Drivers Swerving at Cyclists

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

hytrogen wrote: »

Ray Palmer wrote:

Is it just me? What should you do in the situation or immediately afterwards?

Stop and say "sorry" followed by a polite "are you ok?" Would reduce the insinuation to cause further road rage later on from your abusive shouting probably, as it sounds like it your initial reaction caused a domino effect to create road rage for another cyclist later on.
And remember kids the laws on helmcams, you still need written consent of the photographed or videoed person before presenting for legal processing

Wtf are you talking about? What law is this? Sounds like freeman bs to me. Anyway, can you link the law?

Also, victim blaming. What's the cyclist to say sorry for? He had the right of way. He shouted at the that in the car who completely over reacted. We need to eradicate your mentality on our roads.

Chuchote

Chuchote wrote: »

Kind of strange that a garda doesn't know that cyclists are a legal part of bus lane traffic. Was this really a garda?

Only a Garda thinks flashing a badge makes them WIN a argument they are losing.
The way he drove at that cyclist, he should be charged.

Chuchote

Deedsie wrote: »

Is that really your best example of entrapment? Strange comment and sounds like BS. The Fenians targeted several British institutions, military, police, House of Commons etc. They were not tricked into doing it. It was a targeted campaign.

Two were arrested for blowing up the commons chamber.

Yes, plenty of Fenians blew things up. Felon-setting was also heavily used by the British to entrap Fenian cells.

07Lapierre

magicbastarder wrote: »

i have heard several theories about the law relating to cameras/CCTV.
one was a colleague who installed a home security system, and a neighbour warned him that without CCTV warning signs, it would be considered entrapment to record someone breaking into his house.

:eek: I seriously doubt that.

tomasrojo

The act of government agents or officials that induces a person to commit a crime he or she is not previously disposed to commit.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/entrapment

Capturing someone on video in the act doesn't meet this definition, as far as I can see. You'd have to have lured them into doing the act; the mere act of having a house isn't a lure.

magicbastarder

yep, as mentioned, it was just an example of the sort of theory that gains legs, rather than one being rooted in fact.

this is from the DPC site, and is obviously relevant to the requirement to put up signs, mentioned by Wishbone Ash:
"Covert surveillance.

The use of recording mechanisms to obtain data without an individual's knowledge is generally unlawful. Covert surveillance is normally only permitted on a case by case basis where the data are kept for the purposes of preventing, detecting or investigating offences, or apprehending or prosecuting offenders. This provision automatically implies that a written specific policy be put in place detailing the purpose, justification, procedure, measures and safeguards that will be implemented with the final objective being, an actual involvement of An Garda Síochána or other prosecution authorities for potential criminal investigation or civil legal proceedings being issued, arising as a consequence of an alleged committal of a criminal offence(s).

Covert surveillance must be focused and of short duration. Only specific (and relevant) individuals/locations should be recorded. If no evidence is obtained within a reasonable period, the surveillance should cease."

Alanstrainor

I have this happen from time to time. Or you have the ones that will pull into the cycle lane to block it, and when you pass on the outside will move out. I try to just ignore and move on to be honest.

magicbastarder

weirdest one i had with a driver taking an odd line on me was when i took primary position entering a single lane roundabout (i was taking a right out of the roundabout, i.e. entering at 6 o'clock position, leaving at 3).
a taxi behind me decided to overtake me, but swung around to my left, and undertook me - which was kinda alarming as i didn't know where he was going to exit; and he pretty much forced me to near the kerb on the roundabout itself. he took the same exit as me, which was an incredibly risky thing to do, but he'd passed me by the time he exited.

Chuchote

Deedsie wrote: »

Oh I don't argue that the IRB were infiltrated by the British but there is zero evidence to suggest entrapment.

The IRB targeted the British police, military and government aiming to achieve a democratic Irish Republic. Referring to them incorrectly as "idiots" who were entrapped is provocative and unnecessary in a cycling forum on an Irish website.

My own personal opinion. Those who think highly of the Fenians may freely express their opinions too.

seamus

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I'm not sure if it differs from a domestic situation but at work, we are required to have signage in place indicating that CCTV is in operation. During a regulatory inspection a few years ago, it was pointed out that one of the signs was absent and we were required to replace it immediately.

That's really for the employees, not any intruders. There's an assumed level of privacy in a private workplace such that any change to that level of privacy (like CCTV) must be clearly notified to staff and visitors. Intruders, not so much.

There's a lot of urban legend and mis/disinformation about the use of cameras.

On the topic of the OP, I'm sure I have over time been subject to "punishment passes" or people thinking they were intimidating me. Thankfully headphones turns a shouty passenger's nonsense into unintelligible nonsense and a little wave or a blown kiss is adequate response.

