Cyclist hit on Harold's Cross Road, Dublin

tpedoussaut

Turbulent Bill wrote: »

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.

A few years ago, a kid (12yo) literally jumped off the footpath onto my handlebar to catch a bus arriving the other direction. Both of us ended on the ground , I got nearly ran over by a car arriving behind in the traffic lane.
Story short, I made him make a plea. (It was in front of 2 girls he was chatting with earlier). I asked him to tell all his mates at school the next nay what happened. I hope there are now 20+ kids a bit more careful.

blorg

el tonto wrote: »

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.

This is true, and I will never do that, but the fact is that cycle lanes are laid out in such a way to encourage it. There is also the question of whether a motorist should yield to cyclists in a cycle lane they are crossing.

Vitamin C

Turbulent Bill wrote: »

.

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

How is cycling down the road at a normal speed minding my own business putting myself in danger? If someone pulls in on top of me how is that possibly my fault? (And yes I am well lit)

And is making one, two or three drivers who are on the road for a living drive safer not better then making none?

And as for a "roof bashing", that's a different thing all together to a slap on the roof which is what I said I have done. Correct: it is reactive, it is the natural way of regaining balance, I merely regain balance with slightly more force, causing a loud noise with no damage.

Vitamin C

el tonto wrote: »

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.

The latter is what I was referring to anyway...that's just me, dunno about everyone else.

DirkVoodoo

I remember a few months ago I was driving my Dad to my Aunt's house on Clonskeagh road, a few hundred metres before the junction at Eglington rd.

they live in a house on the left, so as I was coming up to the turn I flicked on the left indicator and saw a cyclist was coming up on the inside. Rather than cut him off (which I would have ended up doing since the gates are very now I couldn't swing into the driveway) I decided to sit and let him pass.

As soon as he passed and I was ready to move off, a young lad in some POS undertakes me by cutting through the gap and going over the painted on cycle lane, nearly smacking the car in the process. Possibly the most dangerous and wreckless bit of driving I have witnessed in the last year. To this day I still can't understand why he didn't either (a) overtake me or (b) do what most people would have done and slowed down as I was turning left.

Drivers have little regard for cycle lanes/tracks whatever you want to call them. The ones that cross over junctions like my favourite at Foxrock church or the one in Stillorgan that leads up to the Orchard pub scare the crap out of me. You can be as aware and as slow as you like, but it comes down to putting trust in a total stranger to see you and know that you have the right of way.

Frankly I would be happier in the bus lane. Everyone sees you and regards you as part of the traffic.

Oh also Tim, nice to see you are back. I'm always amazed at how you only venture onto the cycling forum for these threads. Is it pure coincidence?

Turbulent Bill

Vitamin C wrote: »

How is cycling down the road at a normal speed minding my own business putting myself in danger? If someone pulls in on top of me how is that possibly my fault? (And yes I am well lit)

And is making one, two or three drivers who are on the road for a living drive safer not better then making none?

And as for a "roof bashing", that's a different thing all together to a slap on the roof which is what I said I have done. Correct: it is reactive, it is the natural way of regaining balance, I merely regain balance with slightly more force, causing a loud noise with no damage.

Putting yourself between the kerb and cars/trucks at a junction will always put you at danger - it's your road positoning rather than your speed. At junctions you should take the middle of the lane (or wherever the traffic is), directly behind the vehicles, and integrate into the main traffic flow - don't be stuck in the gutter, and ignore the cycle lane markings. This will stop people overtaking and turning left across you, cutting you up etc. Once you're through the junction you can move left to avoid holding up traffic (or stay in the middle if you can keep up).

You'll make cycling safer by demonstrating good roadcraft to other cyclists that see you, so they can handle any traffic situation.

Lumen

blorg wrote: »

This is true, and I will never do that, but the fact is that cycle lanes are laid out in such a way to encourage it. There is also the question of whether a motorist should yield to cyclists in a cycle lane they are crossing.

ROTR - Junctions

---
To avoid doubt and in the interest of road safety a vehicle should always yield to pedestrians. You must also yield to:

...

- traffic in another lane when you wish to change lanes, and
---

If the cycle lane is a lane, then the car must yield, as I read it.

(I have no axe to grind on this issue btw, since I tend to avoid cycle lanes altogether)

edit: obviously there is some ambiguity over whether "change lanes" includes "turn across a lane", but since it also says things like "Traffic travelling straight ahead in either direction along a major road has right of way at all times." I don't think there is much room for confusion.

Vitamin C

Turbulent Bill wrote: »

Putting yourself between the kerb and cars/trucks at a junction will always put you at danger - it's your road positoning rather than your speed. At junctions you should take the middle of the lane (or wherever the traffic is), directly behind the vehicles, and integrate into the main traffic flow - don't be stuck in the gutter, and ignore the cycle lane markings. This will stop people overtaking and turning left across you, cutting you up etc. Once you're through the junction you can move left to avoid holding up traffic (or stay in the middle if you can keep up).

