Overly aggressive and dangerous cyclist makes video...

Pinch Flat

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Doing himself no favours but at the same time I'd be recording the buses details and complaining each time.

That idiot turning left over the cycle lane without even checking is a real pet hate of mine too.

Yeah went back and looked at it again - that mandatory lane doesn't seem to fit where it's positioned. The road is too narrow to accommodate this and a bus (from what I can see)

omri

Pinch Flat wrote: »

red car cuts into cycle lane, squeezing him against the kerb (0:12)

Car with chevrons on the back pull out in front of him (0:35)

Car comes cuts in front of him turning right. (0:51)

Car comes up against him on the wrong side of the road (0:58)

Bus is illegally parked in mandatory bike lane at the lights, forcing him up the inside (he is legally to pass stationary traffic in the left) (1:15)

Kind of gave up after that. Is there a point to the video, other than highlighting the dangers cyclists face in a daily basis?

In another words youd expect this world to be perfect, but it isnt and cyclists are not driving tanks so that they (we) can blast the **** out of our way. I can understand the frustration of all of you commuting - it aint healthy cuz all the fumes you breathe in, you need to experience all that poor driving, but most of all you need to have some common sense here. All we have is a helmet and fancy piece of lycra vs hundreds of killos of moving objects.

Even Gardai exceed 100kmph limit on M50 sometimes, but it doesnt mean that you should tail them all the way. All Im concerned about is to get from A to B in the safest possible manner for myself and my kids. And just avoid sticky situations caused by the less talented road users.

Pinch Flat

omri wrote: »

In another words youd expect this world to be perfect, but it isnt and cyclists are not driving tanks so that they (we) can blast the **** out of our way. I can understand the frustration of all of you commuting - it aint healthy cuz all the fumes you breathe in, you need to experience all that poor driving, but most of all you need to have some common sense here. All we have is a helmet and fancy piece of lycra vs hundreds of killos of moving objects.

Even Gardai exceed 100kmph limit on M50 sometimes, but it doesnt mean that you should tail them all the way. All Im concerned about is to get from A to B in the safest possible manner for myself and my kids. And just avoid sticky situations caused by the less talented road users.

Ah sure look we all know the Golden rule - never trust someone in a one tonne plus vehicle whose wrong move can wipe you out. I don't agree with these videos gong public, but no harm for documenting what are several instances of dangerous driving. Sure the cyclist acts a bit dickish in places as well.

mickdw

As a car driver viewing that, there is some terrible driving by motorists there at the start, pulling out in front of bike, turning right across his path etc and to be fair, it deserves some abuse if only to wake up the drivers abit.
Still the cyclist is a clown expecting that he can freely go about his business at wish hour without as much as having to slow down to negotiate a junction. He expects buses to shrink in order to leave his lane absolutely free. Also imo, the clip worth the navy fiat just showed cyclist was out for trouble. Car was indicating and from where they saw the cyclist, it would appear to me that they were quite a reasonable driver. It would appear that they would have seen the cyclist in mirror and would have assumed that he would held position allowing the car turn left instead of attempting to accelerate past the car on the left when the car was starting a left turn.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Eric Pode of Croydon wrote: »

I am no fan of aggressive riding but in fairness the video does seem to reflect a fairly typical urban ride.

Agreed, I see little wrong with that clip.

We've all mad silly maneuvers, we just don't make the mistake of putting them online.

On my commute this morning I'll have no option but to filter through and ride up through buses & taxi's, such is Dublin's rush hour traffic. I'm sure if I recorded my journeys and put them online I'd get the same flak from people here but the camera doesn't pick up on spacial awarness, the cyclists knowledge of whats behind him, to his side, what he see's through other vehicles windows etc, he probably does this journey hundreds of times so he knows the bottlenecks etc.

The clip isn't as bad that lunatic CycleDub and other crusading dickheads like him.

Mellor

Stokolan wrote: »

TBH at the 2.00 mark he should have had the cop on to stay behind the car instead of trying to cause an accident. Any time I come to a junction and its green and I see some one indicating ahead of me, I would slot in behind that car.

