Cyclist hit on Harold's Cross Road, Dublin

uberwolf

blorg wrote: »

I was knocked off by a car a few years ago and was a bit nervous for a while after getting back on the bike a few months later.

stays with you. I came off on wet luas tracks a while back, and I can't even look at people cycling over them.

Harolds+

While I was in A&E in St. James (after my own bike accident) I was watching the Mid Week Movie and what was on but that film Unfaithful with Diane Lane (dirty little bitch) and Richard Gere.

Anyway, in one scene she loses control of here car and collides with loads of flexible poles informing her of a barrier

Why can't we have them and not the swords near the Shelbourne which would cut you in 2

We can't cos we are so ****ing stupid and mean to spend money

RedPlanet

Stephen_C wrote: »

Seemed from the last few pages that people think the cyclist was turning left into harolds cross road when in fact he was turning right onto the bridge. The truck must have been going at a fair speed to not stop till the ampm shop.

Ok, another poster says he lived on Mount Drummond road, which is South of the bridge, on the East side of Harold's Cross Road.
I'm confused.
It's possible (if he lived at Mnt Drummond Road), that he went back streets heading North, where there's a lane that meets the bridge and Grove Road.
And what, did he jump the lights at that intersection as the cement truck came over the bridge?
Stephen_C says he was turning Right onto the bridge, this doesn't make sense to me.
If the cyclist was on the Grove Road (along the canal) heading West, there is no right turn there at the intersection with the bridge. Can somebody clear this up?

BeerNut

How I've been making sense of this is:
He came from Mount Drummond the back way, out by the bookies onto Grove Road.
He was going straight, across to Parnell Road, after which he would have turned left onto Crumlin Road where he worked.
While crossing the junction he was hit by the truck coming over the bridge.

LimitedEdition

Amicusfan wrote: »

You wouldn't happen to know which pub, would you? I sometimes have my lunch in the Gate Pub on that road.

The Elenora

Amicusfan

I think you've got it in one. It doesn't make sense otherwise. If he was turning left it is unlikely he'd have been hit unless he made a very wide turn. If he worked in Crumlin he'd have no good reason to turn right, even if the turn is illegal. I believe that he waited for the amber light on the traffic coming over the bridge and believed that the coast was clear and moved towards Parnell road. At the same time the truck driver probably put his foot down as the light was going from amber to red and careered straight into the cyclist. Two errors culminating in utter tragedy.

SetOverSet

uberwolf wrote: »

stays with you. I came off on wet luas tracks a while back, and I can't even look at people cycling over them.

+ 1 on fear of luas tracks. I came off on them in the wet back in October and every to I cross then in the wet now, I'm convinced it's gonna happen again

mmclo

Surely there must be an inquest or something similar?? Coroners court?

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/death/sudden-or-unexplained-death/coroners

BeerNut

mmclo wrote: »

Surely there must be an inquest or something similar?? Coroners court?

Probably, but not for several months.

pauly04

Folks, i can tell you the cyclist turned left onto Harolds Cross just past the bookies where the cement truck went over him, cyclist went under the front axle of the HGV and also the rear axle, it was that bad. The cement truck was stopped behind 3 cars in traffic, once the lights turned green the cars proceeded to drive and as the truck started to move, the cyclist came up along side the truck at the same speed and unfortunately both were turning left....

Vitamin C

That's my daily route on my bike too, I've been clipped by taxi drivers and almost crushed by buses on several occasions inbound to town from the the top of Harold's cross as far as Clanbrassil Street. You really need your wits about you on that stretch. Taxi and truck drivers are overworked and half asleep behind the wheel and as a result are potentially more dangerous than a drunk. Pulling in to pick up fares or turning left without looking in their mirrors for cyclists happens every day, near misses happen far too often.


How many people are going to be killed before initiative is taken by The Government with regard to cyclists in the inner city area? The benefits of a good cycling system in a large city are endless. Last year I was on a cycling trip and was lucky enough to be in Coppenhagen, where a simple tiered system is in place, the footpath is highest, next down is the raised cycle path with seperate traffic lights, and lowest is teh road. It seems to be the perfect solution, as opposed to our irregular and often invisible red tarmac.


What happened at Harold's Cross Bridge is so, so sad. The loss the man's family must feel must be almost unbearable. At some stage over the past week a completely white Ghost Bike has been locked to the bridge beside where the accident happened. Boucets of flowers have been gathering there since. Fair play to the people involved in this. There's something really amazing and peaceful about the gleaming white bike being there. It just seems like a really nice monument to the cyclist. It's also stands as a stark reminder to motorists and cyclists alike about the dangers of cycling on the road.

Every day I cycle by it it gets me thinking and reminds me to stay safe.

Fair play again to whoever was involved in the Ghost Bike, it's a truly amazing idea.

My two cents.

