Increase in Bad Driving

RainyDay

Macy0161 wrote: »

Law changes, enforcement and improvements in the quality of the roads I would say have had more impact.

That's the challenge of public policy - it is often impossible to attribute causes to change.

Qualitymark wrote: »

Teaching road safety, like any other kind of safety, is a combination of simple rules and time spent hammering them in.

Most of the time, the role of the RSA is not to 'teach'. Everybody knows it is illegal to use the phone when driving. The RSA is trying to change attitudes. And again, it is fairly impossible to work out whether they've been successful or not.

xebec

Qualitymark wrote: »

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.

But in your situation, when the left turning traffic light goes green you now have a bicycle stuck on the left of vehicles that are turning left which to me is more dangerous than taking the appropriate position in the straight-ahead lane - regardless of if there's a cycle lane or not. Obviously the cyclist may be able to clear the lane before this happens, but there is risk inherent in this.

Qualitymark

RainyDay wrote: »

Most of the time, the role of the RSA is not to 'teach'. Everybody knows it is illegal to use the phone when driving. The RSA is trying to change attitudes. And again, it is fairly impossible to work out whether they've been successful or not.

A friend who is very kind but rather regards herself as so sensible that silly laws don't apply to her, rapidly changed her behaviour after being caught and fined for using the mobile phone while driving.

But her lesson only lasted a couple of years; she's back at it now that the arrests have stopped.

xebec wrote: »

But in your situation, when the left turning traffic light goes green you now have a bicycle stuck on the left of vehicles that are turning left which to me is more dangerous than taking the appropriate position in the straight-ahead lane - regardless of if there's a cycle lane or not. Obviously the cyclist may be able to clear the lane before this happens, but there is risk inherent in this.

Actually I don't mind; if the lights change before I get to the front I just wait while the cars filter left and then go forward when the lane's empty, or if it doesn't empty, filter forward and enter the bike panel at the front of both lanes when the lights go red.

cdaly_

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.

Qualitymark wrote: »

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.

I agree with roverrules here. The correct thing for a cyclist to do in that situation is to occupy the straight ahead lane.

The big problem is when there is a right turn ahead so everybody moves left into the cycle lane because somebody ahead might be turning even though there's no room to undertake them anyway...

07Lapierre

Qualitymark wrote: »

A friend who is very kind but rather regards herself as so sensible that silly laws don't apply to her, rapidly changed her behaviour after being caught and fined for using the mobile phone while driving.

But her lesson only lasted a couple of years; she's back at it now that the arrests have stopped.



Actually I don't mind; if the lights change before I get to the front I just wait while the cars filter left and then go forward when the lane's empty, or if it doesn't empty, filter forward and enter the bike panel at the front of both lanes when the lights go red.

I'm too impatient to wait...

When Cycling..If I approach a junction which has two lanes (left lane for turning left, right lane for straight on) and I'm not turning left, I usually cycle in the middle of the left lane (if there is a line of cars in the right lane).

If there is a queue of cars in the right lane (or If there is moving traffic in both lanes), I will cycle in the middle of the left lane and then move to the right when I reach the traffic lights. I will cycle "at pace" so I don't hold up cars needlessly.

if there is a queue of cars in the left lane, I will cycle on the left side of the right hand lane.

I'm not sure of the legalities of this, but it works for me.

Fian

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 have to admit it irritates me when i see drivers deliberately "block" cyclists from filtering past them when waiting to turn left at junctions.

Cyclists are entitled to filter. If a car is stopped at traffic lights i think the correct thing to do is to leave space for cyclists to filter past and wait to execute the left turn until they have pulled away, rather than trying to block them from filtering past. If the lights are green an indicator for turning left should be sufficient and if the car is moving it is unlikely a cyclist will be able to undertake even if they wanted to.

I know there will possibly still be some kamikazes that might try and undertake anyway so there are some situations when taking the lane in a car might be sensible - but only if the lights are green and traffic is moving more quickly than cyclists who might want to filter past - otherwise let them filter and wait until you are clear to turn.

cython

Qualitymark wrote: »

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.

xebec wrote: »

But in your situation, when the left turning traffic light goes green you now have a bicycle stuck on the left of vehicles that are turning left which to me is more dangerous than taking the appropriate position in the straight-ahead lane - regardless of if there's a cycle lane or not. Obviously the cyclist may be able to clear the lane before this happens, but there is risk inherent in this.

Qualitymark wrote: »

Actually I don't mind; if the lights change before I get to the front I just wait while the cars filter left and then go forward when the lane's empty, or if it doesn't empty, filter forward and enter the bike panel at the front of both lanes when the lights go red.