You mean he should obey the rules of the road and stay behind the car.

whippet

Diemos wrote: »

Is that good enough though....**** happens. People need to take much more care on the roads, too many mé féiners out there "I'll just drive to the top of the queue and put my indicator on and force my way in" "the light has just gone red, boot to the floor and I'll get through here".
I'm not defending this guy, technically he was in the right in most situations filmed but he certainly never made things easier. He seems blissfully unaware that he is the most vulnerable road user in any of the clips.

My point was that you will encounter ****ty drivers everyday - that is a fact of life ... but forcing your right of way in a situation where it will more than likely increase the risk to your own person is just plain stupid. This GoPro hero seems hell bent on exploiting every instance of poor driving to aggravate the situation ... he is essentially playing for the camera and just making a total arse of himself.

Uno my Uno.

I think this guys attitude is summed up by the way he behaved with the red car at the very start at 0.12. the car does not indicate but appears to drift towards the cycle lane, my immediate thought was that the car was going to pull in and that he should slow down and hang back. that what I would have done, not because the driver was entitled to make that maneouver but becuase I don't want to get hit by an idiot driver who doesn't indicate and has no awareness.

The Cyclist in the video actually speeds up to get into the bit of the cycle lane between the driver and the path and a confrontation ensues when they pull over on him. That to me is just bad cycling, you wouldn't do it if you were driving on the motorway and someone tried to pull into your lane without indicating. He maybe "correct" in several instances but he is going to win a Darwin award as a result.

Thargor

The braking sound effects and the 20 year old health and safety video music had me in stitches :P

RainyDay

CramCycle wrote: »

He is so wrong in so many situations. I wish the Gardai were like the met, ID him from the video and lift him.

A danger to himself and other road users.

If you have a problem with his cycling, you should report him to the Gardai yourself. They're not going to act until someone makes a complaint.

SpaceTime

blade1 wrote: »

At least at 2.00 when the car pulled across him..
The South Infirmary was right across the road.:)

Wouldn't do you much good. It doesnt do emergency medicine anymore. It's a specialist centre for ENT and orthopaedic surgery these days.

inforfun

Half the people in this country cant drive a car properly.
What makes you think they would do better on a bicycle?

CramCycle

RainyDay wrote: »

If you have a problem with his cycling, you should report him to the Gardai yourself. They're not going to act until someone makes a complaint.

I have no ID, no name, no idea where it is, no idea what time, a camera of incidents that nearly but don't happen. The gardai will not do anything with this. They might use it to build a case but they inform me it is not good enough on it's own.

He should be reported to Gardai but I doubt a local station in Cork is going to take a call about this from a guy in Dublin who wasn't there, wasn't affected and didn't witness it.

Wheeker

Agreed that the video depicts a fairly routine commute, though he does seem to be riding aggressively to deliberately highlight bad driving. I think you always have to treat all other road users as complete idiots that may do something stupid at any given time.:mad:

Video made me think of this :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3nMnr8ZirI

RainyDay

CramCycle wrote: »

I have no ID, no name, no idea where it is, no idea what time, a camera of incidents that nearly but don't happen. The gardai will not do anything with this. They might use it to build a case but they inform me it is not good enough on it's own.

He should be reported to Gardai but I doubt a local station in Cork is going to take a call about this from a guy in Dublin who wasn't there, wasn't affected and didn't witness it.

The name is on the YouTube channel. The locations would be fairly obvious to anyone who knows Cork. Garda TrafficWatch will take a call from anyone, anytime.

CramCycle

RainyDay wrote: »

The name is on the YouTube channel.

A youtube channel with one video and a name? I have a youtube account and the name on it is not my own, no reason to think this is any different.

The locations would be fairly obvious to anyone who knows Cork

I have been to Cork a few times but I don't recognise any of it.

Garda TrafficWatch will take a call from anyone, anytime.

First question from Garda Traffic will be where and what time?, did I witness it? (watching a video is not witnessing it). I don't know Cork, I don't know the time or date. At least with the local station, they might be able to keep an eye out for him.

RainyDay

CramCycle wrote: »

A youtube channel with one video and a name? I have a youtube account and the name on it is not my own, no reason to think this is any different.
I have been to Cork a few times but I don't recognise any of it.

