Drivers Swerving at Cyclists

magicbastarder

CramCycle wrote: »

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.

plus, as you will often hear repeated here, most posters here are also motorists. we're not some anti-motorcar brigade.

Fian

I am starting to think I need to get a camera on my bike, although having said that it won't do me much good if i end up under a car/truck. Still maybe if enough cyclists have cameras it will make people think twice about punishment passes etc.

It infuriates me when someone protected in a car squeezes past me in a narrow gap at speed. They are gambling my life on their estimation of their ability as a driver while taking no personal risk of injury. Infuriates me even more when someone "punishment passes" me where there is space, to educate me not to cycle on the road. Maybe if enough of us use cameras and report that sort of behaviour it would lead to a reduction in it.

Any recommendations for a decent value camera to do the job, perhaps from Aliexpress? I was bought the Lidl camera sunglasses a while back as a present but I never really use them (kind of heavy on the head) and I think a fixed camera on the handlebars would be more useful. Would want something that does not look too blingy since it would be on my commuter bike, although i have secure parking in work I sometimes stop at shops etc. on my return home in the evening.

I would not want HD video quality, just something that would pick up the number plates and has a decent battery life, similarly wouldn't really need audio.

mrcheez

magicbastarder wrote: »

plus, as you will often hear repeated here, most posters here are also motorists. we're not some anti-motorcar brigade.

Cycling has certainly made me a better and calmer motorist.

I've developed the ability to "see ahead" of the cyclist in front of me (a skill, it seems, is often lacking) and can judge easily if overtaking them is worth it or will just get me to a traffic light faster whereupon the cyclist will simply overtake again.

I only overtake where there is a clear 1.5m gap as well, again as I know how it is from the other side.

robyntmorton

mrcheez wrote: »

Cycling has certainly made me a better and calmer motorist.

That is certainly the crux of it. We are able to see both sides of it. We know what it is to be the soft squishy person on two wheels, and to be the person with more horses than the grand national waiting to get past.

The problem more arises with those who are strongly one side or the other - those who think a bus should be a 50 person tandem, or that if you don't pay "road tax" get out of my way. Until we get those people to see the other side, there will be difficulty.

That said, any motorist who treats their big metal box like a tool to batter others out of the way should have the book thrown at them, or even should be draggged to the site of a fatality and be shown close up what the aftermath really is.

Ray Palmer

Ray Palmer wrote: »

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.

If I was in a position to yes.
I drive with a dashcam so if I saw something horrendous and quite dangerous I would bring my dashcam to the gardai along with the cyclist.
I would find out if the cyclist is willing to go, otherwise not much point really.

RobertFoster

Yawns wrote: »

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.

How about the junction after that? https://goo.gl/maps/gKTEwHhkxok

If I'm on the road I can continue through the roundabout in a few seconds. If I'm on the path, I'm detoured away from the roundabout, then I have to stop and press a button and wait.

I use that road from Tallaght to Lucan fairly often, in fact I used it today. On that 10km stretch here's six roundabouts (excluding the one at the quarry) and one large junction where if I used the path I'd lose priority and have to press buttons to continue on straight. In fact, it looks like 4 buttons to cross the New Nangor Road alone. Maybe the designer liked buttons, but I'm not a fan of having to use them while cycling.

Other than losing priority at junctions, I avoid the path for the usual reasons: broken glass, stones, being hidden behind little bushes. They're my common sense reasons for not using that path. Fair play to you if you can overlook them for the 1km of unbroken cycle path. I wouldn't have the patience.



Luckily, I've never had issue with drivers aiming for me along there. The close passes I tend to remember are cars overtaking other cars coming towards me. I don't think (hope!) there's malice involved, just drivers misjudging things. I don't think I'd do well in a head on collision some how.

Perhaps it's my perspective, but I tend to see dangerous manoeuvres on the road as stupidity rather than actual vindictiveness.

Yawns

Those lights have priority at the roundabouts. If you ever have cause to have to cross at the lights, it's a few seconds between pressing the button and the lights changing. Not an awful lot of pedestrian traffic which is why they are prioritized in this way. Unlike most townland lights where you press the button and wait a minute or two for the lights to change. Yes the road is still 10 seconds quicker at those busy junctions but if you use that road, you'll notice it's busy and the average Irish driver can't use roundabouts correctly. IE left hand lane to take 3rd or 4th exit

boardbeer

Yawns wrote: »

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.