C

Vitamin C

SetOverSet wrote: »

+ 1 on fear of luas tracks. I came off on them in the wet back in October and every to I cross then in the wet now, I'm convinced it's gonna happen again

I broke one of my wrists and badly damaged the other after being forced into the Luas tracks on James' St. by a Brennan's Bread man who pulled out in front of me in at around 3am last Summer, neither him or his little helper buddy even attempted to help me up, had to cycle back to Inchicore in bits and go to A&E the next day....bad form.

Húrin

Harolds+ wrote: »

I am thinking of knocking the bike on the head as its getting too dangerous and the Govt doesn't care (even the lesbian party/greens)

Haha, legendary nickname! I hope Ciaran Cuffe or John Gormley read this forum!

Vitamin C

kmick wrote: »

This morning a guy in GAA gear shorts and top sporting the Kerry colours undertook a van turning left into Portobello college going North over Portobello bridge. He was lucky the guy in the Van (who had been indicating for ages) saw him and slammed on the brakes. If he had not the guy would have been under a Van.

The law is, as far as I know, that if a motorist is turning left and a cyclist is coming up behind him/her, the motorist has to wait until the cyclist has past on the inside (or undertaken) before they can proceed to the take the turn. The only way a cyclist is in the wrong here is if they are not lit up and it is dark. I'm not 100% on this so can anyone verify it?

I've been knocked a few times by this exact thing, generally taxi drivers or soccer moms in SUVs or SpaceWagon type cars. Luckily, if you keep your wits about you you can see it happening in time and all the damage is done to the car rather than the cyclist or bike. A good slap on the roof is affective too. This may seem harsh and maybe even dangerous but it's one way of making sure they'll never do it again. Too many times have I nearly been killed by this type of accident, and shouting the driver down never gets you anywhere, particularly if they're taxi drivers, but frightening the bejayus out of them will make it stick and possibly save someone the following week or month or year.

TimAllen

Vitamin C wrote: »

The law is, as far as I know, that if a motorist is turning left and a cyclist is coming up behind him/her, the motorist has to wait until the cyclist has past on the inside (or undertaken) before they can proceed to the take the turn. The only way a cyclist is in the wrong here is if they are not lit up and it is dark. I'm not 100% on this so can anyone verify it?

I've been knocked a few times by this exact thing, generally taxi drivers or soccer moms in SUVs or SpaceWagon type cars. Luckily, if you keep your wits about you you can see it happening in time and all the damage is done to the car rather than the cyclist or bike. A good slap on the roof is affective too. This may seem harsh and maybe even dangerous but it's one way of making sure they'll never do it again. Too many times have I nearly been killed by this type of accident, and shouting the driver down never gets you anywhere, particularly if they're taxi drivers, but frightening the bejayus out of them will make it stick and possibly save someone the following week or month or year.

I am surprised that the regular posters here have not put you right. I can guarantee you that if you were in the right you would have several replies telling you.
The fact is however that you are wrong. The reason you are getting hit in the manner you have outlined is that you must WAIT until traffic ahead of you makes a left turn. This is basic common sense and a cursory review of the Rules of the Road would answer your query. I suggest you re-assess your attitude on the road regarding other road users - slapping someones roof could be construed in many ways, you are probably going to do that one time too many and meet someone that really doesnt appreciate it.
Dont forget also, that at the types of junctions where the issue you outlined arises often have traffic cameras. Imagine getting hit hard by a vehicle, incurring serious injury and when you go looking for compensation, you are found to be in the wrong - ouch!

Lumen

Don't...

FrankGrimes

When cycling in Dublin I make my decisions based on what is most likely to avoid an accident, not what is and is not technically correct according to the rules of the road. That may or may not mean that I give way sometimes I shouldn't have to, but I'd rather be wrong and safe than hit and in the right.

I am always very wary of cars that may be turning left across my path, particularly when I'm filtering up on the inside of cars in slow moving traffic. To expect them to wait for me to undertake them before they turn left just doesn't seem right to me so I wait for them to go. I often find that when they notice me as I've slowed down, the driver extends the courtesy of letting me through first. What causes some problems is cyclists who keep moving at full speed and expect the driver turning left to notice them and give way.

What causes other problems is flat out bad driving but when I'm cycling that is not within my control so I limit my risk where I can.

Still hasn't stopped me being hit by drivers coming from a minor road on the left pulling out onto the main road too fast (and avoiding Yield or Stop signs in doing so) to notice me (despite always being well it) - but again that's beyond the control of the cyclist.

Gavin

If you see a car in front of you with left indicator on, or the wheels over into the cycle lane, really, just slow down and wait for them to do whatever it is they are doing.

It's too risky to assume that they have seen you. Even if they slow down, just wait for them to go. They may change their mind all of a sudden and suddenly shoot into the turn.

