Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Drivers Swerving at Cyclists

Options
1356

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Yawns
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭Yawns


    seamus wrote: »
    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.

    The number reason cyclists give for not using a cycle lane is it's not fit for purpose. Not blaming the cyclist here, as I said the motorists were idiots. However if I am out cycling, then if an opportunity to use a fit for purpose cycle lane exists and keeps me away from idiotic motorists, I'd be a fool to ignore it and choose to cycle in with the traffic wouldn't I?

    Cyclist need to engage their brains just like every other road user. They are weak and vulnerable and like I said, if an opportunity arises to use a fit for purpose cycle lane such as in that video clip, then a fool would ignore it. Why increase the risk to yourself? Common sense is lost on both sides of the argument between cyclist & motorists.

    You're not much better yourself. An criticism at a cyclist and you must leap to their defense. It's possible for all road users to share the roads but unfortunately we all need common sense to do it peacefully.


  • Options
    #63
    mrcheez
    Registered Users Posts: 13,779 ✭✭✭✭mrcheez


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

    I guess if you don't have 100% proof of who the driver was you can't prosecute.


  • Options
    #64
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,618 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Yawns wrote: »
    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.
    which drops you back onto the road on the inside of left turning traffic at the next junction. which is idiotic design.


  • Options
    #65
    AlreadyHome
    Registered Users Posts: 136 ✭✭AlreadyHome


    Fian wrote: »
    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.

    I head out to the mountains via this road as well and frequently get abuse from drivers for not using the cycle track. This is the cycle track that disappears without warning twice, runs over raised kerbs, crosses bus stops, has cars parked on it, swings on and off the road and is frequented by pedestrians. Despite this I've had drivers shout at me, rev behind me and accelerate and then brake sharply behind me.

    On the plus side, I find myself properly warmed up by the time I arrive at the bottom of Cruagh...


  • Options
    #66
    Crocked
    Registered Users Posts: 543 ✭✭✭Crocked


    mrcheez wrote: »
    I guess if you don't have 100% proof of who the driver was you can't prosecute.

    But in this case the father said he was driving so there is no need for additional proof


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Yawns
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭Yawns


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    which drops you back onto the road on the inside of left turning traffic at the next junction. which is idiotic design.

    Nope, next junction is a roundabout which has it's own cycle lane as there's no immediate left hand turn. The next exit for motorists is 12 o clock position or 3 o clock for roadstone or 6 for back down the road you just came from. The next junction after that is a standard 4 way roundabout but it also has traffic lights and the cycle lanes end at each set of lights and begins again at next set. So the cyclist can dismount and cross using lights or choose to join traffic on the roadway with other road users as they see fit.

    Again the common sense safe approach would be cross using lights but I could see why people would use the road as it's much much quicker. However using the lane along the length of road from the clip is just as quick as no detours needed and by far safer as away from cars etc.


  • Options
    #68
    mrcheez
    Registered Users Posts: 13,779 ✭✭✭✭mrcheez


    Crocked wrote: »
    But in this case the father said he was driving so there is no need for additional proof

    That's what I would have thought, and the gardai that was dealing with it was trying to press that point as well, but the powers that be (who determine if a case goes forward) said "no, need visual on the driver".


  • Options
    #69
    buffalo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,081 ✭✭✭buffalo


    Yawns wrote: »
    I could see why people would use the road as it's much much quicker.

    Why are you trying to argue against using the road then? Are you saying if a cyclist wants to travel quickly, they have to sacrifice their personal safety?


  • Options
    #70
    Fian
    Registered Users Posts: 2,192 ✭✭✭Fian


    mrcheez wrote: »
    That's what I would have thought, and the gardai that was dealing with it was trying to press that point as well, but the powers that be (who determine if a case goes forward) said "no, need visual on the driver".

    They didn't charge the father because the cyclist knew it was a child who was driving. You can't prosecute someone for a crime they didn't commit just to prove a point.

    However they could prosecute the son and see if the father actually swears up that he was the driver, even if he did the court might prefer the evidence of the cyclist. Could also consider a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice charge and if the father did give false evidence a perjury charge.


  • Options
    #71
    mrcheez
    Registered Users Posts: 13,779 ✭✭✭✭mrcheez


    Fian wrote: »
    They didn't charge the father because the cyclist knew it was a child who was driving. You can't prosecute someone for a crime they didn't commit just to prove a point.

    However they could prosecute the son and see if the father actually swears up that he was the driver, even if he did the court might prefer the evidence of the cyclist. Could also consider a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice charge and if the father did give false evidence a perjury charge.

