Increase in Bad Driving

tomasrojo

gadetra wrote: »

"Natalie Pyne, 31, was driving at least four children in her three-litre Audi Q7 when she cut up Simon Edgely, causing him to bump into the rear of the vehicle, the jury was told" :rolleyes:

I'd love to see how the author would describe the situation had he been cut up and caused to 'bump' into the back of a car:rolleyes:

Yes, "bump". The silly scamp! Hope his "boo-boo" healed soon, and the driver's parents made her say sorry.

CramCycle

Qualitymark wrote: »

Awful pity that judge couldn't sentence her to get rid of her car and bring her children cycling on the road to school every day.

At the very least take her license and kids away from her

G1032

Was forced off the road and onto grass verge today near the Copper Beech pub in Straide, Mayo. Bus Eireann bus couldn't wait 10 seconds for the oncoming car to pass so he could overtake me safely. W@nker.
I got the number plate anyway and I'll ring Bus Eireann on Monday to voice my concerns about their drivers. That's twice this year I've had very close calls with Bus Eireann buses and only a couple of months ago, on the same road as today's incident, myself and another boardsie were damn near dragged under a Topaz tanker. We reported that and the complaint was forwarded to Foxford Garda station but that's as far as it went. We were assured there'd be a follow up but after never hearing back from the Garda that took the call I've given to trying to contact them.

Unknown Soldier

RainyDay wrote: »

<snip>


Can I expect groups of cars in heavy urban traffic to limit their group size and spread themselves out to make it convenient for me to over- or undertake them so they don't slow me down?

^^^ This is the kind of NIMBY statement that helps no one.

Bar huge charity events I am highly in favour of limiting cycling groups to the maximum of the largest vehicles allowed on the road. It's one thing having a well oiled machine type cycling group, shoulder to shoulder and keeping a few feet between the rider in front versus a group who take off from a set of lights and can take up 50 or 60 feet of the road for quite awhile till they kind of group back together.

To preempt stuff, yes it would be impossible to implement and monitor by law or otherwise.

Common sense and awareness to the world around would be a good start.

transylman

Qualitymark wrote: »

Awful pity that judge couldn't sentence her to get rid of her car and bring her children cycling on the road to school every day.

Three years in prison will have to do.

http://www.surreycomet.co.uk/news/13950300._Out_of_control__New_Malden_mum_of_six_jailed_for_three_years_after_driving_into_autistic_cyclist_and_crashing_into_Kingston_salon/

Carawaystick

G1032 wrote: »

.
I got the number plate anyway and I'll ring Bus Eireann on Monday to voice my concerns about their drivers.

Ring them tomorrow, don't wait, as any cctv evidence will be more likely to be gone.
I had a run in with a Dublin bus driver this week. Rang them and they're starting a disciplinary procedure against the driver.

Kaisr Sose

transylman wrote: »

Three years in prison will have to do.

http://www.surreycomet.co.uk/news/13950300._Out_of_control__New_Malden_mum_of_six_jailed_for_three_years_after_driving_into_autistic_cyclist_and_crashing_into_Kingston_salon/

I wonder what the sentence would be here...suspended?

It was tantamount to assault with a deadly weapon, intent to cause serious physical harm (GBH) and not to mention the string of road traffic offences.

It happens here too!

Qualitymark

G1032 wrote: »

Was forced off the road and onto grass verge today near the Copper Beech pub in Straide, Mayo. Bus Eireann bus couldn't wait 10 seconds for the oncoming car to pass so he could overtake me safely… That's twice this year I've had very close calls with Bus Eireann buses and only a couple of months ago, on the same road as today's incident, myself and another boardsie were damn near dragged under a Topaz tanker…

Maybe you and fellow boardsie might take a wander into your local paper and drag a (the) reporter down to the road on a bike, show him/her where these happened? Point out that precious cycle tourists with their pockets jangling with gold may be endangered. Local papers love TERROR ROADS stories.

RainyDay

cdaly_ wrote: »

Nope. But you can happily filter by them without endangering anybody...

Sometimes I can, sometimes I can't - depends on the road conditions.

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

^^^ This is the kind of NIMBY statement that helps no one.

Bar huge charity events I am highly in favour of limiting cycling groups to the maximum of the largest vehicles allowed on the road. It's one thing having a well oiled machine type cycling group, shoulder to shoulder and keeping a few feet between the rider in front versus a group who take off from a set of lights and can take up 50 or 60 feet of the road for quite awhile till they kind of group back together.