So this works for you, but for plenty of other people who do not want to be marginalised as cyclists (and by electing to stop and wait like this you are choosing to marginalise yourself), it is bad advice.

As both a cyclist and a motorist, I can see both sides of it. Cyclists are permitted to filter on the left unless the vehicle is indicating to turn left, and there is a reasonable expectation that the vehicle will turn before the cyclist has passed the vehicle. This is a nice ideal, but in reality there are plenty of cyclists (note, not all, and indeed far from it) who will readily gloss over everything after "unless" in the above sentence, and thus hugging the kerb to prevent them coming up that side (assuming there is no cycle lane being obstructed) is a form of defensive driving.

If the cars all pulled left and hugged the kerb, then there would be plenty of empty space on the right hand side of all of them, and it would be no more unsafe than cycling along a street with cars parked, and indeed probably safer, as there is more of a chance of people opening doors to alight from parked cars than those stopped in traffic.

It is admittedly inconsiderate to cyclists wishing to turn left to prevent them from filtering, but to assert that driving to the left of the lane is automatically putting cyclists in danger is not accurate, IMHO, and filtering on the left hand side of a left turn lane to proceed straight is a bad idea and a bad habit as a cyclist.

Chips Lovell

Also, entitlement =/= right of way.

Qualitymark

The trouble is that going into the straight-ahead lane when there's a row of probably-turning-left-but-sure-let's-wait-and-see-since-they're-not-signalling-anyway cars in the left lane can be a bit dangerous.

The reason is that drivers *expect* to see cyclists on the far left of the road. Cyclists between two rows of cars are a) not seen or b) viewed as "weaving through traffic".

07Lapierre

Qualitymark wrote: »

The trouble is that going into the straight-ahead lane when there's a row of probably-turning-left-but-sure-let's-wait-and-see-since-they're-not-signalling-anyway cars in the left lane can be a bit dangerous.

The reason is that drivers *expect* to see cyclists on the far left of the road. Cyclists between two rows of cars are a) not seen or b) viewed as "weaving through traffic".

Which is why, you have to "Proceed with caution". Cars can only swap lanes when the lines of traffic are moving. Once the cars are stopped, all you have to worry about is car doors opening, Motor cyclists, pedestrians, etc. etc.

Chips Lovell

In stationary or slow moving traffic, the safest place to be is behind the bumper of the car in front of you. I'd join the queue at the back and only overtake stationary cars if there's a chance of making progress, i.e. if it means you may not make it through on the next sequence of lights staying where you are.

CramCycle

RainyDay wrote: »

Most of the time, the role of the RSA is not to 'teach'. Everybody knows it is illegal to use the phone when driving. The RSA is trying to change attitudes. And again, it is fairly impossible to work out whether they've been successful or not.

They haven't

roverrules

Qualitymark wrote: »

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.

Nothing foolish about it, if I'm in my car turning left in a left hand signed turn I do not expect cyclists to be on my left going straight ahead when they are supposed to be turning left, therefore I will position myself so that they HAVE to think before overtaking on the left, similarly if the road and traffic conditions dictate it I will keep well to the right when turning right.

If we cyclists want to be treated as traffic we'd be better behaving as traffic where circumstances dictate

Unknown Soldier

Qualitymark wrote: »

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.

They are not being forced to do anything. What is "forcing" them?

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

In stationary or slow moving traffic, the safest place to be is behind the bumper of the car in front of you. I'd join the queue at the back and only overtake stationary cars if there's a chance of making progress, i.e. if it means you may not make it through on the next sequence of lights staying where you are.

^^This.

Always make sure you are safe.


If you are commuting to work, really? risk anything for work?


Work?

schemingbohemia

Scary example of driver only looking for cars and not cyclists/motorcyclists here

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/watch-scary-moment-car-collides-6814315

Cyclist should have called Garda to my mind.

youtheman

Cyclist should have called Garda to my mind. !!!

Why ?. I can't understand the Irish fixation with calling the Gardaí for every accident or incident on the road. What is unique about this one is that both parties showed a remarkable willingness to be calm and resolve the situation amicably. No need for the Gardaí.

Weepsie

I'm in two minds about that one and think both were careless. The junction is further ahead at the lights, the cyclist the car has started their own turn as the cyclist clears the truck which I think is why both cyclist and car proceed without ensuring the way is clear 100%.

They obviously exchanged details, and it was hopefully properly sorted, but its stuff like this where extra caution needs to be taken when passing busses/vans/hgvs etc at junctions. Neither seemed to here, though the driver did have time to stop I imagine

Macy0161

youtheman wrote: »

Why ?. I can't understand the Irish fixation with calling the Gardaí for every accident or incident on the road.

