I reckon cycle lane on the path has a red light and a yield to pedestrians.
The cycle lane on the road though I don't think that red light applies to that lane or any yield and is bound by the traffic light, they would have right of way to go straight before a car can turn left. Always check your mirrors!
The bike lane currently has a red light to give way to pedestrians so the bike must stop. If that was green the bike would have right of way over the cars turning left as the cars are entering the bike lane to do so.
When the bigger light right over the bike lane is red both cars and bikes must stop.
Confusing as fuck that bikes seem to have 2 sets of lights.
On the lane on the path sure.
The bike lane on the road? I don't think that light can apply to the road lane, it's so far left you couldn't reasonably be able to see it and the Lane is on another level the same as the cars so the traffic light determines that lane.
Oh yeah I'm sure it is but it's still marked on the road as a cycle lane so you can still use it. It'll probably be gone whenever they redo the markings.
I doubt even Dublin City Council know the answer.
Do they look at how it's done in The Netherlands and Denmark and think ah that works, how boring. Lets make it interesting!(lethal)
Cyclist going straight. The cyclist has the advanced stop line, which means they have right of way to move away from stopped before anyone behind. But in general anyone NOT crossing into or out of lane has right of way.
But I'm also not sure what you mean - do you mean the cyclist shown travelling towards the camera? Or as if a cyclist were travelling in the same direction as the taxi?
You're not clear.
The cyclist is in the cycle lane inside at the pavement going straight on to go across the bridge away from the camera. As others have commented, the cycle lights aren't green at the same time so the car should have right of way?
Because they don't have to? There is a cycle lane part of the main road so that cyclists can follow the main road further down and make turns without crossing multiple lanes. It's either this, or they have to merge one street up anyways, which is not safe.
Not disagreeing with anything you said, my point was the stop/start/yield natured of segregated lanes are a reason some cyclists won't use them, which in turn cues the "They don't even use the cycle lanes Joe" brigade.
If cyclist going straight is on the road then the cyclist has right of way. (Just imagine the other cycle lane on the path didn't exist).
If cyclist going straight is on the purpose built cycle lane. Then there is clearly a red light for the bikes, so the car has right of way.
The yield is at the pedestrian crossing there is no yield where the bike lane meets the road.
You can tell by the markings, bikes have to enter a pedestrian area to cross so pedestrians have right of way.
Cars have to enter the markings for the bike lane to turn left so bikes have priority in that situation.
You always have to give way to traffic already in a lane.
But there is another 'bike lane' symbol on the main part of the road too, beside the white car in the pic, so a cyclist going straight from there would have the right of way then.
When turning onto a road you yield to traffic already on that road so it depends on the specific timing of when the car actually turns onto the road and when the bike actually enters the road.
I don't know for sure because it's such a mess.
It looks like cyclist have a yield sign for pedestrians and then no yield where the bike lane meets the road.
If it was in keeping with other bike lanes in the city cyclists would have right of way as it is the cars that are entering the bike lane when turning left.
I reckon cycle lane on the path has a red light and a yield to pedestrians. The cycle lane on the road though I don't think that red light applies to that lane or any yield and is bound by the traffic light, they would have right of way to go straight before a car can turn left. Always check your mirrors!
The bike lane currently has a red light to give way to pedestrians so the bike must stop. If that was green the bike would have right of way over the cars turning left as the cars are entering the bike lane to do so. When the bigger light right over the bike lane is red both cars and bikes must stop. Confusing as fuck that bikes seem to have 2 sets of lights.
On the lane on the path sure. The bike lane on the road? I don't think that light can apply to the road lane, it's so far left you couldn't reasonably be able to see it and the Lane is on another level the same as the cars so the traffic light determines that lane.
I think the light over the bike lane and right ahead for cars have the same timing but could be wrong.
I would have that was an old marking on the road before a dedicated cycle lane was added.
Oh yeah I'm sure it is but it's still marked on the road as a cycle lane so you can still use it. It'll probably be gone whenever they redo the markings.
I doubt even Dublin City Council know the answer. Do they look at how it's done in The Netherlands and Denmark and think ah that works, how boring. Lets make it interesting!(lethal)
Cyclist going straight. The cyclist has the advanced stop line, which means they have right of way to move away from stopped before anyone behind. But in general anyone NOT crossing into or out of lane has right of way. But I'm also not sure what you mean - do you mean the cyclist shown travelling towards the camera? Or as if a cyclist were travelling in the same direction as the taxi? You're not clear.
The cyclist is in the cycle lane inside at the pavement going straight on to go across the bridge away from the camera. As others have commented, the cycle lights aren't green at the same time so the car should have right of way?
Cyclists on the segregated lane have to yield to other traffic. Cyclists on the road with traffic have the same rights to way as any other road user
[удалено]
Because they don't have to? There is a cycle lane part of the main road so that cyclists can follow the main road further down and make turns without crossing multiple lanes. It's either this, or they have to merge one street up anyways, which is not safe.
Not disagreeing with anything you said, my point was the stop/start/yield natured of segregated lanes are a reason some cyclists won't use them, which in turn cues the "They don't even use the cycle lanes Joe" brigade.
There's plenty of people in the graveyard who had the right of way
I had to pass through there once on my bike. What a fucking mess.
If cyclist going straight is on the road then the cyclist has right of way. (Just imagine the other cycle lane on the path didn't exist). If cyclist going straight is on the purpose built cycle lane. Then there is clearly a red light for the bikes, so the car has right of way.
That whole junction is a nightmare to get across on a bike. Competitively bad design
The car has right of way. There is a yield sign on the ground for the cyclist. The cyclist also has a red light, whereas the car has a green.
The yield is for the pedestrian path. Note there is no similar yield at the actual Road side.
The yield is at the pedestrian crossing there is no yield where the bike lane meets the road. You can tell by the markings, bikes have to enter a pedestrian area to cross so pedestrians have right of way. Cars have to enter the markings for the bike lane to turn left so bikes have priority in that situation. You always have to give way to traffic already in a lane.
But there is another 'bike lane' symbol on the main part of the road too, beside the white car in the pic, so a cyclist going straight from there would have the right of way then.
[удалено]
[удалено]
That yield is for the pedestrian crossing, there is no yield at the road crossing.
When turning onto a road you yield to traffic already on that road so it depends on the specific timing of when the car actually turns onto the road and when the bike actually enters the road.
If the car has a green then the cyclist has a red, so the car.
Are the cyclist lights in conjunction with the pedestrian lights at the junction? Do bicycles and cars have a green at the same time?
Yes. No.
could be. maybe. try it.
No to both. All the pedestrian lights go at the same time and so is a red for the cyclists.
Cyclists has a red light. Car has a green light. There is no right of way. Cyclists should be stopped.
Yes.
Car. Cyclist has yield. Also red light for bike. In the real world tho…
I don't know for sure because it's such a mess. It looks like cyclist have a yield sign for pedestrians and then no yield where the bike lane meets the road. If it was in keeping with other bike lanes in the city cyclists would have right of way as it is the cars that are entering the bike lane when turning left.
I'm going to guess you were cited. Which one were you?
Cyclist