First question from Garda Traffic will be where and what time?, did I witness it? (watching a video is not witnessing it). I don't know Cork, I don't know the time or date. At least with the local station, they might be able to keep an eye out for him.

Hard to understand how you expected the Gardai to 'id him and lift him' so.

CramCycle

RainyDay wrote: »

Hard to understand how you expected the Gardai to 'id him and lift him' so.

He is so wrong in so many situations. I wish the Gardai were like the met, ID him from the video and lift him.

A danger to himself and other road users.

The met have a task force to deal with this, they also except such footage as evidence, the AGS do not, might be used to build a case but it will not be used as the sole evidence.

I wish the AGS could do this, I wish they had the funding and time for such behaviour. At the moment, all I can hope for is that a Garda out walking will lift him as he acts the maggot but it is only a wish. I am realistic in what I expect them to do and what I hope they do.

obriendj

Most of the incidents in the video are preventable. I didnt know that you cant cycle in the morning unless going to work.

However I was told when I was taking Pre-test driving lessons that you should pull into the left to prevent someone coming up the inside. I know the punto was trying to leave the cycle lane free but why just turn across it without looking. I think the Maroon car is in the correct position at 1:35
But it is a poorly designed junction with the cycle lane and should be amended.

dreamerb

Some of the driving is poor, but I agree all of those incidents were preventable. It looks to me like the cyclist isn't reading the road well, filters at excessive speed, and doesn't moderate speed or positioning to take account of fairly predictable - and in one case, already visible - blockages / manoeuvres.

Part of the problem is placement of bicycle lanes to the left of a lane from which drivers turn left; unless you're at the junction first, priority is not wholly clear and it's dangerous to assume you have it on a bike - unusually, I nearly got caught out on this only this morning, because it looked as if a driver was waiting until I passed. Turned out he wasn't. (No contact made: I realised my mistake with a few feet to spare )

Mellor

dreamerb wrote: »

Some of the driving is poor, but I agree all of those incidents were preventable. It looks to me like the cyclist isn't reading the road well, filters at excessive speed, and doesn't moderate speed or positioning to take account of fairly predictable - and in one case, already visible - blockages / manoeuvres.

Part of the problem is placement of bicycle lanes to the left of a lane from which drivers turn left; unless you're at the junction first, priority is not wholly clear and it's dangerous to assume you have it on a bike - unusually, I nearly got caught out on this only this morning, because it looked as if a driver was waiting until I passed. Turned out he wasn't. (No contact made: I realised my mistake with a few feet to spare )

Priority is pretty clear. If the car us indicating left, the bike can't overtake on the left.
He breaks that rule repeatedly.

obriendj

Mellor wrote: »

Priority is pretty clear. If the car us indicating left, the bike can't overtake on the left.
He breaks that rule repeatedly.

Priority is not clear.

Why is the Punto in the middle of the road if turning left? you cant trust an indicator

2 Wheels Good

obriendj wrote: »

Priority is not clear.

Why is the Punto in the middle of the road if turning left? you cant trust an indicator

Probably because that junction is a bit under a 90 degree turn so turning left there is a bit tight to take it close in.

dreamerb

Mellor wrote: »

Priority is pretty clear. If the car us indicating left, the bike can't overtake on the left.
He breaks that rule repeatedly.

I should have said, "Priority is not always entirely clear". e.g. where lights have just changed and traffic starts moving - if there are cyclists in a cycle lane, and left turning cars in a car lane to their right, I don't think priority is unambiguously clear in those circumstances. My own mistake this morning was in thinking a driver was giving way to me, since he was starting from such a position and I was only a little behind the two cyclists who'd been in front of me at the lights and had already gone straight. No harm done, but I'll try not to make that mistake again.

Pinch Flat

dreamerb wrote: »

I should have said, "Priority is not always entirely clear". e.g. where lights have just changed and traffic starts moving - if there are cyclists in a cycle lane, and left turning cars in a car lane to their right, I don't think priority is unambiguously clear in those circumstances. My own mistake this morning was in thinking a driver was giving way to me, since he was starting from such a position and I was only a little behind the two cyclists who'd been in front of me at the lights and had already gone straight. No harm done, but I'll try not to make that mistake again.