Take a look at the red of the cyclepath where it turns onto Bothar Katherine Tiernan, just at the point you are dumped back down on the road: the paint is completely worn from car tyres, from cars cutting the corner off. Not a good place to be on a bike, but the kerb is so high there's no place to drop off early to take the lane, so better off sticking to the bus lane for the duration.

Yawns

There's wear and tear all right from the google maps pic but not anywhere near the level that you cannot tell it's not a cycle lane. If that's what you are insinuating it's clutching at straws.

As for coming down from the high cycle path I've not witnessed any close calls with cars turning left and cyclists going straight or turning. Not heard of any either. I'm not saying it's not possible but as it's a wide open road with good visibility I'm not sure it's such an issues seeing as in most townlands with a lot of traffic turning left you would still have most cyclists filtering on the inside any way. This stretch of infrastructure is certainly planned out clearly enough with all road users in mind and those who are trying to justify not using the cycle lane and clutching at straws for the most part. Be honest. The real reason was the first reason. Why should we have to use the cycle lane. We're not required to so we aren't going to. Fair enough if that's the case.

I just feel if a cycle lane is provided and is fit for purpose then it should be used. If it's a stupid one that stop / starts every few meters or has lamp posts plonked in the middle, then fair enough. Basically cycle to the situation.

If you use the cycle lane for that particular 1 k/m stretch how much time or extra effort is required? None.

Would you be safer? Yes. Why. Because you are separate to the cars. You'll find the driver who pays attention will use the now driving lane, thus leaving the overtaking lane free for the numpties in a rush or idiots who can't read a sign saying lane suspended. If they miss 6 signs saying it's suspended I'd be worried about them missing a cyclist as they clearly can't pay attention to their surroundings.

Either way I think I've most likely dragged this way too far off the topic of drivers swerving at cyclists, apologies. For what it's worth, wether or not it's worse, I don't think most of them are deliberate but just idiots not paying attention. Of course there are some who are doing it purposefully and should be reported. If I witness it, I would report it be it from cycling or driving.

cython

Yawns wrote: »

There's wear and tear all right from the google maps pic but not anywhere near the level that you cannot tell it's not a cycle lane. If that's what you are insinuating it's clutching at straws.

I'm reasonably sure the "insinuation" was that the wear indicates that many drivers do not give a toss that there is a cycle lane there, and probably pay even less heed to the fact that cyclists may be coming off the path onto the road. I.e. it is not a particularly safe lane to use, on account of how other road users abuse/ignore it. Bear in mind the solid white line puts the onus on other cars never to cross it, but that clearly doesn't matter.

Also, take a look at this further back up the road: https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.294004,-6.4098786,3a,75y,272.52h,62.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sE4FPEHn2uaROtmGLheYyvA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 The pedestrians' apparent ignorance of the lane is yet another reason for a cyclist to stay on the road. All this serves to illustrate that so-called "perfectly good cycle lanes" to an external observer are not really so perfect in reality.

Yawns

well the wear and tear on the red paint is very patchy and on the broken white line.

The pedestrians ignorance is two people walking side by side on a 1k/m stretch. If a cyclist is on the lane the view is so good that they could move easily. As I said earlier, those who are robustly against this cycle lane is really really grasping at straws and you most certainly know it. It's actually laughable at how bad some of you really really are. At that note, if we've reached the point of motorists turning left at a junction they are allowed to over broken white lines as long as it's clear and also a pc of 2 ppl walking on a 1k/m cycle lane. If we have reached those points as a last ditch excuse not to use a perfectly fit for purpose cycle lane, then I am afraid I cannot waste any more time trying to debate it.

We are reaching to the end of the barrel and I am afraid to see what else you try and scrape off the bottom. I shall unfollow and bother you no more. I think I'll stay out of the cycle forum if the average response seems to be a cyclist can do no wrong attitude exists, which I am sorry say is the vibe I am getting.

Apologies to all as I don't mean to say you all are like that. In fact most are probably great contributors. I hope if anyone reads my posts on this thread they'll see I tried to make reasonable points without flaming or getting silly but have been met with mostly petty excuses or what if's with only a select few good or great points of debates. The worst certainly being the above about patchy red paint and a set of walkers.

I shall leave you to it.

Fighting Tao

Yawns wrote: »

The pedestrians ignorance is two people walking side by side on a 1k/m stretch. If a cyclist is on the lane the view is so good that they could move easily.

I've never even been on that road to colour my judgement. However, should cyclists really have to stop every time they come across a pedestrian or car in a cycle track and say "excuse me but could you pease move?" Cyclists would never get anywhere if that was the case! The bus lane where it is perfectly legal for a bike to be is free flowing. Also it permits access to the lane to turn right at the roundabouts.

