Dangerous taxis in Dublin

Kaisr Sose

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

What makes you think that is safer?

The fact that cycling three abreast is not permitted or good practice is probably good enough reason.

Kaisr Sose

average_runner wrote: »

It be wrong for the cyclists to thump the car as its wrong for anyone to thump a cyclist

You cannot assault a car, but a motorist driving without due care and attention leading to personal injury of pedestrian or cyclist is no different to assault/using a vehicle as a weapon. There will only be one loser here in such encounters.

Garda cyclists are told to hit a car that is encroaching on their space (yes apparently it happens to them too — if motorists don't look, how do they know it's a Garda? In my book, it's about all you can do to alert a negligent / inconsiderate motorist at short notice. It usually has immediate effect of getting them to pull out.

I have no problem doing it and it has saved my skin on numerous times. I even made a statement to the Garda where I admitted doing so and once it was done in self defence they had no problem with it. Would the motorist be more pleased to have your blood, teeth etc on their car?

I find most taxis appaling when it come to unusual and sudden manoeuvres. Occasionally some do put hazards on, gradually slow , and pull in. Text book, courtesy!

Many Dublin Bus drivers are not great. I have had many instances of them passing me and immediately pulling into a stop. No courtesy shown. Overtaking to then stop in front of the vehicle they just passed = Crazy and disrespectful. They would not do it to a motor vehicle. Usual locations: Stop on O'Connell bridge going sth, Aunguer St after the DIT and along Merrion Sq, heading out of town. As for Dublin Bus drivers running red lights and then pulling in to collect a fare — I don't get it. It's not like they are in a hurry! They drive a bus, the same way they drive their cars.

At the end of the day, it's really a driver attitude thing - not what is been driven.

Chuchote

You can't assault a car, but it's scary to be in a car when a passing cyclist thumps the roof. Happened to me once when a passenger and my heart rate went through the same roof.

The grandmotherly saying that you'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar applies here too. If you want to tell a driver they've endangered your life, you're better to tap on the window and say it mildly. Less heartwarmingly heroic, but more effective. Most drivers aren't out to kill you, they just don't realise that they're coming too close.

Of course if you see someone consistently carving people up on your morning route, it's time for the headcam, and passing the driver to look straight into his eyes and tap the camera and point at the driver, á la Meet the Fockers.

Kaisr Sose

@Cuchette
When a car is about to dump you on the road , into the kerb or onto s pavement, politely having a word with a driver is the last thing on your mind. It's about preventing personal injury/ staying on the bike. So what if the motorist gets a fright-that's the whole point. Getting them to wake up, pay attention to their driving and others around them. If works most times too! Ultimately it's their poor driving that is causing their HR and that of vulnerable cyclists to soar! Unfortunately, these 'vulnerable' or 'easily scared' drivers can seriously injure or kill somebody that is more vulnerable and far easier to scare than them!

Tony EH

ted1 wrote: »

Definitely more dangerous as they stop erratically. Busses have actual bus stops to stop at, and regular cars don't stop if someone sticks out their thumb last second.
I've been hit by a taxi, and very nearly two other times that are worth mentioning as both times it was raining and the taxi quickly pulled in without looking to pick up a fare that suddenly decided to get a taxi

A few years ago I was cycling through Ranelagh, when out of the blue a taxi overtook me and pulled into the cycle lane to pick up a fare. I clipped his wing mirror with my handle bar and it broke off. It stopped bouncing down the road a few feet in front of the car and I picked it up, with the intention of bringing it back to the driver.

Said driver got out of his car (throwing his door open into further traffic trying to go around him) and started shouting at me, giving out dog's abuse.

I threw the wing mirror on the ground, silently gave him the finger and moved off. Anything else would have been pointless.

There are some people out there on our roads who have no thoughts in their heads as to their wrongful actions and the impact it has/may have on others. They go about their actions without a single care about caution and taxi drivers can be the absolute worst offenders in that regard.

I have taxi drivers in my family, so that's not an "all taxis are..." comment. But it remains an observation that they are a vehicle that requires special "looking out for" when you're on the road, more so than any other in my experience.