    Tbh if the incident had resulted in my injury I probably would have pursued it further, but I was actually quite happy they dragged the kid into the police station and consequently found he was an L driver driving unassisted, so they've added this latest incident to his rap sheet as well as driving on an L plate.
    (apparently he already has several other incidents on his record)

    Anyway point being, next time I'll make sure to get a visual on the driver.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,618 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Yawns wrote: »
    Nope, next junction is a roundabout which has it's own cycle lane as there's no immediate left hand turn. The next exit for motorists is 12 o clock position or 3 o clock for roadstone or 6 for back down the road you just came from. The next junction after that is a standard 4 way roundabout but it also has traffic lights and the cycle lanes end at each set of lights and begins again at next set. So the cyclist can dismount and cross using lights or choose to join traffic on the roadway with other road users as they see fit.

    Again the common sense safe approach would be cross using lights but I could see why people would use the road as it's much much quicker. However using the lane along the length of road from the clip is just as quick as no detours needed and by far safer as away from cars etc.
    just as the video ends, you can see the provision for a junction for left turning traffic (currently not in use, it's blocked off) where the road designer clearly intended to drop the cyclist back onto the road just at the point where traffic will be turning left across them. clearly the cycle lane was not designed with cyclist safety in mind.


  • Options
    #73
    2RockMountain
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,012 ✭✭✭2RockMountain


    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.
    Crocked wrote: »
    But in this case the father said he was driving so there is no need for additional proof

    It may well have turned out that the 'father driving' scenario conflicted with the statement given by the victim, so they wouldn't have been able to proceed a 50-something man for a crime reported to have been carried out by a 20-something.

    The 'driver unknown' scenario seems to be a huge loophole. There was a case in the UK earlier this year where a car hit a cyclist from behind, putting the cyclist in hospital for weeks - serious damage. The cyclist had a rear-camera and captured the car / reg number clearly. The registered driver claimed not to have been driving, and ended up with a £200 fine for not disclosing who was driving - outrageous, and shows exactly how fallible that 'must have registration/insurance' system that some want to extend to cyclists is.


  • Options
    #74
    Derry Road
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8 ✭Derry Road


    Are cyclists ever in the wrong?
    You wouldn't think so reading some of the posts on here.


  • Options
    #75
    Lumen
    Registered Users Posts: 31,084 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    Derry Road wrote: »
    Are cyclists ever in the wrong?
    You wouldn't think so reading some of the posts on here.

    Do coin tosses ever come up tails? You wouldn't think so from observing some of the outcomes.


  • Options
    #76
    ED E
    Registered Users Posts: 36,167 ✭✭✭✭ED E


    seamus wrote: »
    The larger the vehicle, the higher the required standard the operator should be held to.

    #DumbTruckDrivers


  • Options
    #77
    Yawns
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭Yawns


    buffalo wrote: »
    Why are you trying to argue against using the road then? Are you saying if a cyclist wants to travel quickly, they have to sacrifice their personal safety?

    In fact on the stretch the clip was on, it's just as quick and safer to use the cycle lane. Why pick 1 junction to try invalidate a whole argument?

    On the stretch of road in the clip, the junction for the lights is over 1km away. Why use the road. Actually why am I even trying to prove a point here at all. It's clear as day, the ones arguing my points don't know the road bar 1 person. The rest are just throwing out random what ifs and getting thank whores in on it.

    Stretch of road goes for well over 1k/m with a fully functioning fit for purpose cycle track which was well planned apart from the very first junction as someone pointed out. But if you look at the layout, the planners actually incorporated it quite well as they had to take into account citywest traffic, luas and tallaght bypass traffic.

    The road is a dual carriageway with the suspended bus lane and has a separate pedestrian path and a separate cycle lane with 0 hazards in the way. Common sense would dictate people use them for safety.

    Here's the googlemaps link of the road in question.

    https://goo.gl/maps/UU11e73UBTQ2

    I still stand by that the motorist was in the wrong and no excuse for his driving but cyclists still need to use common sense as well to use a fit for purpose cycle lane where it exists. If it's not fit for purpose then fine, it's prob safer to use the road. But if it's fit for purpose, not blocked, no hazards or obstructions, not crowded with pedestrians, dog walkers, joggers, parked cars, full of pot holes, then jesus christ use your head and use it.


  • Options
    #78
    Yawns
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭Yawns


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    just as the video ends, you can see the provision for a junction for left turning traffic (currently not in use, it's blocked off) where the road designer clearly intended to drop the cyclist back onto the road just at the point where traffic will be turning left across them. clearly the cycle lane was not designed with cyclist safety in mind.

    https://goo.gl/maps/AdWufgbsLST2

    That's what the designer had in mind. Seems like he incorporated the cycle lane pretty well. It's not a temporarily closed junction either. That cycle track is uninterrupted for over 1k/m

    Cyclist should use. Doesn't have to but should. Why? Common sense. Again motorist is a ****ing joke of a driver.