I wouldn't be a fan of hitting cars either, not unless it was a real emergency and had no option. If you have time to hit the car, generally you have time to hit the brakes and stop, or maneuver out of the danger. Sure, once that's done, go up and point out what the driver did wrong, or take their plate and report them.

Bicycle loving Tim's points are not unreasonable but not completely accurate. Cars turning left do have a duty of consideration to not inconvenience other road users. Zooming ahead of a cyclist/car and pulling left in front of them, causing evasive maneuvers would be dangerous driving, something I don't doubt Tim would disapprove of.

Turbulent Bill

Vitamin C wrote: »

The law is, as far as I know, that if a motorist is turning left and a cyclist is coming up behind him/her, the motorist has to wait until the cyclist has past on the inside (or undertaken) before they can proceed to the take the turn. The only way a cyclist is in the wrong here is if they are not lit up and it is dark. I'm not 100% on this so can anyone verify it?

Technically, if there's a cycle lane to the left of the traffic lane and both parties are turning left, the motorist has to give way to you as they must cross your lane to make the turn. This isn't undertaking as you're just maintaining your lane position. It's the same situation as if there were two traffic lanes and the motorist in the right-hand lane wanted to turn left.

If there's no cycle lane then the motorist has right of way - they're ahead of you in the traffic lane (equivalent to two cars in the same lane turning left). You cannot undertake. Note that many cycle lanes stop before junctions so this situation is fairly common.

Regardless of the technicalities, though, passing traffic on the inside at junctions is a spectacularly bad thing to do - this causes the most cyclist deaths. Just stick in the middle of the traffic lane and wait if you have to.

TimAllen

Gavin wrote: »

If you see a car in front of you with left indicator on, or the wheels over into the cycle lane, really, just slow down and wait for them to do whatever it is they are doing.

It's too risky to assume that they have seen you. Even if they slow down, just wait for them to go. They may change their mind all of a sudden and suddenly shoot into the turn.

I wouldn't be a fan of hitting cars either, not unless it was a real emergency and had no option. If you have time to hit the car, generally you have time to hit the brakes and stop, or maneuver out of the danger. Sure, once that's done, go up and point out what the driver did wrong, or take their plate and report them.

Bicycle loving Tim's points are not unreasonable but not completely accurate. Cars turning left do have a duty of consideration to not inconvenience other road users. Zooming ahead of a cyclist/car and pulling left in front of them, causing evasive maneuvers would be dangerous driving, something I don't doubt Tim would disapprove of.

The context of Vitamin C's scenario is one where he/she comes upon a car/vehicle turning left - he/she did not suggest that this occurs where a car/vehicle unreasonably "cuts him/her off" so it is a little disingenuous of you to assert that my point is not completely accurate - it was accurate in the context described - you decided to broaden the context to scenarios not alluded to by Vitamin. You're right I dont approve of dangerous driving or dangerous cycling for that matter - It would appear that Vitamin's road behaviour could fall into the latter. His/her actions in banging car roof's for some percieved injustice is certainly anti social behaviour at best and should be condemned by right thinking people here.

markpb

Turbulent Bill wrote: »

Technically, if there's a cycle lane to the left of the traffic lane and both parties are turning left, the motorist has to give way to you as they must cross your lane to make the turn. This isn't undertaking as you're just maintaining your lane position. It's the same situation as if there were two traffic lanes and the motorist in the right-hand lane wanted to turn left.

Unfortunately, I can't think of any junctions where a legally signposted cycle lane continues across the junction. DCC are a fan of parallel dotted white lines to remind motorist that cyclists may continue straight from the left lane but they have no legal backing.

Gavin

TimAllen wrote: »

The context of Vitamin C's scenario is one where he/she comes upon a car/vehicle turning left - he/she did not suggest that this occurs where a car/vehicle unreasonably "cuts him/her off" so it is a little disingenuous of you to assert that my point is not completely accurate - it was accurate in the context described - you decided to broaden the context to scenarios not alluded to by Vitamin. You're right I dont approve of dangerous driving or dangerous cycling for that matter - It would appear that Vitamin's road behaviour could fall into the latter. His/her actions in banging car roof's for some percieved injustice is certainly anti social behaviour at best and should be condemned by right thinking people here.

I think we're in agreement Tim. You're my kinda guy! Maybe we should hit the road together sometime for some cycling fun eh!

Raam

Gavin wrote: »

Maybe we should hit the road together sometime for some cycling fun eh!

Joe Malone never took up this offer

tpedoussaut

markpb wrote: »

Unfortunately, I can't think of any junctions where a legally signposted cycle lane continues across the junction. DCC are a fan of parallel dotted white lines to remind motorist that cyclists may continue straight from the left lane but they have no legal backing.

