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

AndrewJRenko

omri wrote: »

I overtook safe but couldve been done even safer if cyclists did their part.

From earlier:

Didn’t feel safe for me to overtake due to the fact there was no spare room to manouver if something happened.

So was it safe or not?

What Username Guidelines

omri wrote: »

I should have said that while giving them a little beep before overtaking only one pair moved to the left. In all other instances they didn’t even budge with people cycling beside the middle of the road. Didn’t feel safe for me to overtake due to the fact there was no spare room to manouver if something happened.

Look it can go back and forth all night and you can keep threatening to leave, but fact of the matter is that the overtaker has the responsibility of the overtake, and those being overtaken do not (and should not) have to facilitate it.

-only one pair moved to the left
-didn’t feel safe to overtake...no spare room...if something happened.
-roads are for cars, like it or not

I’m sorry but your attitude needs to change. Fair enough, you did wait. But maybe you could understand that the reason cyclists are disagreeing with you here isn’t down to us being a big homogeneous group (even if we’re often treated this way), but rather because you’re so sure you’re right, that’s it’s difficult to understand that in fact the roads should be shared and you have no more right to the road than any other group.

As an example, should all the cars move out of my way along the canal at rush hour because I travel faster?

magicbastarder

omri wrote: »

Why was I driving dangerously?

i'll put this in allcaps because you don't seem to have read your own comments.

YOU PERFORMED OVERTAKING MANOUEVRES YOU YOURSELF SAID 'DIDN'T FEEL SAFE FOR ME'.

either you've done a spectacularly bad and unflattering job of explaining the situation, or you did what you say you did and performed unsafe overtakes.


i feel sorry for the cyclists. they were on an organised charity cycle, clearly marked as such, and probably thought they could relax a little; maybe they thought 'motorists will give us a little leeway now, it's for charity so they'll be decent about it'; but instead have to deal with a motorist with a telepathic car horn which can beam into their brains 'this is a *friendly* beep for your own good' rather than an 'i'm a car, get out of my way' beep. which is how 99% of cyclists will interpret it (with good reason).

and it shouldn't need repeating, but at no point have you suggested the cyclists actually left their own lane, which means the oncoming lane was clear; which is a fundamental requirement of performing a safe overtake.

omri

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'll put this in allcaps because you don't seem to have read your own comments.

YOU PERFORMED OVERTAKING MANOUEVRES YOU YOURSELF SAID 'DIDN'T FEEL SAFE FOR ME'.

either you've done a spectacularly bad and unflattering job of explaining the situation, or you did what you say you did and performed unsafe overtakes.


i feel sorry for the cyclists. they were on an organised charity cycle, clearly marked as such, and probably thought they could relax a little; maybe they thought 'motorists will give us a little leeway now, it's for charity so they'll be decent about it'; but instead have to deal with a motorist with a telepathic car horn which can beam into their brains 'this is a *friendly* beep for your own good' rather than an 'i'm a car, get out of my way' beep. which is how 99% of cyclists will interpret it (with good reason).

and it shouldn't need repeating, but at no point have you suggested the cyclists actually left their own lane, which means the oncoming lane was clear; which is a fundamental requirement of performing a safe overtake.

Cyclists were going 3 abreast taking entire lane at one point. Now my point is that in case where the other group of two moved to the left it gave ample of space. And regardless that I did overtake on the opposite lane.

Now you can try to shrug off the responsibility from the cyclists to the que of the cars behind them. But truth be told even tractors give way after a while around these roads that I experienced this last few days.

They simply carried on, while the cars before and after me had to overtake them with as much room as they decided to leave for that manouver.

We can argue all night but since its a road with 100kmh speed limit I dont think any car is expected to trail the cyclists for x miles until they form a single file.

And yes I prefer to give a little beep so they can prepare in whatever way rather than be passed at high speed by a lorry which oddly enough seen happen today.

Instead you read the post and figured out its another driver bitching about us cyclist, and this cant be. Which is sad really but feel free to have your opinion. My feeling was that it’s a shame they went about it that way and I felt they increased the risks in doing so. Take it what you want from it. Maybe someone involved in it will read this and takes it into account.