While riding a club TT once I did get clipped by a trailer behind a landrover. Literally clipped the edge of my foot - didn't even wobble, but at 40kmh in the aero position you don't want anything hitting you. But as there was no obvious swerve by that driver nor any shouting or anything, I can only assume he was a gormless moron rather than someone trying to punish me.

The only one that stands out was a girl in a Mini who for some reason had an absolute aversion to being overtaken by a bike. Heavy morning traffic, so everything moving slowly. As I came up the left, she pulled in to block me, so I went around behind her, passed on the right and up to the lights. The line of traffic overtakes me after the lights and at the next set of lights I'm overtaking on the right and this same girl again, 6 or 7 cars back from the lights swerves right, leaving her car sitting diagonally in the traffic and with her nose over the white line. As I go past her anyway, I can see she's literally bouncing up and down in the car with rage and screaming at me.

I wouldn't mind if I'd kicked off her wing mirror or spat on her window or something, but we had literally no interaction at all until she tried to block me.

People are fncking weird, man.

magicbastarder

seamus wrote: »

As I go passed her anyway, I can see she's literally bouncing up and down in the car with rage and screaming at me.

you mentioned you wear headphones - maybe you mistook what she was saying, and that she actually wanted your number?

2RockMountain

magicbastarder wrote: »

i have heard several theories about the law relating to cameras/CCTV.
one was a colleague who installed a home security system, and a neighbour warned him that without CCTV warning signs, it would be considered entrapment to record someone breaking into his house.

The recent Rynes judgement raises some interesting issues for CCTV operators. The householder who installed the CCTV in this case lost a case to the gurrier who he caught on camera attacking his house!

http://www.irelandip.com/2014/12/articles/privacy-1/cjeu-restricts-use-of-cctv-surveillance-for-domestic-purposes/

A literal interpretation of this ruling could make any helmetcam, dashcam or indeed taking of any photo in a public place illegal. There has been no rush by DP authorities to apply this ruling beyond CCTV.

magicbastarder

the main caveat to note with that was that he'd put the footage up on a public website.
plus, you just need to make sure the camera is covering your property only.

mrcheez

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Does anything actual happen? Dual cam helmet ordered and the old camera is going on the new bike

Certainly does, but here's a tip: Get a picture of the driver's face.

I recently had a report with the Gardai where some kids through a stone at me as they passed. I had it on video and had the car reg.

Kid was called in, but they couldn't prove he was driving the car at the time as the father stepped in and said he was driving.

So since they couldn't prove who was driving they couldn't prosecute. I was told that if I had gotten his face on the camera, it would have 100% gone to court.

The guards also complimented me on the footage and said it was immensely helpful to have.

07Lapierre

magicbastarder wrote: »

the main caveat to note with that was that he'd put the footage up on a public website.
plus, you just need to make sure the camera is covering your property only.

I know were going way off topic..but I do think the law is a Ass when it comes to CCTV in public places.

http://www.independent.ie/business/farming/villagers-fight-crime-with-cctv-34658118.html

Fian

seamus wrote: »

The only one that stands out was a girl in a Mini who for some reason had an absolute aversion to being overtaken by a bike. Heavy morning traffic, so everything moving slowly. As I came up the left, she pulled in to block me, so I went around behind her, passed on the right and up to the lights. The line of traffic overtakes me after the lights and at the next set of lights I'm overtaking on the right and this same girl again, 6 or 7 cars back from the lights swerves right, leaving her car sitting diagonally in the traffic and with her nose over the white line. As I go past her anyway, I can see she's literally bouncing up and down in the car with rage and screaming at me.

I wouldn't mind if I'd kicked off her wing mirror or spat on her window or something, but we had literally no interaction at all until she tried to block me.

People are fncking weird, man.

I normally put this down to irritation at having to pass the cyclist again before the next set of traffic lights. See a fair bit of it on the road from the yellow house to nutgrove shopping centre. The road is a pita, very narrow, so a bike does actually impede cars in their rush to queue at the next set of lights. Of course it doesn't actually increase their overall travel time since they are only racing to the back of the next traffic light queue. There is an absolutely useless off road "cycle track" on that stretch as well, but it is really not usable. Adds to driver frustration though since they think the bikes are just being obnoxious by not using it. Fair amount of cycle traffic there too because it is the obvious route to the mountains or to Firhouse.

Drivers are frustrated in the traffic there though, and they often pull in tight to the curb to try to stop cyclists filtering past them. Which of course only results in them being passed on the right.