Crocked

Yawns wrote: »

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.

This is the same roundabout heading from the other side.

The cycle lane takes you on magical mystery tour to nowhere, or it used to. That entrance is now open to quarry traffic. I'll avoid having to dismount and walk my bike across in front of them thanks and stick to the road.

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.2954132,-6.4113717,3a,75y,136.84h,77.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2B6xHxYdUOIa4ey2WCM2CA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

This roundabout gives a very good indication of why so many cyclists just don't bother with them. Coming one way all looks good and you think I'll use that, then you approach from the other side and think you'll be grand using it this way too only to be dumped out around a corner into the entrance of a quarry with very large trucks coming and going.

That cycle path is also fairly popular with joggers, dog walkers and pedestrians

magicbastarder

Yawns wrote: »

Would you be safer? Yes. Why. Because you are separate to the cars.

i may be quote mining here, but this is not the be all and end all of cyclist safety.
iirc, the parts which are not dangerous regardless are the nice straight stretches between junctions, which are handily the bits which are easiest to engineer, it's the junctions themselves which are the places problems are most likely to occur.
so if you halve the incidents in the contexts which cause (say) 20% of the problems, you've knocked the issues back by 10%. (all figures plucked out of the air, but you get my gist)
it's junction design which needs the most work. offroad cycle lanes which don't have any effect on junction design are at best agnostic on the main places where accidents occur, and quite often can exacerbate them as motorists don't have off-road cyclists on their mental radar to the same extent as they would do with on road cyclists.

hytrogen

Orion wrote:

No you don't. If it's in a public area it's perfectly legal to video or photograph anyone - including Gardai.

Quote the Section of the road traffic act please? Otherwise please tell the entire irish legal system and judges who have thrown out every court case of road infringements with helmcam evidence presents to go back to university

2RockMountain

hytrogen wrote: »

Quote the Section of the road traffic act please? Otherwise please tell the entire irish legal system and judges who have thrown out every court case of road infringements with helmcam evidence presents to go back to university

You seem to misunderstand how legislation works. Laws don't specify what is legal - they specify what is illegal, and everything else is legal. So over to you - you quote the section of evidence that makes helmetcam evidence illegal please?

And also, please tell the 5 different Gardai that I've handed helmetcam evidence to in recent years, all of whom were delighted to receive and noted how it made their job so much easier about your conclusions on this.

hytrogen

robyntmorton wrote:

Are you for real?! You automatically do three things in this situation: Slam on the brakes, yell, and hope you come out the other side in one piece. The OP has no reason to apologise...
(we were not there, and only have their account).

Wrong wrong and wrong, the road safety act requires due care and attention from ALL road users at all times with due diligence and respect to all other road users.

Chuchote

Ray Palmer wrote: »

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.

For me, this is complex but ends up simple. Complex, because the idea of being an informer sets off all kinds of atavistic alarms. I would hate to inform on another person and get them into trouble with the police. It would go against every tradition I grew up in, and every principle I have, worn-out and damaged though they might be.

But bullying a fragile road user while you're at the wheel of ~2 tonnes of metal? That needs to be reported, not to get the person into any trouble, but to save any lives they put at risk, including their own. So yes, although my blood pressure goes through the roof at the mere idea of walking into a garda station and saying "This guy did that", yes, I would report someone who used his car to intimidate me or someone else.

prinzeugen

2RockMountain wrote: »

You seem to misunderstand how legislation works. Laws don't specify what is legal - they specify what is illegal, and everything else is legal. So over to you - you quote the section of evidence that makes helmetcam evidence illegal please?

And also, please tell the 5 different Gardai that I've handed helmetcam evidence to in recent years, all of whom were delighted to receive and noted how it made their job so much easier about your conclusions on this.

Highly unlikely to ever go to court as there has to be a strict chain of evidence.

Also posting footage accusing anyone of anything with reg numbers is illegal and any footage can not be used by the Garda as in both cases it may have been edited by the owner of the helmetcam and would be inadmissible in court.

CramCycle

hytrogen wrote: »

Wrong wrong and wrong, the road safety act requires due care and attention from ALL road users at all times with due diligence and respect to all other road users.

??????

This statement seems not to state anything in relation to the post it quoted. Are you trying to imply that self preservation is not a natural instinct or are you saying that the poster was not using due diligence and respecting other road users? I can see major flaws in your point if it was either.

CramCycle

prinzeugen wrote: »

Highly unlikely to ever go to court as there has to be a strict chain of evidence.

