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

average_runner

Hurrache wrote: »

The hazards were on, the car wasn't indicating to go either direction by the looks of it.

Even more dangerous to undertake then, as you have no idea what they are up to, are they breaking down or running out of fuel.

Dangerous by the driver for pulling out.

Hurrache

average_runner wrote: »

Even more dangerous to undertake then, as you have no idea what they are up to, are they breaking down or running out of fuel.

Dangerous by the driver for pulling out.

Or assumed that the motorist was acknowledging their initial mistake.

Duckjob

average_runner wrote: »

The driver was in the wrong for pulling out, but the cyclists should of never undertook him again while the indicator was still on.

It's piss-poor driving whatever way you want to cut it.

Only mistake the cyclist made was not recognising the car drivers driving standard to be so horrendously bad drivers that they might follow up such a sh*tty maneuver with an even sh*ttier one.

If that's the level of expectation we're putting on drivers to drive competently, and the expectation we're putting on those around them not to get maimed by their stupidity then that's a pretty sad state of affairs.

average_runner

Duckjob wrote: »

It's piss-poor driving whatever way you want to cut it.

Only mistake the cyclist made was not recognising the car drivers driving standard to be so horrendously bad drivers that they might follow up such a sh*tty maneuver with an even sh*ttier one.

If that's the level of expectation we're putting on drivers to drive competently, and the expectation we're putting on those around them not to get maimed by their stupidity then that's a pretty sad state of affairs.

That's where we are at on the irish roads. 98% of us are good, 2% are crazy and stupid.

mloc123

average_runner wrote: »

That's where we are at on the irish roads. 98% of us are good, 2% are crazy and stupid.

And that 2% will not change... They do not care about new legislation, awareness campaigns etc.. etc..

Seth Brundle

average_runner wrote: »

That's where we are at on the irish roads. 98% of us are good, 2% are crazy and stupid.

That's a massive overestimation of the percentage of "good" drivers!

mloc123

Seth Brundle wrote: »

That's a massive overestimation of the percentage of "good" drivers!

Is it?

When I go for a cycle most days I meet 100 cars easily, I rarely have an issue with how they pass me. On average cycling 6 days a week I probably have 1-2 encounters with bad drivers (from a cyclists perspective - poor at over taking, not observant enough etc..)

They represent a pretty small % of the number of drivers I meet each day.

Zulu

mloc123 wrote: »

Is it?

When I go for a cycle most days I meet 100 cars easily, I rarely have an issue with how they pass me. On average cycling 6 days a week I probably have 1-2 encounters with bad drivers (from a cyclists perspective - poor at over taking, not observant enough etc..)

They represent a pretty small % of the number of drivers I meet each day.

I cycle in and out of dublin in rush hour 3/4 days a week. I've no idea how many cars I pass, but I have about 2 scares daily. At least.
That said, I would pass a lot of cars, so maybe it is 2%

mloc123

Zulu wrote: »

I cycle in and out of dublin in rush hour 3/4 days a week. I've no idea how many cars I pass, but I have about 2 scares daily. At least.
That said, I would pass a lot of cars, so maybe it is 2%

Thats the thing... you remember the bad ones as they stand out, but they are still a small % of the over number you meet each day.

CramCycle

Your making the assumption that the rest are good rather than either adequate or simply they were not doing something stupid when they passed you.

99% I meet every day are adequate at the time I meet them. That's it, not good, not bad but adequate at the point they are observable to me. It does nto mean that a number of these were not stupid at some point before or after the point they were observable to me.

Breezer

coward wrote: »

I had posted a video of dangerous passing (couldn't call them overtakes!) earlier in this thread and the advice here was to keep further out from the left. Can't +1 this advice enough! My adventures along the New Nangor Road have been very pleasant and incident free since.

It won't prevent dangerous stuff like Alanstrainor had but it cuts out passing within the same lane.

Indeed. I had one last night, not a near miss, but likely only because I was doing exactly this.

I was coming up to the junction of Harold's Cross bridge in Dublin heading out of town (here) where the cycle lane has been shoehorned halfway into an already narrow driving lane. Late at night, quiet, 2 rear lights, front light and hi viz on). I'm a bit to the right of the cycle lane marking, so primary position in the lane. Stopped at the light. Taxi driver rolls up in the right lane, into the advance stopping box, rolls down the window and begins to lecture me about cycle lanes. After about 5 seconds of attempting a reasoned argument I give up and ignore him as he goes on about how I "nearly caused am accident back there" (on a quiet night, well lit, all traffic moving at a reasonable speed in the same direction, on a straight road).

Anyway I ignore him and at this stage another cyclist has pulled up on my left side, stopping ahead of me just in front of the advance stopping box. Taxi driver moves forward, partially into the junction, through the red light, and begins to congratulate him on his adherence to cycle lanes, "unlike that fella behind you."