To preempt stuff, yes it would be impossible to implement and monitor by law or otherwise.

Common sense and awareness to the world around would be a good start.

Nothing NIMBY about it - quite the reverse in fact. I don't do group events so I'll refrain from talking about how they should be run.

But if there is to be some general obligation for slow-moving traffic to move over to let faster traffic through, that's a double-edged sword. Most of my bike time is commuting through busy traffic in Dublin. I spend far more time stuck behind cars than I do with cars stuck behind me, so I look forward to an obligation on cars to move over for me.

mcgratheoin

RainyDay wrote: »

I spend far more time stuck behind cars than I do with cars stuck behind me, so I look forward to an obligation on cars to move over for me.

Is the road in front of these cars empty, as it would be if you were stuck behind cyclists? Are they going slower than the speed limit and not making adequate progress? If the traffic is backed up from a junction then there's no obligation for anyone to move over, same as I wouldn't let a car past if i'm waiting in traffic on my bike.

RainyDay

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Is the road in front of these cars empty, as it would be if you were stuck behind cyclists?

What is your definition of 'empty'? I get many poor overtakes from motorists who zoom past to rush to the back of the next queue of cars visible ahead.

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Are they going slower than the speed limit and not making adequate progress?

I'm not sure that you've got the concept of a 'speed limit'. It is a limit, not a target. In urban traffic, I'd bet a fiver that my average speed is higher than most cars, mind you.

mcgratheoin wrote: »

If the traffic is backed up from a junction then there's no obligation for anyone to move over, same as I wouldn't let a car past if i'm waiting in traffic on my bike.

I'm not talking about stationary traffic - I'm talking about slow-moving urban traffic - can I expect cars to move over to make room for me?

mcgratheoin

RainyDay wrote: »

What is your definition of 'empty'? I get many poor overtakes from motorists who zoom past to rush to the back of the next queue of cars visible ahead.

So how are they holding you up?

I'm not sure that you've got the concept of a 'speed limit'. It is a limit, not a target. In urban traffic, I'd bet a fiver that my average speed is higher than most cars, mind you.

My point is that while traffic driving significantly below the speed limit (not adequately progressing) is obliged to not hold up everybody else (Mayo farmer with 7km tailback at 20kph as an example), there's no onus on anybody travelling e.g. 20kph in a 30kph zone to move over and let slower traffic through.

I'm not talking about stationary traffic - I'm talking about slow-moving urban traffic - can I expect cars to move over to make room for me?

Would you expect cars in this situation to move over to make room for you if you were in another car? Why would you expect this on a bike.

RainyDay

mcgratheoin wrote: »

So how are they holding you up?

I'm not suggesting they are holding me up in these situations. My point is that they seem to think that I'm holding them up, when in reality, it is the other cars that are holding them up.

mcgratheoin wrote: »

My point is that while traffic driving significantly below the speed limit (not adequately progressing) is obliged to not hold up everybody else (Mayo farmer with 7km tailback at 20kph as an example), there's no onus on anybody travelling e.g. 20kph in a 30kph zone to move over and let slower traffic through.

It's not about letting slower traffic through. It is about letting faster traffic (bikes in urban areas) through.

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Would you expect cars in this situation to move over to make room for you if you were in another car? Why would you expect this on a bike.

Because they should know that the bike can generally continue to make progress, filtering past cars, whereas cars can't.

Wishbone Ash

RainyDay wrote: »

- can I expect cars to move over to make room for me?

Unless they have encroached into a cycle lane/track, I wouldn't expect any motorist to move over. You should simply overtake them if it is safe to do so. We can't be calling for equality on the roads and also looking for special treatment when it suits us.

(It's a bit different on the open road - e.g. on a long descent where I would expect slower moving motorists not to deliberately move to the right to impede my overtake as has happened a few times.)

mcgratheoin

RainyDay wrote: »

I'm not suggesting they are holding me up in these situations. My point is that they seem to think that I'm holding them up, when in reality, it is the other cars that are holding them up.

Fair enough - the original comment was about large groups on the open road though, where they can fairly easily be assumed to be holding up traffic. I rarely get cars overtaking me dangerously in urban areas as it's pretty clear I'm not holding them up (combination of the rest of the traffic plus me going fairly quickly).
Completely agree that only a numpty can drive in rush hour and still arrive at the conclusion that cyclists are what's holding up the traffic.