In that scenario you need to be aware of cars turning left - whether they are indicating or not. You also have to be aware of someone coming from behind and cutting left across you. This is where defensive cycling comes in - taking the middle lane behind the car in front, see what he's at - if he turns left, you're grand to move in left once past the junction. Same if he's going straight ahead.

It's rare I get caught out like this - learned the lessons the hard way - I nearly paid dearly the other evenin where some brain dead twit powered up behind me in the phoenix park - the way was clear through a roundabout, but it didn't stop this eejit coming from behind and cutting left across me after I'd entered the roundabout - almost on 2 wheels as he did

Mellor

obriendj wrote: »

Priority is not clear.

Why is the Punto in the middle of the road if turning left? you cant trust an indicator

There's nothing thr says they need to veer to the left of the road before turning left.

Regardless, even if the indicator is on in error, he is signalling left so you can't pass on the left.

obriendj

2 Wheels Good wrote: »

Probably because that junction is a bit under a 90 degree turn so turning left there is a bit tight to take it close in.

If that is the case then the driver is entitled to swing in from the centre of the road but must expect that there might be traffic coming up the inside. Especially if the cycle lane continues straight.

If you were on a motorway and in the outside lane and want to take the exit you have to check mirrors and yield if there is traffic on the inside. why is this different?

Mellor

dreamerb wrote: »

I should have said, "Priority is not always entirely clear". e.g. where lights have just changed and traffic starts moving - if there are cyclists in a cycle lane, and left turning cars in a car lane to their right, I don't think priority is unambiguously clear in those circumstances. My own mistake this morning was in thinking a driver was giving way to me, since he was starting from such a position and I was only a little behind the two cyclists who'd been in front of me at the lights and had already gone straight. No harm done, but I'll try not to make that mistake again.

The rule basically states that if you can't overtake them before they turn, then you aren't allowed to overtake them. That's pretty clear tbh.

So, If a car turning left crosses over you, you obviously weren't able to overtake them.

Mellor

obriendj wrote: »

If that is the case then the driver is entitled to swing in from the centre of the road but must expect that there might be traffic coming up the inside. Especially if the cycle lane continues straight.

If you were on a motorway and in the outside lane and want to take the exit you have to check mirrors and yield if there is traffic on the inside. why is this different?

It's different because a law specifically states when in a cycle lane, you can't overtake a car turning left.

There's no law saying on a motorway you have to yield to cars exiting accross your lane. (For obvious reasons)

roverrules

Think aggressive cyclists think they are being assertive, there is a BIG difference between the two styles

RainyDay

CramCycle wrote: »

The met have a task force to deal with this, they also except such footage as evidence, the AGS do not, might be used to build a case but it will not be used as the sole evidence.

I wish the AGS could do this, I wish they had the funding and time for such behaviour. At the moment, all I can hope for is that a Garda out walking will lift him as he acts the maggot but it is only a wish. I am realistic in what I expect them to do and what I hope they do.

Strange that. The helmetcam cyclists in London that I'm in touch with frequently rave about the lack of response from RoadSafe and the Met to serious incidents with identifiable and registered cars or vans. I've never heard mention of this task force that can pick up cyclists based on a couple of minutes of YouTube footage.

I wish the AGS would focus their resources on reducing the death and injury toll on our roads.

obriendj

Mellor wrote: »

It's different because a law specifically states when in a cycle lane, you can't overtake a car turning left.

There's no law saying on a motorway you have to yield to cars exiting accross your lane. (For obvious reasons)

Have a look at this junction in Dublin - if you spin around you will see that it is a 5 way junction.

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.338303,-6.269287,3a,75y,277.05h,72.82t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s98TD2Jp4hYlSimR8isnOuQ!2e0?hl=en

I am often cycling up the cycle lane and planning to go straight ahead. There are often cars that are crossing the lane without indicating as they are veering left to go past the social welfare office. If I am cycling alongside the car or slightly behind and they cut across me - you are saying that they are correct?

clawback07

roverrules wrote: »

Think aggressive cyclists think they are being assertive, there is a BIG difference between the two styles

When a motorcyclist is being taught how to ride his / her bike ,one of the basics is to ride defensively, ie your in your own safety bubble defend it by riding sensibly ,and be aware of what's going on around you . Defensively , not aggressively . How many cyclists on our streets can confidently give hand signals with either hand ,not just sticking out an index finger prior to making a turn on busy town streets for example ?

mikeymouse

obriendj wrote: »

If that is the case then the driver is entitled to swing in from the centre of the road but must expect that there might be traffic coming up the inside. Especially if the cycle lane continues straight.