Now I really don't care what a willfully ignorant "professional" driver has to say when he's bored on a slow weekday night. But you don't want someone like that having the chance to try overtake you in a "lane" that's barely a metre wide. Move well out from the kerb and protect yourself.

Funny enough, he sounded very similar to a taxi driver who about a year ago barged into a cycle lane right beside me, not too far from the same spot. When I took it up with him, he informed me, repeatedly, "You come and you go."

ED E

CramCycle wrote: »

Your making the assumption that the rest are good rather than either adequate or simply they were not doing something stupid when they passed you.

99% I meet every day are adequate at the time I meet them. That's it, not good, not bad but adequate at the point they are observable to me. It does nto mean that a number of these were not stupid at some point before or after the point they were observable to me.

This distinction is important.

I often see 30-40 phone users in a day if commuting at the right time. That means they're doing it while I pass and I manage to spot it. Chances are of the vehicles I pass in a day a few hundred are due 3pts.

mloc123

CramCycle wrote: »

Your making the assumption that the rest are good rather than either adequate or simply they were not doing something stupid when they passed you.

99% I meet every day are adequate at the time I meet them. That's it, not good, not bad but adequate at the point they are observable to me. It does not mean that a number of these were not stupid at some point before or after the point they were observable to me.

And who is the say the 'bad' ones you meet aren't 'good' the rest of the time... TBH, I don't care about what they do the other times. Adequate is fine to me if adequate does not put me in danger.

The point is, that much like saying "all cyclist break red lights" you cannot also generalise all drivers. The % of total drivers that overtake too close, cut you off, pull out in front of you and in general create near misses is a low %.

My own opinion, you will not change these ones. Bringing in a new minimum passing distance will not change these people.. they already ignore the other rules of the road. New awareness campaigns will not change these people... as they are either oblivious to their mistakes or actively aggressive.

Lambay island

mloc123 wrote: »

Is it?

When I go for a cycle most days I meet 100 cars easily, I rarely have an issue with how they pass me. On average cycling 6 days a week I probably have 1-2 encounters with bad drivers (from a cyclists perspective - poor at over taking, not observant enough etc..)

They represent a pretty small % of the number of drivers I meet each day.

Yeh I cycle 5 days a week and that 1-2 incident would be similar to me. However, you pass so many stationary cars that a lot of drivers don't have a chance to close pass you so its very hard to quantify. The folk who encroach in cycle lanes when stuck in traffic and not moving, you can tell by this behaviour alone, they have no respect for anyone cycling and would dangerously pass you given half the chance.

Wishbone Ash

mloc123 wrote: »

Is it?

When I go for a cycle most days I meet 100 cars easily, I rarely have an issue with how they pass me. On average cycling 6 days a week I probably have 1-2 encounters with bad drivers (from a cyclists perspective - poor at over taking, not observant enough etc..)

They represent a pretty small % of the number of drivers I meet each day.

That doesn't mean that they are good drivers. There are very very few good drivers. Most are just average.

mloc123

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

That doesn't mean that they are good drivers. There are very very few good drivers. Most are just average.

What is a 'good' driver? From a cyclist point of view it is simple -

Good drivers do not cause near misses.
Bad drivers cause near misses.

Anything after that, I personally do not care about.

average_runner

Seth Brundle wrote: »

That's a massive overestimation of the percentage of "good" drivers!

I was including all road users, some would think its a massive overestimation on cyclists also, but i really do believe the bad lot are low

CramCycle

mloc123 wrote: »

My own opinion, you will not change these ones. Bringing in a new minimum passing distance will not change these people.. they already ignore the other rules of the road. New awareness campaigns will not change these people... as they are either oblivious to their mistakes or actively aggressive.

1000%
Enforcement until it becomes culture is really the only way, so long as kids grow up watching this behaviour and it being normalised, the longer we will have this culture permeating our roads.

average_runner

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

That doesn't mean that they are good drivers. There are very very few good drivers. Most are just average.

Can say the same for cyclists going by your thinking

CramCycle

average_runner wrote: »

Can say the same for cyclists going by your thinking

100% there is very little difference in attitude and action between the two groups as far as I can tell, just depending on which one you are using, the other becomes more obvious.

You cycle in the city, you pass 1000 cars, with a majority on the phone, a number running reds until one stops and so on. Therefore all drivers are awful.

You drive a car, sitting in traffic, all you see is cyclists sailing by. You get to a lights and you notice a cyclist going through the red. Probably the only one there, therefore all cyclists are awful.

The truth is both groups have good, adequate and awful sub groups and it is a good idea not to merge them as labeling people is typically (not always) done with a negative mindset in play.

mloc123

average_runner wrote: »

Can say the same for cyclists going by your thinking

This... and the problem we always fall into is "them vs us" as if all cyclists are right and all drivers are wrong. There are complete assholes on bikes and in cars.