Also posting footage accusing anyone of anything with reg numbers is illegal and any footage can not be used by the Garda as in both cases it may have been edited by the owner of the helmetcam and would be inadmissible in court.

While helmet cams are not forensic in nature to state they are inadmissible or unusable is woefully misleading.

They can be used by AGS to build a picture, assess where other suitable pieces of evidence are attainable from and more importantly if it is worth pursuing.

They are admissible in court, they can just be dismissed in the absence of other evidence if it can be shown there is a risk the evidence was tampered with.

robyntmorton

hytrogen wrote: »

Wrong wrong and wrong, the road safety act requires due care and attention from ALL road users at all times with due diligence and respect to all other road users.

Okay, bearing what you said in mind, let's go with a real world example that happened to me recently:

I'm on an on road cycle lane, approaching a junction for a left turn. The light is red, traffic is stopped, and the lead vehicle is not indicating.

At 3 vehicles to the front, the light goes green. My momentum carries me forward faster than the vehicles, and I am quickly in line with the rear wheel of the lead vehicle, as we enter the junction.

At this time, the driver decides that they need to turn left, indicates and immediately start the turn. I take the three actions I previously outlined, the vehicle notices I'm there, stops, and I continue safely.

By your post, I am in the wrong. I am not showing due diligence and respect for other road users. What, in your opinion, is the correct course of action to take?

2RockMountain

prinzeugen wrote: »

Highly unlikely to ever go to court as there has to be a strict chain of evidence.

Also posting footage accusing anyone of anything with reg numbers is illegal and any footage can not be used by the Garda as in both cases it may have been edited by the owner of the helmetcam and would be inadmissible in court.

Highly unlikely to go to Court because when the Garda takes a statement from the offending driver and tells them they've been caught on video, they will more than likely take the points/fine rather than go to Court (from direct personal experience).

But what is our source that 'posting footage accusing anyone of anything with reg numbers is illegal' - what particular law are you referring to here?

buffalo

Yawns wrote: »

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.

So I as a cyclist should research my entire route ahead of my journey to find out which cycle lanes have 0 hazards, and which lanes do have hazards. Given the wide variety of cycling facilities available in Ireland, the only way to effectively do this is to cycle my journey ahead of time. Then I can make an informed decision based on each stretch of road as to whether I should use the consistently quick and convenient road option, or the occasionally safe and well-maintained cycle track.

I think you mentioned common sense?

Hunterbiker

I think a lot of non cycling folk assumption on cycling is a leisurely bimble along. They don't see that cycle lane design hampers and discourages making progress while cycling so default to the 'use the cycle lane' as they assume a cyclist naturally stops and checks for a 'safe' route every 10/20 metres.
I imagine they'd soon change their tune if made ti drive a car in the same manner when trying to get anywhere...

tomasrojo

Ray Palmer wrote: »

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?

Yes, that does seem to be what he or she is saying. How discourteous of you! You should have sent the driver a telegram, hand-delivered by a purple-liveried boy in a bellhop hat.

SteM

Was cycling through Rathmines this morning to the city centre and there was a cyclist going through the pinch point outside Slatterys pub that was texting on his phone. He wasn't even aware that he was swerving in front of cars. He was almost hit twice and I could see the anger on the drivers face. It's the only time I've ever spoken to another cyclist about what they were doing but he just stared blankly at me.

I'm beginning to see the difference between 'bike user' and 'cyclist' in this city, the former generally don't seem to know or care what's going on around them.

Veloce

SteM wrote: »

Was cycling through Rathmines this morning to the city centre and there was a cyclist going through the pinch point outside Slatterys pub that was texting on his phone. He wasn't even aware that he was swerving in front of cars. He was almost hit twice and I could see the anger on the drivers face. It's the only time I've ever spoken to another cyclist about what they were doing but he just stared blankly at me.

I'm beginning to see the difference between 'bike user' and 'cyclist' in this city, the former generally don't seem to know or care what's going on around them.

I saw something similar last Friday going towards Tara St Bridge. Cyclist texting on his phone - traffic in front of him stopped - que the might thud - and in to the back of a taxi he went. Right up on top of the boot. I hope the taxi driver got the damage sorted.

Lumen

SteM wrote: »

I'm beginning to see the difference between 'bike user' and 'cyclist' in this city, the former generally don't seem to know or care what's going on around them.

Pedestrians On Bikes, or POBs.

buffalo

SteM wrote: »

Was cycling through Rathmines this morning to the city centre and there was a cyclist going through the pinch point outside Slatterys pub that was texting on his phone.

Pokemon Go has a lot to answer for.