I often go an alternative route (Templeogue road), especially on my way home at weekends when i am tired, rather than deal with the hassle along that stretch of road.

Unknown Soldier

Darkglasses wrote: »

Is it this one? https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mobius-1080P-Action-Camera-Recorder/dp/B00FQFO1O0

Yes. I think it is at V3 now too.

I use JooVuu though, or the one in the states, that had the rubber cover for it.

Tiny yoke, and you could carry a spare for longer spins too.

For size..

mickdw

Cyclists are in the happy position of being able to identify car drivers who endanger them.
Now when a cyclist filters through traffic and scratches a car, the car driver is left sitting like a fool with no recourse while the cyclist pedals off into the distance.
Is it any wonder drivers get alittle annoyed with the cyclist zooming up beside them continually.
I figure we should have equality on the road - Im sure we are all in favour of that.

I would reasonably therefore expect cyclists to be required to have 3rd party insurance, A registration, attached to the person, not the bike, reg plate sized on the back of a hi viz vest would be excellent. I would also suggest that perhaps licensing should be brought in to ensure that cyclists were at the required standards to travel on the public road.

When all is equal in terms of liability, ability to be identified, ability to pay via insurance and road training, I feel all road users would get on much better.

smacl

mickdw wrote: »

Cyclists are in the happy position of being able to identify car drivers who endanger them.
Now when a cyclist filters through traffic and scratches a car, the car driver is left sitting like a fool with no recourse while the cyclist pedals off into the distance.

Don't see too many drivers in hospital after they got brushed by a bike though do you?

seamus

Yeah....no.

It is not "any wonder" why drivers get annoyed by cyclists overtaking them. Cyclists aren't colliding with cars and scratching them all over the place and cycling off.

It's mostly just frustration - "I'm sitting here and I really want to move and this petulant little ****er is just cruising on past me. How dare he!"

"Equality on the road" is an interesting question. Strictly speaking, no, we should not have equality on the road, because all vehicles are not equal. The larger the vehicle, the higher the required standard the operator should be held to.

Johnny Jukebox

mickdw wrote: »

I would reasonably therefore expect cyclists to be required to have 3rd party insurance, A registration, attached to the person, not the bike, reg plate sized on the back of a hi viz vest would be excellent. I would also suggest that perhaps licensing should be brought in to ensure that cyclists were at the required standards to travel on the public road.

When all is equal in terms of liability, ability to be identified, ability to pay via insurance and road training, I feel all road users would get on much better.

Hey mickdw, here is why motorised vehicles are required to have insurance.

http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=16418&Lang=1

Its to pay for the dead and injured.

flatface

mickdw wrote: »

Cyclists are in the happy position of being able to identify car drivers who endanger them.
Now when a cyclist filters through traffic and scratches a car, the car driver is left sitting like a fool with no recourse while the cyclist pedals off into the distance.
Is it any wonder drivers get alittle annoyed with the cyclist zooming up beside them continually.
I figure we should have equality on the road - Im sure we are all in favour of that.

I would reasonably therefore expect cyclists to be required to have 3rd party insurance, A registration, attached to the person, not the bike, reg plate sized on the back of a hi viz vest would be excellent. I would also suggest that perhaps licensing should be brought in to ensure that cyclists were at the required standards to travel on the public road.

When all is equal in terms of liability, ability to be identified, ability to pay via insurance and road training, I feel all road users would get on much better.

Has this actually ever happened to you or is it hypothetical? Real story:
I once did a big wobble on bad surface when filtering and took a car mirror off. we stopped, I apologised, gave my number and sorted her out for a new one.

I would imagine you have more scratches on your car from car doors in car parks than bikes filtering.

And of course you are comparing cyclist physically being endangered to drivers worry about their car being scratched - looking for equality?

check_six

mickdw wrote: »

Cyclists are in the happy position of being able to identify car drivers who endanger them.

Really? They are inside the cabin of their car mainly obscured by the roof of their car from a cyclist's view. It's quite easy to identify someone on a bike. You can see their face.

Here's an example from all of four posts back where the cyclist has actual footage of the assault:

mrcheez wrote: »

I recently had a report with the Gardai where some kids through a stone at me as they passed. I had it on video and had the car reg.

Kid was called in, but they couldn't prove he was driving the car at the time as the father stepped in and said he was driving.

So since they couldn't prove who was driving they couldn't prosecute. I was told that if I had gotten his face on the camera, it would have 100% gone to court.