Chuchote

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

@Cuchette
When a car is about to dump you on the road , into the kerb or onto s pavement

Different, of course. I'm talking about the cyclists that chase down cars that passed too close and give them a big thump on the roof. I did that myself a few times in the distant past… wouldn't do it now.

But yes, if a driver is being ridiculously dangerous, a thump is in order. In fact, last time I thumped anything was when a bus passed me out on College Green and was coming closer and closer so that I was about to be turned into mincemeat between the side of the bus and the high wire-gridded hoarding.

Thump-thump-thump

No reaction.

Thump-thump-thump

I saw a couple of passengers peering out.

Thump-thump-thump

The bus juddered and veered suddenly to the right. I'd guess that the passengers had screamed at the driver, who pulled well away and sped ahead. He or she must have been in a dream not to have seen me when passing. Took a while to munch down my heart, which was thumping at the top of my throat.

2RockMountain

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

The fact that cycling three abreast is not permitted or good practice is probably good enough reason.

He said 'we don't cycle three abreast' - so he was talking about moving from two abreast to single file, making the group much longer, and therefore much harder for a driver to find a safe overtaking spot - and also more likely that the driver will try to squeeze through at an unsafe location.

Chuchote

2RockMountain wrote: »

He said 'we don't cycle three abreast' - so he was talking about moving from two abreast to single file, making the group much longer, and therefore much harder for a driver to find a safe overtaking spot - and also more likely that the driver will try to squeeze through at an unsafe location.

Surely the safe thing to do would be to split into single-file-in-threes, with a two-car-sized gap between each trio, so the car could pass out three, rest in the middle, pass out three, and so on?

Craigevans1985

2RockMountain wrote: »

He said 'we don't cycle three abreast' - so he was talking about moving from two abreast to single file, making the group much longer, and therefore much harder for a driver to find a safe overtaking spot - and also more likely that the driver will try to squeeze through at an unsafe location.

We're not the tour de france lads! My cycles could be with two or three friends, and even when you go on a club cycle there are different abilities so the group is spread out a long way. A car can pass a single bike without crossing over the white line in a lot of instances, I know not always)
When I say safer for them and us, I think of the country road, where people tend to overtake cyclists regardless of the white lines or line of sight that they should have to overtake a car. If you are two abreast and a car appears from the other direction coming towards said overtaking motorist, he will swerve to avoid the oncoming car, and that means into the cyclist.
If you are in a single, the car has more room to swerve in before you get hit, doesn't mean you never get hit, but it would be safer for me to be in that situation rather than having a second bike, or worse a third, next to me which reduces the room the car has to squeeze back in.
As I am the vulnerable person on the road and much more likely to suffer serious injury than anyone in a car then I can't rely on drivers obeying the rules, giving me time and space, waiting for the dotted white lines to overtake, etc etc, but as a driver I do. Just me.

Macy0161

Chuchote wrote: »

Surely the safe thing to do would be to split into single-file-in-threes, with a two-car-sized gap between each trio, so the car could pass out three, rest in the middle, pass out three, and so on?

Increasing the number of interactions, and increasing the time the car is on the other side of the road? Safest would be to stay in a group 2 a breast imo, and the motorist to wait for it to be safe to overtake.

If that's not workable, it's the size of the group that needs to be considered rather than two a breast v single file.

In most cases, a car is delayed seconds, at the extreme a couple of minutes (probably less than a traffic light sequence), behind a moving group. No need for motorists to be inpatient and no need for cyclists to feck up their group to potentially save a inconsequential amount of time.

Wishbone Ash

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

The fact that cycling three abreast is not permitted or good practice is probably good enough reason.

I meant the single file bit - not the three abreast bit.

2RockMountain

Chuchote wrote: »

Surely the safe thing to do would be to split into single-file-in-threes, with a two-car-sized gap between each trio, so the car could pass out three, rest in the middle, pass out three, and so on?

Not really. It's generally easier for a car to pass out one group than several groups. It's easier to pass one slow HGV than several slow vans.