I know how I cycle and I also know how I’m driving and conducting myself towards cyclists especially. That is enough for me. Thanks for listening anyway.

amcalester

Perhaps they misunderstood your little beep, very easy to interpret a “I’m going to safely overtake you now” beep as “I’m a self entitled prick and will now dangerously overtake you the first chance I get”.

Might explain why they didn’t move left, they were trying to discourage you from your dangerous maneuver.

Seth Brundle

omri wrote: »

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Why did you beep the cyclists?

Was explained earlier.

No it wasn't!
What was the purpose if the beep? What did you expect from the cyclists by beeping at them?
Woukd you beep at another road user before overtaking them? Trucks? Tractors? Horseback riders? Pedestrians?

Duckjob

omri wrote: »

They simply carried on, while the cars before and after me had to overtake them with as much room as they decided to leave for that

Are those cars subject to some ghostly forces that push down the accelerator and override driver control?

We can argue all night but since its a road with 100kmh speed limit I dont think any car is expected to trail the cyclists for x miles until they form a single file.

1) the speed limit is irrelevant- it doesn't convey a right to any road user to travel at that speed.
2) The car isn't expected to do anything because it's just a car
3) Regardless of road position of any other road users, the DRIVER of the car is required (not expected) to drive their car in a way that prioritises the safety of all road users. This is a basic 101 requirement of safe driving and the reason you are allowed to have the pink piece of paper in your pocket. If anyone is unable to adhere to this , they need to hand in their licence.

omri

After reading your comment I’m not surprised why drviers might have issues with cyclists or if not even that just bad opinion about them. You’re certainly have an approach of the road is mine because I am a cyclist but stand no chance even with a smallest car that’s out there. Furthermore all you decided to take out of my post is this warrior cyclist rhetoric that neither was my point, intention to bring out in people who were to read it.

If I feel like its needed I will always give a little beep, as did in the past on many roads and in many countries. It’s there for a reason. You decide to read it the way you did and so be it. It’s disappointing and I’m going to leave it at that - as Ive nothing else to add to this really.

I also do not appreciate some sort of wording used in the discussion pointing to me for whatever reason. You don’t know me and there’s no reason using it in this context.

Seth Brundle

omri wrote: »

Cyclists were going 3 abreast taking entire lane at one point. Now my point is that in case where the other group of two moved to the left it gave ample of space. And regardless that I did overtake on the opposite lane.

They were wrong to be three abreast but from what you told us, you tried to bully them out of your way - that is not acceptable.

omri wrote: »

Now you can try to shrug off the responsibility from the cyclists to the que of the cars behind them. But truth be told even tractors give way after a while around these roads that I experienced this last few days.

A cyclist is not obliged to pull over and let you overtake. If that were the case then you'd barely get 100m before having to pull over again. Drivers need to understand the difference between a safe overtake and one that they feel comfortable with. It is not down to the cyclist to make sure that you drive safely but they so what they can!

omri wrote: »

They simply carried on, while the cars before and after me had to overtake them with as much room as they decided to leave for that manouver.

...and what?

omri wrote: »

We can argue all night but since its a road with 100kmh speed limit I dont think any car is expected to trail the cyclists for x miles until they form a single file.

Is your car that low on power that you had no chance to safely overtake?

omri wrote: »

And yes I prefer to give a little beep so they can prepare in whatever way rather than be passed at high speed by a lorry which oddly enough seen happen today.

So you would rather break the law by distracting a vulnerable road user to alert them that you will be doing what you feel is safe?
How exactly should they prepare for your overtake? Are they to get out of your way? Are they to change their line because of you?

omri wrote: »

Instead you read the post and figured out its another driver bitching about us cyclist, and this cant be. Which is sad really but feel free to have your opinion. My feeling was that it’s a shame they went about it that way and I felt they increased the risks in doing so. Take it what you want from it. Maybe someone involved in it will read this and takes it into account.