Unfortunately for Paul, it is exactly the configuration along the canal where he was cycling. The red tarmac continues all the way across the junction.
Rathgar has a similar issue.

Anyway, what we need is good training because you can't become experienced cyclist overnight, and removing even more HGV from the urban areas.

Raam

tpedoussaut wrote: »

Unfortunately for Paul, it is exactly the configuration along the canal where he was cycling. The red tarmac continues all the way across the junction.
Rathgar has a similar issue.

Anyway, what we need is good training because you can't become experienced cyclist overnight, and removing even more HGV from the urban areas.

Aye, the canal is nasty. Best approach, as mentioned by others, is to keep it steady and to proceed at the same pace as the rest of traffic. If you are going straight, it can be useful to slot in behind a car and take the lane.

Vitamin C

TimAllen wrote: »

The context of Vitamin C's scenario is one where he/she comes upon a car/vehicle turning left - he/she did not suggest that this occurs where a car/vehicle unreasonably "cuts him/her off" so it is a little disingenuous of you to assert that my point is not completely accurate - it was accurate in the context described - you decided to broaden the context to scenarios not alluded to by Vitamin. You're right I dont approve of dangerous driving or dangerous cycling for that matter - It would appear that Vitamin's road behaviour could fall into the latter. His/her actions in banging car roof's for some percieved injustice is certainly anti social behaviour at best and should be condemned by right thinking people here.

With banging on car roofs I was referring mainly to taxi drivers. It may be considered "anti social", but I will continue to do it. Part of my commute is Harold's Cross Bridge as far as Christchurch, countless times taxi drivers on this stretch (other areas too but it happens me all the time here) have pulled in right on top of me to pick up a fare without even a glance in their rear view mirror, potentially crushing me into a lamp post, parked car or whatever other obstacle may be there. This is a basic road safety thing that you learn at the very outset of driving. I was once a passenger in a taxi when the driver did exactly the same thing.

As I mentioned in another post, taxi (and truck) drivers are often overworked and work through the night and as a result are potentially more dangerous then a drunk behind the wheel, this is a proven fact. A slap on the roof is a worthwhile way snapping them out of it, it's amazing how a little fright can stick in a drivers mind, and as a result of said little fright, they will look in their mirror in the future, and potentially safe someones life or even just their bones down the line.

Don't get me wrong, this is not something I do every day, I've done it three or four times. But as earlier stated, I will continue to do it. If someone can provide a valid reason that out weighs making someone who drives all day every day in the city centre drive a little safer with regard to cyclists I'll stop immediately.

[EDIT]

Oh, and of course if a car is ahead of me indicating left common sense would prevail and I would slow down until they have made the turn, what I do not have time for however is motorists overtaking a cyclist on a cycle path in order to take a left turn fifty yards up the road.

blorg

markpb wrote: »

Unfortunately, I can't think of any junctions where a legally signposted cycle lane continues across the junction. DCC are a fan of parallel dotted white lines to remind motorist that cyclists may continue straight from the left lane but they have no legal backing.

Dotted white lines just mean it is a non-mandatory cycle track that motorists are allowed to enter. It doesn't mean that motorists suddenly don't have to respect lane rules and no longer have to yield to traffic already in a lane they wish to cross. Having said that I generally ignore the law and use common sense- this means I will not use a cycle lane on the inside of a left-turning lane even if mandatory but will leave it and cycle in the correct car lane according to how I am going to proceed through a junction. This is actually illegal, as cyclists must stay on cycle tracks.*

Here's an example of the sort of thing we have to put up with daily and illustrates the folly of following the law to the letter rather than using common sense. photo of the junction here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZykTnzyETQ

*I would similarly use common sense and leave a mandatory cycle lane to cycle around a car illegally stopped in it

Vitamin C

markpb wrote: »

Unfortunately, I can't think of any junctions where a legally signposted cycle lane continues across the junction. DCC are a fan of parallel dotted white lines to remind motorist that cyclists may continue straight from the left lane but they have no legal backing.

Just have a look at the road from Christchurch to Rathfarnham, it's the case pretty much the whole way which is a good 3-4 km.

Chips Lovell

I think there's a big difference between a cyclist cutting inside someone already turning left (bad cycling) and a motorist cutting across a cyclist who has already started to move across a junction (bad driving). I guess it's important to distinguish what people are on about.

Turbulent Bill

Vitamin C wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, this is not something I do every day, I've done it three or four times. But as earlier stated, I will continue to do it. If someone can provide a valid reason that out weighs making someone who drives all day every day in the city centre drive a little safer with regard to cyclists I'll stop immediately.

The problem with this is that it's reactive - you need the driver to almost run over you before you can show them the error of their ways. Even if roof-bashing gets the message across to individual drivers (which I doubt), you'd have to whack every car in the city to make cycling safer overall.

Much better to be proactive and not put yourself in danger in the first place.