Craigevans1985 wrote: »

A car can pass a single bike without crossing over the white line in a lot of instances, I know not always)
When I say safer for them and us, I think of the country road, where people tend to overtake cyclists regardless of the white lines or line of sight that they should have to overtake a car. If you are two abreast and a car appears from the other direction coming towards said overtaking motorist, he will swerve to avoid the oncoming car, and that means into the cyclist.
If you are in a single, the car has more room to swerve in before you get hit, doesn't mean you never get hit, but it would be safer for me to be in that situation rather than having a second bike, or worse a third, next to me which reduces the room the car has to squeeze back in.
As I am the vulnerable person on the road and much more likely to suffer serious injury than anyone in a car then I can't rely on drivers obeying the rules, giving me time and space, waiting for the dotted white lines to overtake, etc etc, but as a driver I do. Just me.

It would be a fine wide road to allow a car to pass a single cyclist leaving 1.5m passing space. If you have a group of three cyclists, the choice is to have a long group or a wide group. With a long group, it is harder to find a safe overtaking spot, just like passing a long HGV is harder than passing an ordinary car.

Craigevans1985

2RockMountain wrote: »

It would be a fine wide road to allow a car to pass a single cyclist leaving 1.5m passing space.

I did say "I know, not always" I feel safer in single file, that's me.

Trond

Funnily enough I dont mind taxis in bus lanes, i think they are more used to cyclists than your ordinary driver.

What I find disgraceful about taxis is the majority never seem to indicate when changing lanes. Westmoreland St in the mornings is particularly dangerous. Had 3 run ins with taxis there this month alone.

Kaisr Sose

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I meant the single file bit - not the three abreast bit.

Agh, ok!! Mis-read!

Pim Pictus

Rezident wrote: »

I really hope they bring in this 1.5m minimum passing distance, it feels like some taxis are deliberately passing very close to me to try and intimidate me.

I'm all for this rule in theory. I'd like to see it extend both ways though and for bikes not to be allowed cycle up the inside of a line of stopped or slow moving traffic unless there is 1.5 metres space to do so.

buffalo

Pim Pictus wrote: »

I'd like to see it extend both ways though and for bikes not to be allowed cycle up the inside of a line of stopped or slow moving traffic unless there is 1.5 metres space to do so.

Why? Would there be any requirement for all stopped traffic to leave 1.5m space at all times?

Macy0161

Pim Pictus wrote: »

I'm all for this rule in theory. I'd like to see it extend both ways though and for bikes not to be allowed cycle up the inside of a line of stopped or slow moving traffic unless there is 1.5 metres space to do so.

Just wondering for what logic? To slow down the progress? Would it apply to motorbikes and scooters that filter too?

Pim Pictus

buffalo wrote: »

Why? Would there be any requirement for all stopped traffic to leave 1.5m space at all times?

No, that would be impossible on most roads in towns and cities. Where possible after passing a cyclist I do keep right if I think they are going to be moving past again though.

However, if there is slow moving traffic it is inevitable that it will start moving faster than cyclists who are now often less than a foot away from moving traffic. It could be impossible for the cars they are along side to be suddenly 1.5 metres away. It's common sense to hang back to avoid this situation.

Pim Pictus

Macy0161 wrote: »

Just wondering for what logic? To slow down the progress? Would it apply to motorbikes and scooters that filter too?

Yes. Any motorbike passing on the inside is a fool and has a death wish anyway. I drive motorbikes and would never do it.

My logic is that it is safer to leave 1.5 metres so why wouldn't you if you can?

radia

Big difference in safety between a bike filtering up alongside stationary traffic at 15 mph and a car passing a cyclist at 40+ mph.

Pim Pictus

radia wrote: »

Big difference in safety between a bike filtering up alongside stationary traffic at 15 mph and a car passing a cyclist at 40+ mph.

So it's fine when traffic starts moving for cars to pass with the same distance once they're only going 20mph?

radia

No. When the bigger vehicle (car) is moving, there's a slipstream effect that adds danger. Slipstream from a moving bike is unnoticeable to a car (though even bike slipstream is noticeable to another cyclist).

Plus when the cyclist is the only one moving he/she has control over the passing distance and is very well placed to judge it, being right on the spot. When the car is moving, the cyclist cannot control the passing distance fully and the driver is probably sitting at the opposite side of the car rather than at the side where the passing is taking place, so there is more guesswork on their part about exactly how close the pass is. (Is that 5 cm or 10 cm?) It can feel pretty vulnerable.

