]

I don't want to tar all cyclists with the same brush as there are plenty of good safe cyclists but there are some that don't seem to have the slightest clue what danger they are putting themselves in.

I do see the same attitude from (some) car drivers when I'm trundling along in my motorhome at a modest 55km/h on a road with a limit of 80 or 90km/h. They come tearing up from behind, tuck themselves in behind me where I can't see them, and then - I presume - assume that I'm doing 55 because I have nowhere to be and all the time in the world to get there. Their "small and nimble" mentality doesn't seem to allow for the possibility that there might be a good reason for my sluggishness - like a convoy of three-abreast cyclists in front of me, or a tractor and trailer, or someone just as small as them inexplicably driving at a constant 55 despite a clear road ahead. So after a few exploratory darts out into the oncoming traffic, they'll commit to an overtaking manoeuvre, discovering at about the time they draw level with my cab, that there's about 200m less road available to them than they thought.

I don't think it's a "cyclists versus car-drivers" thing - just a "good vs bad" road users thing.

Slight (vaguely topical) segue: after I did my HGV training/test, I realised what bad drivers most of my family are, and the advent of in-car high tech "driving aids" only seems to have made them worse. My sympathies, therefore, would tend to lie with cyclists who (eBikes excluded) still retain a more direct connection between "man and machine" - and the environment through which they are travelling (even if some cyclists believe they benefit from an impenetrable force field).

[marhay70]

I do see the same attitude from (some) car drivers when I'm trundling along in my motorhome at a modest 55km/h on a road with a limit of 80 or 90km/h. They come tearing up from behind, tuck themselves in behind me where I can't see them, and then - I presume - assume that I'm doing 55 because I have nowhere to be and all the time in the world to get there. Their "small and nimble" mentality doesn't seem to allow for the possibility that there might be a good reason for my sluggishness - like a convoy of three-abreast cyclists in front of me, or a tractor and trailer, or someone just as small as them inexplicably driving at a constant 55 despite a clear road ahead. So after a few exploratory darts out into the oncoming traffic, they'll commit to an overtaking manoeuvre, discovering at about the time they draw level with my cab, that there's about 200m less road available to them than they thought.

I don't think it's a "cyclists versus car-drivers" thing - just a "good vs bad" road users thing.

Slight (vaguely topical) segue: after I did my HGV training/test, I realised what bad drivers most of my family are, and the advent of in-car high tech "driving aids" only seems to have made them worse. My sympathies, therefore, would tend to lie with cyclists who (eBikes excluded) still retain a more direct connection between "man and machine" - and the environment through which they are travelling (even if some cyclists believe they benefit from an impenetrable force field).

There are some who are just arrogant and think that they are the centre of the Universe.
Last week, while driving from Dun Laoghaire to Blackrock along the coast road, a route forced on me by the pedestrianisation of Lr.George's St, I was confronted by two of the lycra brigade cycling abreast. Nothing remarkable about that, you say, except for the fact that they were about 10 ft from where one entire carriageway was closed and turned into a cycleway. Now there is inly one way traffic on this road so I was able to get past them, but only after rounding the bends at the Purty Kitchen as there are side roads from which traffic might enter, there is no way they were giving up their "right" to cycle abreast and on the main thoroughfare.
Now I know that all cyclists don't do this sort of thing but it just brought home to me how some people just go out of their way to discommode others.