Near misses - mod warning 22/04 - see OP/post 822

Tenzor07

Boilermaker wrote: »

I should have stated it was a teenager on a BMX, who think that using their feet as breaks is better than using the breaks on their bike.

Give us a Brake!

Fighting Tao

I have a feeling that we met this poster in a past life.

Kaisr Sose

Boilermaker wrote: »

Don't accuse me of telling an untrue story then.

??? Where did I do that?

We are just discussing a kid that was caused to fall off his bike by a car that overtook him Nothing else.

Put the ‘brakes’ on, you may run into the mods.

CramCycle

MOD VOICE: Handbags away, if you feel a poster is breaking the rules, report the post, do not call it out in thread. Next one to go down that route gets carded.

CramCycle

Boilermaker wrote: »

There is two sides to every story, simple as. I wouldn't like any of the recent posters to be on a jury.

@boilermaker, the first posts you are responding too have only one side of the story. Since there are no other sides here as the story is anonymous, we take it as is unless some info presented suggests otherwise.

Boilermaker wrote: »

Was the bike functioning properly? I heard of a case where a cyclist hit into the side of a car when they were going down a hill, the car breaked to turn but the cyclist did not have functioning breaks.
Had the insurance known the bike didn't have functioning breaks, I'm sure the wouldn't have paid out for the injuries which were substantial.

Boilermaker wrote: »

Sorry I forgot you are a collision investigator, I think I'll wait till your full report before making my mind up.
You're awfully biased thought, try keep in mind that us cyclists are not always the victim.

There was a collision investigator but they didn't cop the brakes, but somehow, someone else involved did. The only person I can think of who would know this to tell you is the cyclist, you should report them to the insurance company.

Boilermaker wrote: »

I should have stated it was a teenager on a BMX, who think that using their feet as breaks is better than using the breaks on their bike.

So they had brakes, but they didn't use them? Can you clarify which is the case, it is unclear.

Boilermaker wrote: »

Don't accuse me of telling an untrue story then.

I think the phrase would be unbelievable, I have seen reports if insurance companies using lack of hi vis as a way to reduce payouts, in cases where it would appear that it was in no way contributory. Can you let us know who told you the brakes were not working? It is entirely possible they weren't. It is just highly unlikely an insurance auditor would not notice.

John Hutton

Went out for a short spin today on country roads at a pretty lesurly pace around 18/20 kph average. 4 cars overtook me on different single white line sharp bends. They could not have known if a car was coming the other way... Terrified they would have a crash or squash me off the road... Taking your life in your hands to save like 30 seconds?

Later on I took up position on the road to make an upcoming right turn (if anything I began this manover too early)and a driver who was miles back when I signalled and began the manover proceeded to try and overtake me on a single white line (which I am beside as about to make a right turn) with a car coming the other way, I saw this and pulled back in before the driver pulled in on top of me and was treated to the sight alongside me of a middle aged woman leaning on her horn, pointing/wagging her finger and looking at me as if I had punched a toddler. I lost the plot at this and have her the finger and a few choice words which I regret.

This ruined my entire cycle which besides this woman and the aforementioned idiots was really lovely.

On a happier note I have seen a big difference since the 1.5 campaign, I seem to get a lot more space now when people overtake

Boilermaker

CramCycle wrote: »

I think the phrase would be unbelievable, I have seen reports if insurance companies using lack of hi vis as a way to reduce payouts, in cases where it would appear that it was in no way contributory. Can you let us know who told you the brakes were not working? It is entirely possible they weren't. It is just highly unlikely an insurance auditor would not notice.

I'm not to going discuss the details. I was just showing that not every accident involving cyclists is clearcut.
Let's face it the majority of people would jump to conclusions and say it was the drivers fault for turning in front of the cyclist.
You

AndrewJRenko

Boilermaker wrote: »

Was the bike functioning properly? I heard of a case where a cyclist hit into the side of a car when they were going down a hill, the car breaked to turn but the cyclist did not have functioning breaks.
Had the insurance known the bike didn't have functioning breaks, I'm sure the wouldn't have paid out for the injuries which were substantial.

Even if there was a problem with the brakes, the motorist should have put the cyclist in a position where emergency braking was required. The motorist initiated the dangerous manoeuvre.

CramCycle

Boilermaker wrote: »

I'm not to going discuss the details. I was just showing that not every accident involving cyclists is clearcut.
Let's face it the majority of people would jump to conclusions and say it was the drivers fault for turning in front of the cyclist.
You

100% agree, but in the case mentioned here, we only had one side of the story and that side seemed pretty clear cut. I do alot of cycling and alot of driving, I have made mistakes with both, thankfully nothing that caused any serious damage.
In your other story, the problem is that you seem to think it was 100% the cyclists fault. It is possibly a major mitigating factor, depending on the in depth details, but one bad turn does not excuse the driver of their dangerous maneuver. That kind of thinking is why we end up with road rage incidents and drivers thinking it is OK to cut off vulnerable road users because they remember one doing something stupid.