Arcade_Tryer

average_runner wrote: »

Can say the same for cyclists going by your thinking

A cyclist is using a bicycle; a driver is using a car. Regardless of similarities in behaviour, the two are completely incomparable in terms of the risk posed to others by both.

mloc123

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

A cyclist is using a bicycle; a driver is using a car. Regardless of similarities in behaviour, the two are completely incomparable in terms of the risk posed to others by both, and the evidence and statistics support this.

Cyclists have killed pedestrians in the past. I do not agree with relaxing the rules for cyclists because they are not as fast or heavy as a car. It is important that the standard of adhering to the rules of the road are consistent between both.

Arcade_Tryer

mloc123 wrote: »

Cyclists have killed pedestrians in the past. I do not agree with relaxing the rules for cyclists because they are not as fast or heavy as a car. It is important that the standard of adhering to the rules of the road are consistent between both.

On average, drivers kill a lot more. An awful lot more. A car poses a much greater risk to others than a bicycle on average, and it is absurd to suggest otherwise. Apart from being blindingly obvious, all the evidence and statistics supports this assertion.

Duckjob

mloc123 wrote: »

Cyclists have killed pedestrians in the past. I do not agree with relaxing the rules for cyclists because they are not as fast or heavy as a car. It is important that the standard of adhering to the rules of the road are consistent between both.

I don't think relaxing the rules for cyclists has been suggested anywhere.

I think you have to distinguish though between passive and active enforcement. If a Garda is on the beat and sees a cyclist blatantly breaking a light I think he should pull them, just as he /she should for a car.

However, in terms of active enforcement, if you are looking to make a difference to road safety. Then it makes sense to direct 90% of your available resources to the group that is involved in 90% of fatalities/serious injuries.

What Username Guidelines

Breezer wrote: »

Indeed. I had one last night, not a near miss, but likely only because I was doing exactly this.

I recently moved jobs but that was on my commute for years. Awful stretch and may as well have no cycle lane marked, it would be safer without it. I was tailgated the whole way up it one day and when I got to the lights, got the same crap. "You need to move out of my way" etc. When I tried to argue there would be physically no room even if I hugged the wall, due to traffic in other lane, I was told "all you cyclists are dangerous and will kill someone" Eh, ok.

magicbastarder

mloc123 wrote: »

Cyclists have killed pedestrians in the past.

the last time was about 2003. since then, over 4,500 people have died on the roads. you say 'we should apply the same standards', which superficially is difficult to disagree with, but what do you mean by applying the same standards? expecting both groups to behave themselves? certainly. apply the same penalties to both groups? this would be nonsense.

ED E

mloc123 wrote: »

Cyclists have killed pedestrians in the past.

Less than one a decade isnt statistically significant.

Those bloody cyclists are always on the path Joe. AGS are their own worst enemy.

CramCycle

Duckjob wrote: »

I don't think relaxing the rules for cyclists has been suggested anywhere.

I think you have to distinguish though between passive and active enforcement. If a Garda is on the beat and sees a cyclist blatantly breaking a light I think he should pull them, just as he /she should for a car.

However, in terms of active enforcement, if you are looking to make a difference to road safety. Then it makes sense to direct 90% of your available resources to the group that is involved in 90% of fatalities/serious injuries.

Another thing that needs to change (and ask any Garda about this) is the way in which passive tickets carry a huge amount of paperwork. in other countries, if I was pulled over for any offence, I would get a caution, the cop would pull out his handheld device, punch in the offence and the ticket would be issued immediately. There would be no more paperwork. In Ireland, ask new recruits and beat cops, and most of their time is taken up with wasteful paperwork until they decide to stop giving out tickets for the perceived small issues.

I 100% agree if a Garda on walkabouts sees a cyclist breaking the rules, they should fine them, no questions, in all scenarios. In regards targeted campaigns and long term culture change, motorists must be the only target, anyone who suggests otherwise has no experience in the real world.

AndrewJRenko

mloc123 wrote: »

This... and the problem we always fall into is "them vs us" as if all cyclists are right and all drivers are wrong. There are complete assholes on bikes and in cars.

That's true, but the assholes on bikes don't kill three or four people each week, like motorists do. In fact, they don't kill three or four people each year. In fact, they don't kill three or four people each decade - just to help you deciding on appropriate allocation of resources.

mloc123 wrote: »

Cyclists have killed pedestrians in the past. I do not agree with relaxing the rules for cyclists because they are not as fast or heavy as a car. It is important that the standard of adhering to the rules of the road are consistent between both.

Pedestrians have killed cyclists (or cyclist) in the past, so presumably, you're equally enthusiastic about enforcing traffic laws on pedestrians too? Gardai should be focusing on making sure pedestrians cross at the right places, at the right time, etc?

Duckjob wrote: »

However, in terms of active enforcement, if you are looking to make a difference to road safety. Then it makes sense to direct 90% of your available resources to the group that is involved in 90% of fatalities/serious injuries.

99% would probably be more accurate. Or 99.99% perhaps.