Add to that the fact that a close pass can cause a cyclist - especially an inexperienced one - to wobble (either from slipstream or through alarm) so they're no longer where the driver thought they were, and you've a recipe for disaster.

Pim Pictus

radia wrote: »

No. When the bigger vehicle (car) is moving, there's a slipstream effect that adds danger. Slipstream from a moving bike is unnoticeable to a car (though even bike slipstream is noticeable to another cyclist).

Plus when the cyclist is the only one moving he/she has control over the passing distance and is very well placed to judge it, being right on the spot. When the car is moving, the cyclist cannot control the passing distance fully and the driver is probably sitting at the opposite side of the car rather than at the side where the passing is taking place, so there is more guesswork on their part about exactly how close the pass is. (Is that 5 cm or 10 cm?) It can feel pretty vulnerable.

All of that is besides the point I'm making though. If you travel up the inside of slow moving or stopped traffic you are creating an almost unavoidable situation where you will be passed very close by at least one car.

cdaly_

Pim Pictus wrote: »

All of that is besides the point I'm making though. If you travel up the inside of slow moving or stopped traffic you are creating an almost unavoidable situation where you will be passed very close by at least one car.

In this circumstance, once the cars start to move, I move out into the line of cars at the first opportunity until the speed is sufficient that normal overtaking behaviour should resume.

If that's not possible, I will hang back for a moment or two first...

magicbastarder

Trond wrote: »

Funnily enough I dont mind taxis in bus lanes

i do. why should i be allowed use the bus lane because i have paid a taxi driver to take me, if i'm not allowed use it myself?

Wishbone Ash

magicbastarder wrote: »

i do. why should i be allowed use the bus lane because i have paid a taxi driver to take me, if i'm not allowed use it myself?

Totally agree - why should someone who has decided to utilise a private form of transport be permitted to travel on lanes primarily designated for public transport?

Chuchote

Pim Pictus, the trouble with cars passing bikes at any speed is that our roads don't have very safe surfaces. If a car (1.5 to 2 tonnes without passengers or cargo) is passing me close at 30km/h, and I on my bike have to go to the right to avoid a pothole or a road drain or a slippery manhole cover or broken glass or a Coke Can, or… you know. If I have to move, the car will now hit me, and for a fragile human mixed with a bicycle frame to be crunched into by two tonnes of car is not a pretty thing.

On the other hand, if you're pulled up at traffic lights, it makes sense for me to filter along to your left and go to the front of the traffic, where I can be visible to the drivers as they move off.

The only time I'll break this rule is when the traffic includes large buses (especially tour buses, for instance) or trucks, whose bad design means that their drivers cannot see a cyclist to their left. If these are ahead, it's safer to hang back. Not just because I don't want to be killed, either; a trucker told me when I was hitching to Europe some years back that a friend of his, a self-employed truck owner, had wiped out a family while racing for the ferry; he became insane and later took his own life.

We all use the road in the way that's safest for ourselves and for others. Ar scaith a chéile…

2RockMountain

Pim Pictus wrote: »

I'm all for this rule in theory. I'd like to see it extend both ways though and for bikes not to be allowed cycle up the inside of a line of stopped or slow moving traffic unless there is 1.5 metres space to do so.

Why? What's the basis for this tit-for-tat? Should the same apply to cars over-taking cars, who should now be required to predict what is going to happen at the next junction?

Pim Pictus wrote: »

My logic is that it is safer to leave 1.5 metres so why wouldn't you if you can?

It's safer to wear a helmet while driving, so why wouldn't you if you can?

Pim Pictus wrote: »

All of that is besides the point I'm making though. If you travel up the inside of slow moving or stopped traffic you are creating an almost unavoidable situation where you will be passed very close by at least one car.

Unless you have a crystal ball, you don't know who is going to be going in what direction at the next junction.

the boss of me

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Totally agree - why should someone who has decided to utilise a private form of transport be permitted to travel on lanes primarily designated for public transport?

Taxis are not a private form of transport. They are public transport.. That's what the p in PSV stands for. As many bus lane's are under utilized it makes sense to allow taxis use them.