If you were on a motorway and in the outside lane and want to take the exit you have to check mirrors and yield if there is traffic on the inside. why is this different?

so if I'm on the outside lane, ie. the overtaking lane, and wish to exit
at the next junction I give way to traffic on the inside driving lane(s) ?
Is this what you're saying?

cdaly_

Mellor wrote: »

It's different because a law specifically states when in a cycle lane, you can't overtake a car turning left.

Not so. The law states that you may overtake a car on its left unless it

"is indicating and there is a reasonable likelihood that it will commence the left-turn before the cyclist has completed the overtake"

Or words to that effect.

Personally, if I'm coming up the left of a left indicating vehicle, I will continue if it is stationary but, if it is already moving, I will move out behind it to overtake on the right.

The other thing I always do where there is a left turn ahead is take the lane. Cars behind me, planning to turn left, then have to wait or overtake on the right and then cut across me. They pretty much always wait...

obriendj

mikeymouse wrote: »

so if I'm on the outside lane, ie. the overtaking lane, and wish to exit
at the next junction I give way to traffic on the inside driving lane(s) ?
Is this what you're saying?

Motorway is a bad example I suppose.
But consider the M50 on a normal weekday morning where traffic is stopped in all lanes if you are in the middle lane and you to take the exit but you are moving slower than than the driving (inside) lane. yes you should give way to the traffic on your inside. and not cut across into the lane.

elric

mikeymouse wrote: »

so if I'm on the outside lane, ie. the overtaking lane, and wish to exit
at the next junction I give way to traffic on the inside driving lane(s) ?
Is this what you're saying?

When you are changing lane you have to give way to traffic already in that lane.

mikeymouse

you have to check mirrors and yield if there is traffic on the inside.
I read that as slowing down on the overtaking lane to allow the traffic on the inside to'undertake'
But, yes I understand in slowmoving traffic it's different

CramCycle

RainyDay wrote: »

Strange that. The helmetcam cyclists in London that I'm in touch with frequently rave about the lack of response from RoadSafe and the Met to serious incidents with identifiable and registered cars or vans. I've never heard mention of this task force that can pick up cyclists based on a couple of minutes of YouTube footage.

You had to send them a link, they were picking up cyclists for illegal left turns but pointed out to one camera wearer that he should submit his video to them if he noticed anything dangerous and gave him the address to submit the link.

I wish the AGS would focus their resources on reducing the death and injury toll on our roads.

I wish they were given the support and funding to get all that is under their remit done, hard to do any of the above with out man power and resources

dreamerb

Mellor wrote: »

The rule basically states that if you can't overtake them before they turn, then you aren't allowed to overtake them. That's pretty clear tbh.

So, If a car turning left crosses over you, you obviously weren't able to overtake them.

It might be pretty clear in most circumstances, but not if you're both starting from a stationary and the cyclists are level with driver / marginally ahead of the car. Of course, depending on vehicle type and visibility it might be (very) unwise.

Depp

i love this when cyclists who think they own the road make these little videos when theyre completely in the wrong 90% of the time, its almost as if they strap on the gopro hoping for something to happen so they can get hits on youtube with some of em

sconhome

Depp wrote: »

i love this when cyclists who think they own the road make these little videos when theyre completely in the wrong 90% of the time, its almost as if they strap on the gopro hoping for something to happen so they can get hits on youtube with some of em

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Depp wrote: »

i love this when cyclists who think they own the road make these little videos when theyre completely in the wrong 90% of the time, its almost as if they strap on the gopro hoping for something to happen so they can get hits on youtube with some of em

There's a lot of that "I am entitled to the road" crappy mentality around alright, but you will find that most people that wear a camera of some sort are simply fed up with the dangerous situations they are put in every day. You can also be sure that there are some lunatic cyclists out for footage, but don't paint every go pro wearing cyclist with the same brush. We are not all nuts :P

CramCycle

Alec Mushy Laptop wrote: »

We are not all nuts :P

I have a camera for almost two years, no videos on youtube, one handed into the Gardai (nothing done despite the driver admitting on the video to the fact that he pulled in on me to show me how dangerous it was to cycle, and the video showing the two empty lanes beside him) and one handed over to a company (as the driving instructor, not the driver) claimed they gave me enough space and skimmed me.