I know how I cycle and I also know how I’m driving and conducting myself towards cyclists especially. That is enough for me. Thanks for listening anyway.

You certainly don't seem to have any empathy towards cyclists despite your claims to be one!
Your claims of safe driving are contradicted by your other claims.
You are critical of them for trying to hold the lane and stay safe.
I stand by my initial assumption that you are a selfish and dangerous driver whennit comes to vulnerable road users.

Seth Brundle

omri wrote: »

You don’t know me and there’s no reason using it in this context.

Not sure who your post is directed towards but to respond to this bit: I don't know you. I don't want to know you but based on the information that you have given us, I have a good idea as to how you share the road with vulnerable road users.

tuxy

omri wrote: »

Smirk all you want. I cant be bothered when Im in 2 tonnes car.

Please stop feeding this troll.

omri

So I bullied them because I gave a little beep, and that makes me a prick of whatever else was said earlier?

I would suggests mods look into that.

How should they react - I would imagine the same way the two other guys did, moving to the side and leaving plenty of room for everyone. Nobody felt bullied imo, nobody was pushed off into the ditch. I went on the opposite lane there was plenty of room between my car and their bodies. Happy days.

Am I pretending to be a cyclist maybe, who knows. Do you know that for sure? I feel like you do. Did you know I was bringing kids to and from school on a cargo for over 2yrs? Did I call you whatever you called me?

At the end of the day you just have a helmet on your head and car will pretty much kill you regardless of the speed. So be humble, have some respect. I’m a driver and I’m a cyclist. Seen plenty of bad and good drivers. Seen the same of cyclists. Shared my experience today, thought it was bad enough to mention it.

And honestly what you do with it is up to you. Just don’t offend me because I talked about it.

And PS is this vulnerable road user smth taken out if Trumps propaganda like “fake news” etc. My kids and wife in the car were put in danger by irresponsible cyclists - how does this sound to you?

Please mods do intervene because this is turning personal and whatever you might think of my or others views it should stay this way rather than turning into this personalized abuse.

Ah here you're sounding more and more like you graduated from the school of After Hours as the night goes on :rolleyes:

Duckjob

Instead of dismissing what I'm saying as "warrior cyclist rhetoric" maybe you could be constructive and actually drill down into the points I've made ?

- is it warrior cyclist rhetoric to point out that a speed limit doesn't represent a speed that must be reached? To me that's just a reasonable statement of fact.

- is it warrior cyclist rhetoric to argue that that a duty of care and safety to other road users must trump the need of convenience every single time and if all road users would accept and abide by this principal the roads would be safer for all?

Next time I'm driving into town and I encounter a tailback of traffic shouldnt those cars try to move in out of my way so I can pass? I mean, on a 50kph road I can't be expected to sit behind them other cars at 2kph right?

Omri, like many other you appear to have a somewhat distorted view of what "sharing the road" means. It means different road users using the road at the same time- no more than that. It doesn't say anything about road users have to make way for other road users to get to where they're going quicker.

AndrewJRenko

omri wrote: »

Now you can try to shrug off the responsibility from the cyclists to the que of the cars behind them. But truth be told even tractors give way after a while around these roads that I experienced this last few days.

They simply carried on, while the cars before and after me had to overtake them with as much room as they decided to leave for that manouver.

We can argue all night but since its a road with 100kmh speed limit I dont think any car is expected to trail the cyclists for x miles until they form a single file.

Do you pull over when driving in heavy urban traffic every time a faster cyclist comes up behind you?

omri wrote: »

So be humble, have some respect.

Is this the nub of the issue - that cyclists are some kind of 2nd class citizens in your book that have to 'be humble' and 'show respect' instead of being treated like humans, like people, like parents, brothers, sisters, daughters, son first time and every time.

omri wrote: »

I’m a driver and I’m a cyclist. Seen plenty of bad and good drivers. Seen the same of cyclists. Shared my experience today, thought it was bad enough to mention it.

My kids and wife in the car were put in danger by irresponsible cyclists - how does this sound to you?