Ray Palmer

hytrogen wrote: »

Stop and say "sorry" followed by a polite "are you ok?" Would reduce the insinuation to cause further road rage later on from your abusive shouting probably, as it sounds like it your initial reaction caused a domino effect to create road rage for another cyclist later on.
And remember kids the laws on helmcams, you still need written consent of the photographed or videoed person before presenting for legal processing

Where did you get I was abusive? I shouted out so he wouldn't hit me because he didn't notice me. Are you suggesting I should just have let him hit me for fear of causing him offense?
It really doesn't matter who is right or wrong the behaviour afterwards is the problem. He wouldn't threaten a car like that.
You are wrong about filming in public. That would suggest CCTV footage would be no use in courts and that is clearly not the case.

mickdw

smacl wrote: »

Don't see too many drivers in hospital after they got brushed by a bike though do you?

So cyclists place no value on property damage. Interesting to know

seamus wrote: »

Yeah....no.

It is not "any wonder" why drivers get annoyed by cyclists overtaking them. Cyclists aren't colliding with cars and scratching them all over the place and cycling off.

It's mostly just frustration - "I'm sitting here and I really want to move and this petulant little ****er is just cruising on past me. How dare he!"

"Equality on the road" is an interesting question. Strictly speaking, no, we should not have equality on the road, because all vehicles are not equal. The larger the vehicle, the higher the required standard the operator should be held to.

You have a point but on the other side of that, the cyclist is very exposed on the road so surely should be trained to a standard that reflects that. We have a high standard of motorcycle training for years, compulsary learning imposed years ahead of car drivers. After all, all drivers will attempt to avoid hitting a person in emergency so the dodgy cyclist could result in a HGV ploughing into others.

Johnny Jukebox wrote: »

Hey mickdw, here is why motorised vehicles are required to have insurance.

http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=16418&Lang=1

Its to pay for the dead and injured.

That is just idiotic but again shows total arrogance from the cyclist. Cyclists it appears are not liable for anything on the road - full stop.
If someone is sitting in their car and it costs them 1500 to repair after careless damage by a cyclist, are you arguing that the motorist is not reasonably entitled to have his costs met?

Yawns

LpPepper wrote: »

I had 2 cars purposely close pass myself and my dad while out on a spin last week - and had another driver shout abuse for not being in an off road cycle lane, while we were cycling in the bus lane. The Audi in the video very nearly hit me...feel like reporting to the Gardaí but not sure if anything will be done about it.

https://youtu.be/7dCt3DgFh0k

Not condoning the motorists behavior there in any way shape or form but you certainly could have used the cycle lane. It runs the length of that stretch of road. There's no obstructions along the cycle lane and a path for pedestrians beside it. No excuse for not using it such as it's a bad cycle lane filled with pot holes. It's a smooth well maintained lane with no holes.

The bus lane has been a suspended bus lane for over a year now with signs dotted along regularly so that lane is a driving lane with the other being an overtaking lane.

The motorists were dicks but I still think you could have avoided the situation as well.

Chips Lovell

Mickdw banned after ignoring mod instruction last week that this wasn't the forum for ranting about cyclists.

No need to respond to his posts any further.

Thanks.

seamus

Yawns wrote: »

Not condoning the motorists behavior there in any way shape or form but you certainly could have used the cycle lane. It runs the length of that stretch of road. There's no obstructions along the cycle lane and a path for pedestrians beside it. No excuse for not using it such as it's a bad cycle lane filled with pot holes.

More victim blaming. There is no requirement to use it. They don't need an "excuse" to not use it, they cannot be criticised for not using it. They were not holding up or obstructing traffic.

There is no excuse for the behaviour of that car.

CramCycle

mrcheez wrote: »

Certainly does, but here's a tip: Get a picture of the driver's face.

I recently had a report with the Gardai where some kids through a stone at me as they passed. I had it on video and had the car reg.

Kid was called in, but they couldn't prove he was driving the car at the time as the father stepped in and said he was driving.

So since they couldn't prove who was driving they couldn't prosecute. I was told that if I had gotten his face on the camera, it would have 100% gone to court.

The guards also complimented me on the footage and said it was immensely helpful to have.

Dad said he was driving, surely that puts the onus on him? I have heard of this issue before, but if you can ID all potential drivers and you can ID the insured child of the driver.

I fail to see the issue, charge the father, job done, see how long he steps up for.

check_six

CramCycle wrote: »

Dad said he was driving, surely that puts the onus on him? I have heard of this issue before, but if you can ID all potential drivers and you can ID the insured child of the driver.

I fail to see the issue, charge the father, job done, see how long he steps up for.

I'd say that this seems entirely logical. However, I'm thinking there could have been a statement like: 'I can't recall who was driving the car that day, but it wasn't *insert name everyone of that it could be*.' I don't think that is acceptable, but I have a feeling that people will chance their arms on stuff like this.