RacoonQueen

John Hutton wrote: »

Went out for a short spin today on country roads at a pretty lesurly pace around 18/20 kph average. 4 cars overtook me on different single white line sharp bends. They could not have known if a car was coming the other way... Terrified they would have a crash or squash me off the road... Taking your life in your hands to save like 30 seconds?

Two drivers did this to me this evening about 4 minutes after leaving the estate. Second one just went straight for the cars coming in the other direction, there was only about 4 of them, he could have waited, instead he just pulled back in towards me but still over the solid white line. Wouldn't mind so much but I would have been going ~30kph

Did have a van pull back later on in the spin after he had tried and failed to overtake me. Going downhill I was hitting 50kph same as speed limit there and in fairness he did back off on the downhill. But I didn't give him much choice anyway as road was windy so I needed to take the lane anyway.

Boilermaker

CramCycle wrote: »

100% agree, but in the case mentioned here, we only had one side of the story and that side seemed pretty clear cut. I do alot of cycling and alot of driving, I have made mistakes with both, thankfully nothing that caused any serious damage.
In your other story, the problem is that you seem to think it was 100% the cyclists fault. It is possibly a major mitigating factor, depending on the in depth details, but one bad turn does not excuse the driver of their dangerous maneuver. That kind of thinking is why we end up with road rage incidents and drivers thinking it is OK to cut off vulnerable road users because they remember one doing something stupid.

I left the details vague but just to clarify, it was the cyclist themselves who told me that the breaks weren't functioning correctly.

hesker

John Hutton wrote: »

Went out for a short spin today on country roads at a pretty lesurly pace around 18/20 kph average. 4 cars overtook me on different single white line sharp bends. They could not have known if a car was coming the other way... Terrified they would have a crash or squash me off the road... Taking your life in your hands to save like 30 seconds?

I experience that every day when I cycle to work. Completely blind corner. I’ve taken to sticking my right arm out as I approach the bend. Helps to give some of them pause for thought but others still go for it. I’m most worried about the day there’s a cyclist coming the other way.

Rechuchote

It's worth noting that a large proportion of the people killed while riding their bicycles in the last year died on a Sunday. Sunday drivers are not sane.

If you're trying to keep a driver from passing, by the way, it's handy to put out your arm, but with the palm turned back towards them, so it's clearly a "please keep back" message. It doesn't always work, but it works more often than the normal turn signal. (And can be added to with a friendly wave of thanks afterwards, if they've behaved like humans.)

magicbastarder

i actually used that hand gesture yesterday - twice, and it was with one driver, and within about 200m.

site_owner

i generally feel that drivers are a bit more cautious when they see the trailer. but not always.
i have a 2 and a 5 year old in there, its school run time, i just want to get my kids to school.

at a junction, into oncoming traffic, straight into a pinch point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjrngNipFFE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SseBWxa7sR8

average_runner

Rechuchote wrote: »

It's worth noting that a large proportion of the people killed while riding their bicycles in the last year died on a Sunday. Sunday drivers are not sane.

If you're trying to keep a driver from passing, by the way, it's handy to put out your arm, but with the palm turned back towards them, so it's clearly a "please keep back" message. It doesn't always work, but it works more often than the normal turn signal. (And can be added to with a friendly wave of thanks afterwards, if they've behaved like humans.)

I would really doubt any Sunday drivers would understand that signal!!!!

Rechuchote

Eddie Hobbs is having his probbs:

https://twitter.com/RealEddieHobbs/status/995615602248159232

CramCycle

average_runner wrote: »

I would really doubt any Sunday drivers would understand that signal!!!!

I would say that and move out, they think you are indicating if they don't understand and hopefully won't go for the overtake

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

Why is it ridiculous and not fit for purpose? I cycle on it regularly. It is well marked, flat as a pancake and generally empty of pedestrians.

It also provides a small relief for eager beavers that want to over take you as per your own video.

rodneyTrotter. wrote: »

...
As for that stretch of cycle path near where you had the encounter on . It’s ridiculous and not fit for purpose . I’ve alsi had abuse for not using it by a taxi man there . Probably the same bloke!

ED E

https://twitter.com/CitizenW0lf/status/995966000817496064

buffalo

Emmet Chubby Memory wrote: »

Why is it ridiculous and not fit for purpose? I cycle on it regularly. It is well marked, flat as a pancake and generally empty of pedestrians.

It also provides a small relief for eager beavers that want to over take you as per your own video.

I'm not that familiar with the area so I used it yesterday. I went back to the road when I met a man walking his dog with the lead stretched across the width of the path who seemed completely indifferent to my approach. There were also two women walking prams side by side, and a car pulled in across the path at the entrance to the housing estate.

Even if it were completely empty, a cyclist on that track must yield to the access road for the housing estate, and again when rejoining the road. It also terminates at a pedestrian crossing where there may be people waiting and impeding progress, and it stops just short of the road, so you should legally dismount. That's not a well-designed track.