It's a legal requirement to report it, isn't it?

Beasty

Macy0161 wrote: »

It's a legal requirement to report it, isn't it?

As there was injury, yes

el tel

Never mind who is wright and wrong from a strict ROTR point of view, the cyclist in my opinion is the most culpable person in this situation and was putting himself into a danger he should have appreciated beforehand.

Put it this way, I (and probably most of us) could easily be the driver of the car in this situation, but I'd never be that cyclist.

onmebike

I'd tend to agree. I cycle quite defensively and at that sort of junction, I'll always ease off/slow down until I've made eye contact with the driver and know that they've seen me.

I saw an incident near my house where there was a very slow moving queue of traffic outside a housing estate. A cyclist was passing the queue on the right (along the white line) and a car turned right into the estate and he hit the side of the car, mid-turn. He started calling the driver a stupid b*ch and all the rest until I pointed out to him that she had been indicating into the estate. I know that indicating doesn't give you right of way, but the driver didn't have any chance of seeing him the cyclist in his less than orthodox road position.

Kaisr Sose

^^^Is it not mirror, indicate, mirror, manoeuvre?

As a driver and cyclist, I would always do the double take before turning right .... The tradesman rule of measure twice, cut once also backs up check before proceeding to do something you can't undo...

That said, cycling up on the right past stationary traffic requires the cyclist to be very very aware of where they are vis a vis other traffic and other junctions.

Sam Kade

The latest craze is when you're turning left off a main road and the car coming in the opposite direction is also turning onto the same road. They will wait until you are almost ready to turn and then start driving across the main road while you are still turning. One person starts it and before you know it everyone is doing it. A clown almost drove straight in front of my car while turning a few days back.

RainyDay

onmebike wrote: »

I'd tend to agree. I cycle quite defensively and at that sort of junction, I'll always ease off/slow down until I've made eye contact with the driver and know that they've seen me.

I saw an incident near my house where there was a very slow moving queue of traffic outside a housing estate. A cyclist was passing the queue on the right (along the white line) and a car turned right into the estate and he hit the side of the car, mid-turn. He started calling the driver a stupid b*ch and all the rest until I pointed out to him that she had been indicating into the estate. I know that indicating doesn't give you right of way, but the driver didn't have any chance of seeing him the cyclist in his less than orthodox road position.

So if she had taken down and possibly killed a motor cyclist by turning without looking, you'd have put all the blame on the motor cyclist too?

RainyDay

el tel wrote: »

Put it this way, I (and probably most of us) could easily be the driver of the car in this situation

Speak for yourself.

onmebike

RainyDay wrote: »

So if she had taken down and possibly killed a motor cyclist by turning without looking, you'd have put all the blame on the motor cyclist too?

Probably not all of the blame but a higher proportion of the blame. In this hypothetical scenario, the motorbike would have been passing a queue of cars on the wrong side of a white line. I neglected to mention a bit of a bend on this road which would have somewhat hindered a drivers wing mirror view of the motorbike. Either a pedal bike or a motorbike (or a car) doing this would be reckless, IMO.

schemingbohemia

onmebike wrote: »

Probably not all of the blame but a higher proportion of the blame. In this hypothetical scenario, the motorbike would have been passing a queue of cars on the wrong side of a white line. I neglected to mention a bit of a bend on this road which would have somewhat hindered a drivers wing mirror view of the motorbike. Either a pedal bike or a motorbike (or a car) doing this would be reckless, IMO.

But in the actual scenario that I linked to, the cyclist is in the correct lane for turning right ahead and the driver continues a manoeuvre into a blind section and knocks the cyclist over, if it had been a motorcyclist going at anything over 30km/h there could have been a death.

Fian

onmebike wrote: »

Probably not all of the blame but a higher proportion of the blame. In this hypothetical scenario, the motorbike would have been passing a queue of cars on the wrong side of a white line. I neglected to mention a bit of a bend on this road which would have somewhat hindered a drivers wing mirror view of the motorbike. Either a pedal bike or a motorbike (or a car) doing this would be reckless, IMO.

If a car is in a line of traffic indicating to turn right, and a cyclist comes outside the line of traffic overtaking him, despite his indicators being on, resulting in the bike colliding with a car that it was trying to overtake while the car was in the process of turning right, I blame the cyclist.

If a car or motorbike were overtaking in that manner I would also blame them.

CatFromHue

Does the cyclist have any lights?

It doesn't look like it anyway, or not any good lights.

Vincenzo Nibbly

CatFromHue wrote: »

Does the cyclist have any lights?

It doesn't look like it anyway, or not any good lights.

It's impossible to tell from the video, as the camera is not pointed at the bike.