I guess the main difference between the bad cyclists and the bad drivers is that the bad cyclists don't kill 2 or 3 people each week, unlike the bad drivers. Cyclists don't generally kill people's wives/kids inside cars.

magicbastarder

omri wrote: »

Please mods do intervene because this is turning personal and whatever you might think of my or others views it should stay this way rather than turning into this personalized abuse.

if you feel any posts have begun to turn to personal abuse, please report them.

for the sake of transparency, as i became involved in the debate, i will not be part of any moderation process relating to them. i hope that is expected/understandable.

omri

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you pull over when driving in heavy urban traffic every time a faster cyclist comes up behind you?

I don’t but very often I make more room for cyclists. Anyway I’m not going to change my mind on this. Shared this here because I do care about cyclists while driving a car or using a bike. Perhaps separate post would create less confusion since people here seemed to think I caused a near miss, which is not true. This isnt city traffic, this is I would imagine a standard irish road which means a narrow one with crazy speed limit. Cars were actually going pretty fast on it and participants of that charity ride could have been either educated better by organizers or simply behave in a somewhat safer manner. And since someone mentioned road sharing, at that particular place it was more like owning than sharing. Even my wife was somewhat surprised by that (she doesnt drive or cycle so i would imagine it was a neutral opinion).

AndrewJRenko

omri wrote: »

I don’t blah blah blah

So why would you expect other people to move over for you? Are your journeys more important than anyone else's?

tuxy

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So why would you expect other people to move over for you? Are your journeys more important than anyone else's?

Might = Right

Two tonnes!

omri

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So why would you expect other people to move over for you? Are your journeys more important than anyone else's?

So you say that the entire fleet of cars was to trail that charity cycle for miles on end? Is that what you mean?

AndrewJRenko

omri wrote: »

So you say that the entire fleet of cars was to trail that charity cycle for miles on end? Is that what you mean?

Are you somehow responsible for the 'entire fleet'? I thought you were responsible for your own car and your own driving.

So again, why would you expect others to show you the courtesy that you fail to show them?

Weepsie

If it was the sportive I think it was, it was fairly well highlighted by local media well in advance, signposted, marshalled (and has been run for a few years now), had support vehicles front and back then I honestly think the only one whose behaviour can be called into question is your own.

Stop beeping. It's for one arrogant. Secondly you're not supposed to anyway. And it can do the exact opposite to what you intend and intimidate vulnerable road users.

omri

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Are you somehow responsible for the 'entire fleet'? I thought you were responsible for your own car and your own driving.

So again, why would you expect others to show you the courtesy that you fail to show them?

I’m obviously not going to fall for this If farmers have some etiquette to make way for a build up of traffic so does the rest of the road users. As do cars do for say an ambulance.

Now what youre saying I should not be allowed to overtake cyclists while my point is they were able to make more room ahould they choose to. Just so it happened I was the first car in this batch of cars coming onto the back of them. Make no mistake there were manu more ahead of me as there must have been many more after.

So maybe you should define what should be in you opinion ideal conditions for overtaking. Since I was on the opposite lane and had ditch/hedge to my right and some of the cyclists decided to occupy entire lane regardless. Some decided to move to left while still cycling two abreast - which in my view is the correct course of action. Yet you seem to disagree. In your opinion we were to follow them until they finished their ride should they not choose to bunch up a bit.

AndrewJRenko

omri wrote: »

I’m obviously not going to fall for this If farmers have some etiquette to make way for a build up of traffic so does the rest of the road users. As do cars do for say an ambulance.
.

But no etiquette for motorists to make way for a build up of cyclists?

omri

Weepsie wrote: »

If it was the sportive I think it was, it was fairly well highlighted by local media well in advance, signposted, marshalled (and has been run for a few years now), had support vehicles front and back then I honestly think the only one whose behaviour can be called into question is your own.

Stop beeping. It's for one arrogant. Secondly you're not supposed to anyway. And it can do the exact opposite to what you intend and intimidate vulnerable road users.

On that particular stretch of road I only saw marshalled ad narrow bridge that allowed for single car passage and it was more for the coming cars. And then I think at the end in some small village. Didn’t read about it in any paper, didnt expect it, the group was atretched but it only had a van at the front.