What Username Guidelines

ED E wrote: »

https://twitter.com/CitizenW0lf/status/995966000817496064

"you didn't indicate you were going straight"

cdaly_

site_owner wrote: »

i generally feel that drivers are a bit more cautious when they see the trailer. but not always.
i have a 2 and a 5 year old in there, its school run time, i just want to get my kids to school.

at a junction, into oncoming traffic, straight into a pinch point.

Take the lane there. I usually do so from the traffic lights until past the pinch point.

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

Pedestrians are always a problem on any cycle lane that is level with the footpath, it is not unique to this cycle lane.

While i absolutely agree it is not a well designed cycle lane, and most lanes in North Dublin are p*ss poor, having to rejoin the road or having your progress slowed a little is not an excuse to not bother to use the lane. Traffic on that road is never particularly heavy except for the odd sunny weekend. I do not use certain cycle lanes for safety reasons (poorly surfaced etc) and I get the odd beep from vehicles but I fail to see a real safety issue with that particular cycle lane.

buffalo wrote: »

I'm not that familiar with the area so I used it yesterday. I went back to the road when I met a man walking his dog with the lead stretched across the width of the path who seemed completely indifferent to my approach. There were also two women walking prams side by side, and a car pulled in across the path at the entrance to the housing estate.

Even if it were completely empty, a cyclist on that track must yield to the access road for the housing estate, and again when rejoining the road. It also terminates at a pedestrian crossing where there may be people waiting and impeding progress, and it stops just short of the road, so you should legally dismount. That's not a well-designed track.

JazzyJ

Emmet Chubby Memory wrote: »

Why is it ridiculous and not fit for purpose? I cycle on it regularly. It is well marked, flat as a pancake and generally empty of pedestrians.

It also provides a small relief for eager beavers that want to over take you as per your own video.

Stop the video at 8 seconds. Look at the car coming from the side road. Look where the stop line is. Now imagine you're on the bike path doing 43kph coming into that. At 10 seconds, the lane ends with a pedestrian crossing. None of that is safe.

Requirements to be a road planner in this country require a maximum IQ of 50. The lower generally the better. :mad:

Miklos

I'm not one for giving out about other road users generally, most of the time if you give negativity out you get it back but I saw some incredibly stupid and obviously thoughtless behavior out on the roads yesterday.

A choice one was descending at the Featherbeds, it's a tight road to begin with, three cars approaching behind a cyclist climbing the opposite way to me. The first car overtakes no problem but the next two blindly follow without any consideration for whats coming down the road. I had to swerve in what little bit of road I had left to avoid the wing mirror of the last car!

It always baffles me the way motorists can behave up there, if you're in such a hurry why did you take the longest possible route?!

buffalo

Emmet Chubby Memory wrote: »

Pedestrians are always a problem on any cycle lane that is level with the footpath, it is not unique to this cycle lane.

While i absolutely agree it is not a well designed cycle lane, and most lanes in North Dublin are p*ss poor, having to rejoin the road or having your progress slowed a little is not an excuse to not bother to use the lane. Traffic on that road is never particularly heavy except for the odd sunny weekend. I do not use certain cycle lanes for safety reasons (poorly surfaced etc) and I get the odd beep from vehicles but I fail to see a real safety issue with that particular cycle lane.

I don't need an excuse to not use the lane, it's a choice.

You can continue to choose to use it, and I will choose to not use it from now on. There is no need for anybody to justify their choices if they don't want to, and there is certainly no reason for other road users to abuse or intimidate somebody for their choice.

xckjoo

buffalo wrote: »

I don't need an excuse to not use the lane, it's a choice.

You can continue to choose to use it, and I will choose to not use it from now on. There is no need for anybody to justify their choices if they don't want to, and there is certainly no reason for other road users to abuse or intimidate somebody for their choice.

It's strange how everyone seems to understand that buses and taxis don't have to drive in the Bus Lane if they don't want to, but can't comprehend that bicycles might be able to leave cycles lanes.



I assume they're not required to use the lanes anyway. I never thought to get annoyed at seeing them outside it.

Ray Bloody Purchase

xckjoo wrote: »

It's strange how everyone seems to understand that buses and taxis don't have to drive in the Bus Lane if they don't want to, but can't comprehend that bicycles might be able to leave cycles lanes.



I assume they're not required to use the lanes anyway. I never thought to get annoyed at seeing them outside it.

Some people are just annoyed to see cyclists, regardless of whether they are in a lane or not. They're just looking for an excuse.

Duckjob

site_owner wrote: »

i generally feel that drivers are a bit more cautious when they see the trailer. but not always.
i have a 2 and a 5 year old in there, its school run time, i just want to get my kids to school.

at a junction, into oncoming traffic, straight into a pinch point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjrngNipFFE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SseBWxa7sR8

I can normally keep my cool in most situations of me being put at risk by idiots on the road, but them putting my daughter at risk is one thing that I know could incite me to violent acts in a millisecond. For that reason, I deliberately avoid having her out with me anywhere we would be likely to encounter these cretins.