It's not about letting slower traffic through. It is about letting faster traffic (bikes in urban areas) through.

meant faster - that was a typo/mental fárt - I don't think there's the onus on anyone, who is themselves already being held up, to let faster traffic through. In my experience however, quite a percentage of cars will move over slightly in slow moving traffic to facilitate filtering if (and it's a big if) they see me coming up the side of the car.

Because they should know that the bike can generally continue to make progress, filtering past cars, whereas cars can't.

What Wishbone says - if cars are going that slowly, you should be able to overtake them fairly comfortably - your original point was comparing a line of slow moving cars to a large peleton in terms of group sizes and overtaking gaps - I don't think the comparison stands up when applying it to urban traffic.

DublinWriter

I'm not a cyclist, but I've been driving accident free for the past 25 years.

I've seen nothing but nuptyism on the roads in the past 18 months and its getting worse.

Was only talking to my father about it the other day - he's a bus and HGV driver with over 55 years experience driving and he's seriously considering getting rid of his car.

What irks me the most is that the RSA are doing sweet FA in terms of public awareness. There needs to be a public awareness campaign about safe-stopping distances as a matter of priority.

What's the point of a quango like the RSA if they are taking our money and effectively doing sweet FA?

Wishbone Ash

mcgratheoin wrote: »

.... In my experience however, quite a percentage of cars will move over slightly in slow moving traffic to facilitate filtering if (and it's a big if) they see me coming up the side of the car...

That would be my experience too - a small flashing front light helps during daylight hours.

cython

RainyDay wrote: »

can I expect cars to move over to make room for me?

Move over where? Cyclists are explicitly permitted to overtake on the left of vehicles, but they, and motorcyclists, are also permitted to overtake on the right, so there is in fact no clear place for cars to pull over to that will universally suit all cyclists. Better to occupy the centre of their lane, and let other road users through on either side than to close off one side.

RainyDay

DublinWriter wrote: »

I'm not a cyclist, but I've been driving accident free for the past 25 years.

I've seen nothing but nuptyism on the roads in the past 18 months and its getting worse.

Was only talking to my father about it the other day - he's a bus and HGV driver with over 55 years experience driving and he's seriously considering getting rid of his car.

What irks me the most is that the RSA are doing sweet FA in terms of public awareness. There needs to be a public awareness campaign about safe-stopping distances as a matter of priority.

What's the point of a quango like the RSA if they are taking our money and effectively doing sweet FA?

In all fairness, the death toll on the roads has halved over the last ten years. Now you can could have a very interesting debate about the direct cause of this, but in fairness the RSA deserve some credit for their role in this.

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Unless they have encroached into a cycle lane/track, I wouldn't expect any motorist to move over. You should simply overtake them if it is safe to do so. We can't be calling for equality on the roads and also looking for special treatment when it suits us.

That's exactly my point - its an equality issue. If there is to be a change in the law to require cyclists to break up groups or pull over to allow faster moving traffic to progress, the same obligations should apply to motorists in urban traffic.

mcgratheoin wrote: »

What Wishbone says - if cars are going that slowly, you should be able to overtake them fairly comfortably - your original point was comparing a line of slow moving cars to a large peleton in terms of group sizes and overtaking gaps - I don't think the comparison stands up when applying it to urban traffic.

Yes, I get cars moving out to make room on the inside sometimes too, especially when I have a flashing light on that catches the driver's eye - but it is more of the exception than the rule.

mcgratheoin wrote: »

What Wishbone says - if cars are going that slowly, you should be able to overtake them fairly comfortably - your original point was comparing a line of slow moving cars to a large peleton in terms of group sizes and overtaking gaps - I don't think the comparison stands up when applying it to urban traffic.

There may or may not be room to overtake. It's not unusual to have heavy oncoming traffic preventing overtakes.

Yes, I see that it's not an identical scenario - but the principle should be the same. If we are to change the law to require cyclists to make room for faster cars on the open road, an equivalent obligation should apply to motorists in urban traffic.

Wishbone Ash

RainyDay wrote: »

...There may or may not be room to overtake. It's not unusual to have heavy oncoming traffic preventing overtakes....

Are you saying that oncoming traffic may prevent overtaking (on the right) but you expect vehicles to move over to that same right side (where you say there is no room!) to allow you to overtake on the left?