  • Options
    #79
    Captain Havoc
    Moderators, Sports Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 11,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Captain Havoc


    This thread is about motorists deliberately threatening cyclists using their vehicle as a weapon. This forum and particularly this thread is not a place to complain about cyclists. I'm not going to dish a card for the next offence, it's just going to be a straight ban. As I ask motorists not to come here to complain about cyclists, I also ask the posters here not to make generalisations about motorists.

    https://ormondelanguagetours.com

    Walking Tours of Kilkenny in English, French or German.



  • Options
    #80
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,948 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    blah


  • Options
    #81
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,618 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    has there been any serious psychological research done into the bubble effect in cars, which might make for interesting reading?
    i.e. on the fact that car drivers tempers seem to get raised - certainly for a proportion of them - in situations where if there was actual contact (i mean in a communication sense) with the other party, things would not escalate.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,396 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    Still can't think of a single example of where it is in anyway OK for a motorised vechical a massive magnitude of mass and weight greater than a cyclist to threaten them with it. I am really curious of successful prosecution from a result of talking to the gardai.


  • Options
    #83
    Skrynesaver
    Registered Users Posts: 1,109 ✭✭✭Skrynesaver


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_Mania


  • Options
    #84
    Yawns
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭Yawns


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    Still can't think of a single example of where it is in anyway OK for a motorised vechical a massive magnitude of mass and weight greater than a cyclist to threaten them with it. I am really curious of successful prosecution from a result of talking to the gardai.

    There's no example cos there's no excuse. In my posts about the video clip, I'm not trying to excuse the drivers in any way shape or form. Anyone who drives aggressively to cyclists and idiots and deserve the book thrown at them.

    I've given up all hope of cyclists and motorists sharing the road peacefully. There's too many idiots on both sides who break the rules and act aggressively towards the other side simply because they are on the other side.

    This forum has people who side with cyclists no matter what and the motoring forum is the exact same. There's a few who are level headed in both. It's the same mindset on the roads and I still don't understand why. Life's too short for the petty **** you see on both forums.


  • Options
    #85
    2RockMountain
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,012 ✭✭✭2RockMountain


    Yawns wrote: »
    I've given up all hope of cyclists and motorists sharing the road peacefully. There's too many idiots on both sides who break the rules and act aggressively towards the other side simply because they are on the other side.

    That's partially true, but the difference between the cycling idiots and the motoring idiots is that the cycling idiots don't kill and maim others on the road every day.


  • Options
    #86
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,248 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    Yawns wrote: »
    There's no example cos there's no excuse. In my posts about the video clip, I'm not trying to excuse the drivers in any way shape or form. Anyone who drives aggressively to cyclists and idiots and deserve the book thrown at them.

    I've given up all hope of cyclists and motorists sharing the road peacefully. There's too many idiots on both sides who break the rules and act aggressively towards the other side simply because they are on the other side.

    This forum has people who side with cyclists no matter what and the motoring forum is the exact same. There's a few who are level headed in both. It's the same mindset on the roads and I still don't understand why. Life's too short for the petty **** you see on both forums.

    Agree...and until we have more ENFORCEMENT of ALL ROTR for ALL Road users nothing will change.


  • Options
    #87
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,618 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    Agree...and until we have more ENFORCEMENT of ALL ROTR for ALL Road users nothing will change.
    ssshhh.. the ROTR states cyclists must use cycle lanes where provided


  • Options
    #88
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,248 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    ssshhh.. the ROTR states cyclists must use cycle lanes where provided


    There are none on my commute! ;)


  • Options
    #89
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,948 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Yawns wrote: »
    This forum has people who side with cyclists no matter what and the motoring forum is the exact same. There's a few who are level headed in both. It's the same mindset on the roads and I still don't understand why. Life's too short for the petty **** you see on both forums.

    I think you will find that both on motors and cycling forums here, there is pretty much a zero tolerance for muppetry. There is a tolerance for breaches of the law when it is clearly for someones safety but in all other circumstances, very few posters on either forum tolerate either aforementioned muppetry or bundling of themselves in with everyone else who ticks that box.


  • Options
    #90
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I'm a motorist and haven't cycled in years.
    I would still exercise caution around them and whilst I don't particularly want to be delayed in my car, I don't try to force them off the road or beep at them.

    People who use their cars to intimidate cyclists are wimps of the highest order.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,396 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    Bam Bam Mickey wrote: »
    I'm a motorist and haven't cycled in years.
    I would still exercise caution around them and whilst I don't particularly want to be delayed in my car, I don't try to force them off the road or beep at them.

    People who use their cars to intimidate cyclists are wimps of the highest order.

    Out of curiosity would you report a driver you saw doing it? I really think it is a matter of time before an obvious case of it causing a fatality is coming. It is highly likely that is has already caused a death but couldn't be proven.


Advertisement