You'll make cycling safer by demonstrating good roadcraft to other cyclists that see you, so they can handle any traffic situation.

I really genuinely don't mean to be rude, and I appreciate exactly what you are saying it that context, but maybe I am not explaining the situation I am talking about properly.

Okay, so...

Clanbrassil Street...a straight, wide, two lane (in each direction) street with a slow incline heading towards town, no major junctions for a good five hundred yard stretch with good sized, well marked cycle lane for the entire stretch. It is this stretch where I have been cut of by taxi drivers on more occasions than any other. So... I am cycling down towards Patrick's Cathedral, at a good pace with my wits about me and doing my best to stay safe. Suddenly, a taxi driver behind me, most likely keeping there eyes on the footpath for potential fares rather than the road, spots said fare, is focusing on said fare rather than cycle lane/road. Starts to pass me, pulls in on top of me, putting me, the fare (pedestrian) and himself at risk. Rather then breaking (with my pedals) suddenly and potentially loosing balance and going under the car, I use my hand on the roof of the car to retain balance while at the same time, banging the roof to make the driver aware of my presence.

I know it is hard to believe that a driver would not see a cyclist in the cycle lane, but the fact of the matter is that it happens. A lot. (Some) taxi drivers work all night and are too tired to make safe judgements in this respect, but when you consider that it is proven that lack of sleep can be more dangerous than alcohol in terms of driving, it can be easier to understand how they could not see a cyclist,

Sorry Turbulent Bill, I'm not going to change my mind on this one, and apologies if I didn't explain the situation fully before. But if you still don't see where I'm coming from we'll have to agree to disagree.

Cheers

C

FrankGrimes

el tonto wrote: »

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.

Fully agree. I thought Vitamin C was talking about the former though it seems he was talking about the latter. The cutting across by motorists does seem to be an all too common problem, given how dangerous it is.

@blorg - that junction outside the Beacon is a deathtrap - watching that video I thought you were referring to the first car (VW I think) that cut across you and was thinking 'meh, no biggy' and then out of nowehere the other car just completely cuts across you....what on earth was that driver thinking? The layout of the cycle lane may, or may not, be optimal but either way the frequency of similar incidents I see on that junction suggest even if it is right, there's too many motorists who just can't understand it so it's too dangerous.

Vitamin C

FrankGrimes wrote: »

Fully agree. I thought Vitamin C was talking about the former though it seems he was talking about the latter. The cutting across by motorists does seem to be an all too common problem, given how dangerous it is.

@blorg - that junction outside the Beacon is a deathtrap - watching that video I thought you were referring to the first car (VW I think) that cut across you and was thinking 'meh, no biggy' and then out of nowehere the other car just completely cuts across you....what on earth was that driver thinking? The layout of the cycle lane may, or may not, be optimal but either way the frequency of similar incidents I see on that junction suggest even if it is right, there's too many motorists who just can't understand it so it's too dangerous.

Yep, I was referring to the latter, sorry if I didn't explain it fully. I was talking about that situation but also when if your cycling parallel to a slow moving car and for some reason they see you and assume right of way and proceed to turn left, completely cutting you off. That sort of **** really gets my goat.

Ryaner

Lumen wrote: »

ROTR - Junctions

---
To avoid doubt and in the interest of road safety a vehicle should always yield to pedestrians. You must also yield to:

...

- traffic in another lane when you wish to change lanes, and
---

If the cycle lane is a lane, then the car must yield, as I read it.

(I have no axe to grind on this issue btw, since I tend to avoid cycle lanes altogether)

edit: obviously there is some ambiguity over whether "change lanes" includes "turn across a lane", but since it also says things like "Traffic travelling straight ahead in either direction along a major road has right of way at all times." I don't think there is much room for confusion.

Dashed cycle lanes are shared and solid line ones aren't so in theory drivers shouldn't enter the shared lane when going to the junction. Problem is that no one ever thought about road markings so things don't work in practice. Even the new M50 layouts use different markings than those that are standard on the continent for similiar roads so it would be hard to see how they could get cycle lanes done right when most were added as an after thought.

Chuchote

Getting back to the crash: the white van was apparently delivering to the shops at the bridge - the Gardaí might be able to track the deliveryman and driver down by talking to the shops.

A 9 or a 16 bus came by and at least one witness got on. The bus might have onboard video? And a record of who got on, since most people use Leap cards or tag-on passes.

robyntmorton

Am I missing something here? Before Chuchote the previous post was 2009?

Danbo!

robyntmorton wrote: »

Am I missing something here? Before Chuchote the previous post was 2009?

I'm guessing chuchote is referring to the more recent incident on Good Friday, but didnt notice the date?

robyntmorton

Danbo! wrote: »

I'm guessing chuchote is referring to the more recent incident on Good Friday, but didnt notice the date?

That makes sense.

CramCycle

MOD VOICE: Thread locked