RainyDay

CramCycle wrote: »

You had to send them a link, they were picking up cyclists for illegal left turns but pointed out to one camera wearer that he should submit his video to them if he noticed anything dangerous and gave him the address to submit the link.

I'm genuinely confused now. I thought you were suggesting that the Met were proactively reviewing videos and chasing down the miscreant cyclists who owned the video.

But now, somebody has to submit a video. So is this for cyclists to submit videos that they have filmed, or for people to submit videos that cyclists have filmed to show offences by the filming cyclist? And how exactly are the Met tracking down cyclists from videos?

Depp

sorry guys i had no intention of causing offense, wearing a gopro is fair enough like but its the guys with youtube channels with 20+ videos im giving out about, I've no problem with a guy having a gopro there to back himself up.

CramCycle

RainyDay wrote: »

I'm genuinely confused now. I thought you were suggesting that the Met were proactively reviewing videos and chasing down the miscreant cyclists who owned the video.

But now, somebody has to submit a video. So is this for cyclists to submit videos that they have filmed, or for people to submit videos that cyclists have filmed to show offences by the filming cyclist? And how exactly are the Met tracking down cyclists from videos?

My understanding was that you sent them a link or submitted a video, not that they were actively hunting down youtube videos, apologies if thats what it sounded like I said.

I went googling it there now, apparently alot of helmet camera footage does not meet what they call "quality of evidence", I presume this is what the Garda told me was forensically acceptable video.

From a quick google, it appears the task force I was thinking of do not do this completely but Police stations in the UK take such footage seriously if notified of it when an allegation is handed in. Many examples of footage being tweeted to local police stations and the officers pursuing it.

I also found one example where a man had put up a video of being verbally abused but the police investigation found he was partially responsible for the incident.

Cookie_Monster

Mellor wrote: »

You mean he should obey the rules of the road and stay behind the car.

car is crossing an occupied lane and has to yield to the cyclist who has right of way staying in their lane...
anyone changing / crossing lanes always has to yield

RainyDay

CramCycle wrote: »

My understanding was that you sent them a link or submitted a video, not that they were actively hunting down youtube videos, apologies if thats what it sounded like I said.

I went googling it there now, apparently alot of helmet camera footage does not meet what they call "quality of evidence", I presume this is what the Garda told me was forensically acceptable video.

From a quick google, it appears the task force I was thinking of do not do this completely but Police stations in the UK take such footage seriously if notified of it when an allegation is handed in. Many examples of footage being tweeted to local police stations and the officers pursuing it.

I also found one example where a man had put up a video of being verbally abused but the police investigation found he was partially responsible for the incident.

Thanks for the clarification. I don't think the situation with video evidence is as black and white (no pun intended) as you suggest. I've had people fined in Ireland after giving video evidence to the Gardai. I don't think these cases went to Court - just a fixed penalty notice. But the Garda was delighted with the video evidence, and told me it cut out all the usual he said/she said nonsense. I know of once case of a driver convicted in Court in London this week after spitting and swerving at a cyclist. The cyclist's helmetcam evidence was key to the case. The driver claimed the cyclist had provoked the incident, but the video disproved this.

So video evidence is accepted in some case.

RainyDay

Depp wrote: »

sorry guys i had no intention of causing offense, wearing a gopro is fair enough like but its the guys with youtube channels with 20+ videos im giving out about, I've no problem with a guy having a gopro there to back himself up.

There are lots of YouTube channels that make no sense to me, the Minecraft stuff, the conspiracy theorists, the girly fashion stuff. I don't feel the need to complain about it - I just ignore it.