What’s the point of the horn if youre not supposed to be using it? I feel way more intimidated by cars/busses and trucks passing me by at high speed and close than by a car who beeped well in advance and gave plenty of room when overtaking. I don’t expect you to understand or agree but that my strong view and belief.

And especially when some people listen to music while cycling and some were having conversations with each other while taking the entire lane 2 or 3 abreast.

omri

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

But no etiquette for motorists to make way for a build up of cyclists?

The group was stretch quite a bit. Sorry I didnt take a picture for you. But you just have to believe me.

AndrewJRenko

omri wrote: »

The group was stretch quite a bit. Sorry I didnt take a picture for you. But you just have to believe me.

I'm asking about driving in the city - why is there no etiquette for motorists to move over for faster cyclists?

Seth Brundle

omri wrote: »

On that particular stretch of road I only saw marshalled ad narrow bridge that allowed for single car passage and it was more for the coming cars. And then I think at the end in some small village. Didn’t read about it in any paper, didnt expect it, the group was atretched but it only had a van at the front.

What’s the point of the horn if youre not supposed to be using it? I feel way more intimidated by cars/busses and trucks passing me by at high speed and close than by a car who beeped well in advance and gave plenty of room when overtaking. I don’t expect you to understand or agree but that my strong view and belief.

And especially when some people listen to music while cycling and some were having conversations with each other while taking the entire lane 2 or 3 abreast.

I think it was Mark Twain that said "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"
I'm out of this now!

Duckjob

You're saying cyclists need "be humble and have respect" while also admitting you beep at other road users to let them know they're in your way and stopping you getting where you're going as quickly as you think you *should* be getting to where you're going.

Where's the humility and respect there?

You couldn't make this up.

Lambay island

The last few pages - What a lovely bank holiday Monday Morning read. Don't know if your man is trolling or genuinely believes if he is correct. If its the latter, its that exact mindset why so many people are afraid to cycle in this country. Reasons like this is why I have to message my wife if I'm leaving work later than normal so she is not worrying why I'm not home at usual time etc. Beeping in situations like that is callous, despite the reasons you give yourself for doing it.

ganmo

His point about tractors having to pull over for faster traffic is something that I think should be applied to all road traffic, horses, cyclists the lot...where he fell down was the fact the rule doesnt apply to cyclists at the moment so just deal with it, breathe and relax.

AndrewJRenko

ganmo wrote: »

His point about tractors having to pull over for faster traffic is something that I think should be applied to all road traffic, horses, cyclists the lot...where he fell down was the fact the rule doesnt apply to cyclists at the moment so just deal with it, breathe and relax.

Last time I looked, there was no explicit law that requires tractors or other slow traffic to pull over. The one much-publicised case in recent years in Mayo was a case of careless driving or something similar, rather than any explicit 'pulling over' law.

magicbastarder

the case in mayo was also prosecuted on some nonsense testimony from a garda which wasn't challenged in court, too.

magicbastarder

bloody hell, even the irish times got the headline wrong (i.e. they used the nonsense testimony):
Tractor driver banned over 7km traffic tailback
Brian McGuinness fined €300 for tailback involving 80-100 vehicles on Westport road
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/tractor-driver-banned-over-7km-traffic-tailback-1.2177126

if it was 80 vehicles, that's nearly 100m between cars - doing 20km/h? at that speed you'd have had a car every 20m, or tighter.
i think i read in a different article that the garda stated the tailback was 7km long, because he drove 7km overtaking it. which is such an abject failure of logic that the tractor driver should have fired his solicitor for not spotting it.

ganmo

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Last time I looked, there was no explicit law that requires tractors or other slow traffic to pull over. The one much-publicised case in recent years in Mayo was a case of careless driving or something similar, rather than any explicit 'pulling over' law.