RainyDay

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Are you saying that oncoming traffic may prevent overtaking (on the right) but you expect vehicles to move over to that same right side (where you say there is no room!) to allow you to overtake on the left?

No, I'm saying that motorists are often positioned inconsistently, one hugging the kerb, next one hugging the centre line, next one hugging the kerb.

I'm saying that IF the law is changed to bring in some general obligation for cyclists to move out of the way of motorists on open roads, I'd expect the same obligation to apply to motorists in urban traffic.

Wishbone Ash

RainyDay wrote: »

No, I'm saying that motorists are often positioned inconsistently, one hugging the kerb, next one hugging the centre line, next one hugging the kerb....

I see what you mean.

roverrules

RainyDay wrote: »

No, I'm saying that motorists are often positioned inconsistently, one hugging the kerb, next one hugging the centre line, next one hugging the kerb.

I'm saying that IF the law is changed to bring in some general obligation for cyclists to move out of the way of motorists on open roads, I'd expect the same obligation to apply to motorists in urban traffic.

When I am out in the car I will sometimes take the position to prevent people filtering up the inside when I'm turning left, likewise when I'm turning right I will position the car to the right to prevent overtaking on the right, I see it as no different to my taking the road position when out cycling.

kazamo

DublinWriter wrote: »

I'm not a cyclist, but I've been driving accident free for the past 25 years.

I've seen nothing but nuptyism on the roads in the past 18 months and its getting worse.

Was only talking to my father about it the other day - he's a bus and HGV driver with over 55 years experience driving and he's seriously considering getting rid of his car.

What irks me the most is that the RSA are doing sweet FA in terms of public awareness. There needs to be a public awareness campaign about safe-stopping distances as a matter of priority.

What's the point of a quango like the RSA if they are taking our money and effectively doing sweet FA?

Well said, couldn't agree more.
Another headache is tailgating which seems widespread now particularly late at night and as far as I remember the RSA had a TV advert about the two second rule ......it should be brought back

Borderfox

I have noticed the same regarding tailgating, I'm driving under the speed limit and people tear up behind me and then sit there waiting to overtake.

With regarding when on the bike, most drivers out around Dunshaughlin seem to be pretty good at giving me space, there is a couple of numpties but nothing bad

Qualitymark

roverrules wrote: »

When I am out in the car I will sometimes take the position to prevent people filtering up the inside when I'm turning left, likewise when I'm turning right I will position the car to the right to prevent overtaking on the right, I see it as no different to my taking the road position when out cycling.

I'd have to say that this sounds foolish to me. After all, cars are often sitting in a left-turn lane while the straight-ahead arrow is allowing traffic to go straight.

If you have blocked the left lane for cyclists, you are forcing them to drive between the stopped cars and the cars going straight ahead, which is a lot less safe than filtering up beside the stalled left-turn cars and going straight while the light is with them.

Macy0161

RainyDay wrote: »

In all fairness, the death toll on the roads has halved over the last ten years. Now you can could have a very interesting debate about the direct cause of this, but in fairness the RSA deserve some credit for their role in this.

Law changes, enforcement and improvements in the quality of the roads I would say have had more impact. Maybe you could argue they gave some focus for new laws, but they also push for inconsequential changes (e.g. the reduction in drink drive limit when most were multiples of the old limit).

Qualitymark

Maybe, but Gay Byrne especially was a valuable head of the RSA, pushing the road safety and sanity message relentlessly.

Macy0161

Qualitymark wrote: »

Maybe, but Gay Byrne especially was a valuable head of the RSA, pushing the road safety and sanity message relentlessly.

Not sure I agree with that tbh. Particularly bad to whether it's been effective and whether they focus on the right things/ behaviours.

Qualitymark

Macy0161 wrote: »

Not sure I agree with that tbh. Particularly bad to whether it's been effective and whether they focus on the right things/ behaviours.

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Look at Canada's 'Crotches kill' TV ads: rather than saying "Turn off your phone and your iPod and put them where you can't get at them every time you get into the car", they warn people not to text or feck around with their mp3 players while sitting in the car, even in traffic. Trouble with that is that everyone has one little exception, and that's the one that may kill them and others. Teaching road safety, like any other kind of safety, is a combination of simple rules and time spent hammering them in.

But the obsession with high visibility clothing and helmets, yes, it's looking at the wrong things. Are gardaí asking about the things you're actually legally required to have when cycling - a bell, a reflector, lights, working brakes?