It's in the rules of the road
"...driving a tractor, you should keep left to let faster traffic pass."
Theres also
"Maintaining safe and reasonable progress when driving"
And that's where I'll leave it

Fighting Tao

ganmo wrote: »

It's in the rules of the road
"...driving a tractor, you should keep left to let faster traffic pass."
Theres also
"Maintaining safe and reasonable progress when driving"
And that's where I'll leave it

I’m not saying that it’s not the law, however the Rules of the Road are an RSA interpretation of the laws and have had inaccuracies and some completely made up BS in them in the past.

Weepsie

ganmo wrote: »

It's in the rules of the road
"...driving a tractor, you should keep left to let faster traffic pass."
Theres also
"Maintaining safe and reasonable progress when driving"
And that's where I'll leave it

Rules of the road are not statute/law. They're no more than advisory guidelines.

I'm amazed at how many people like to quote some obscure rotr and are ignorant of some pretty clear laws

AndrewJRenko

ganmo wrote: »

It's in the rules of the road
"...driving a tractor, you should keep left to let faster traffic pass."
Theres also
"Maintaining safe and reasonable progress when driving"
And that's where I'll leave it

Rules of the Road is not law. The actual charge was 'driving without reasonable consideration'.


https://www.advertiser.ie/mayo/article/77206/tractor-driver-banned-from-road-for-causing-seven-mile-tailback

magicbastarder

huh, it's a seven mile tailback now.

Weepsie

magicbastarder wrote: »

huh, it's a seven mile tailback now.

Given that in the phoenix park about 300 cars can park the length of and still not be gate to gate, I don't know how on earth this 7 mile thing was accepted. Even accounting for braking space between vehicles (which it it was so slow was likely not that much)

The guard overtaking 100 vehicles was probably the most dangerous thing in all that

CramCycle

Going round a roundabout this morning and passing the last exit before mine and the car started to pull out, I let a shout, nothing abrasive, just STOP and WATCH OUT. Needless to stay, driver followed me down the road, flashing lights, beeping the horn etc. I pulle din at the next bus stop, window came down and the abuse started about it being a two lane roundabout. I just used some unparlimentary language and told them they should learn how to drive, signal and pay attention. Regretted not having my camera on, it started as poor attention, but the follow on was completely unnecessary. All it woudl have taken was a wave of the hand to acknowledge an error, job done, we have all learned, lets move on. Instead it was followed up with intimidation, more bad driving verbal assault (admittedly you could argue this went both ways). They will have gone into work in a rage, I on the other hand, thanks to the wonder of excercise, was calm in a minute or so, and got into work a tiny bit quicker.

Hurrache

Some near misses, some hits.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ig_PW_-y5SU

magicbastarder

that chap who cycled into the side of the luas must feel like a right twonk.

Utter Consternation

magicbastarder wrote: »

that chap who cycled into the side of the luas must feel like a right twonk.

The auld guy in the background who did a legger when the Audi crashed into the Luas made me chuckle.

Fcuking Usain Bolt.

CramCycle

Lets be honest, none of these are surprising, many of will have seen similar done on our cycles.

magicbastarder

my brother only recently told me (he knew not to tell me at the time - this was probably the early to mid 90s) that he once took my prized muddy fox courier comp when he was going to meet some ladies he wanted to appear cool for. so he decided to arrive in style, and pulled an endo as he got to them in the car park they'd arranged to meet.
except the brakes on my bike were much better than the brakes on his, which he hadn't accounted for, so he certainly made a strong first impression.

ED E

Hurrache wrote: »

Some near misses, some hits.

Great demo of the effectiveness of airbags there.

AndrewJRenko

It looked to me like if the cyclists and some of the pedestrians had kept going instead of pulling back they would have been safer

07Lapierre

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It looked to me like if the cyclists an
d some of the pedestrians had kept going instead of pulling back they would have been safer

Agreed, but in each case, the tram had a green light.

CramCycle

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It looked to me like if the cyclists and some of the pedestrians had kept going instead of pulling back they would have been safer

True but they really should not have been in that position in the 1st place. Nearly all of them increased the risk by stopping but it doesn't mitigate the fact that it was their own stupidity or lack of situational awareness that put them there in the first place.