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

Eamonnator

Rave.ef wrote: »

Never said I wouldn't slow down. Yer missing the point. No one wants to go out and get hurt nor do anyone want to go out and hurt someone. When God forbid there is an accident were someone gets killed or hurt involving a truck the truck driver has to live with it, at fault or not.
Ye seem to want to take a simple example way out of context witch is fine. This is the internet after all.

My point was a cyclist needs to take as much care of themselves as the motorist needs to take care of them.

Glad I gave ye the entertainment there for awhile.

And there was me, thinking " I'm not going to drop the anchors" meant not slowing or stopping

It obviously means something else in Cloud Cuckoo Land

xckjoo

Rave.ef wrote: »

Never said I wouldn't slow down. Yer missing the point. No one wants to go out and get hurt nor do anyone want to go out and hurt someone. When God forbid there is an accident were someone gets killed or hurt involving a truck the truck driver has to live with it, at fault or not.
Ye seem to want to take a simple example way out of context witch is fine. This is the internet after all.

My point was a cyclist needs to take as much care of themselves as the motorist needs to take care of them.

Glad I gave ye the entertainment there for awhile.

Don't really need you to entertain me mate. I need to get home to my family and not end up under your truck
Just take it easy out there. Just because your truck can go 80 doesn't mean you need to drive that speed all the time. Slowing to safely overtake a bike or two will delay you far less than all the traffic you'll be sitting in.

rushfan

Rave.ef wrote:

Yer a bit slow on the pick up. My example is a main road. N road. 100pkh speed limit. I'm limited to 80. Your cycling on the hard shoulder. It's as much your duty to look out for yourself as it is mine to look out for you.

Perhaps you should remember that 80km/hr is a limit, NOT a target.

daragh_

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Let me guess - you're driving round with four empty seats complaining about the space cyclists are taking up on the road, right?


How much passing space were you planning of giving them when you pass them in the hard shoulder?

Says it all. Entitled motorised armchair users have little time for being held up on the way to the next red light.

daragh_

Rave.ef wrote: »

No q jumpers drive me insane wouldn't even dream of letting one in. And that's boards all out. I never said I wouldnt slow down. All I'm saying is it's a danger for me to rapidly decrease my speed.
There isn't a hope I'd get on a bike for a few days have way more respect my life then that.

So you are driving your vehicle at a speed that precludes you from reacting to other road users and unforeseen events.

Responsible road use?

Duckjob

Rave.ef wrote: »

Never said I wouldn't slow down. Yer missing the point. No one wants to go out and get hurt nor do anyone want to go out and hurt someone. When God forbid there is an accident were someone gets killed or hurt involving a truck the truck driver has to live with it, at fault or not.
Ye seem to want to take a simple example way out of context witch is fine. This is the internet after all.

My point was a cyclist needs to take as much care of themselves as the motorist needs to take care of them.

Glad I gave ye the entertainment there for awhile.

I'm genuinely interested to know what "care" a cyclist can take to protect themselves from a fast vehicle travelling in the same direction approaching them from behind who has *decided* they are not going to be forced to slow down.

The fast heavy vehicle approaching from behind is the active member in that interaction, and the one with the potential to make the situation either a highly dangerous or a relative safe one for the cyclist.

If I'm riding on a narrow road and 40t of truck comes bearing down on me at speed I'm going to try to get out of its way any way I can. - But that's not "taking care while cycling" , it's self preservation instinct at work reacting to an emergency situation created by a dangerous idiot on the road. An idiot who doesn't want to give up a couple of seconds to make the roads safe for another human being.


Of course, if you're of the mindset that you're not going to allow cyclists to "hold you up" then you're probably going to be one of those truck driver you mentioned that kills someone sooner than later. That will no doubt change your mindset for life, but unfortunately it'll be already too late at that point for the family of the person you killed.

Pinch Flat

I always suspected that a good proportion of truck drivers don't give a fup on the roads, being protected in a 46 tonne vehicle that's going to smash pretty anything that comes into their path has a lot to do with it. Bit depressing seeing this borne out in the previous pages.

Not really a near miss as such , coming out of tesco earlier I was riding to the exit and a lady was waiting to my right for me to pass and pull out of her parking space. I did a double take and stopped as she started to leave the space and waved and pointed at her car. Her giving me a wft gesture.

I rolled back over to her car shaking my head and laughing and I assume she was about to ask me what the joke was as I took her handbag off the roof and handed to her through the window, mortified she was

Ferris

Actually on my commute its the HGV drivers which I have the most positive interactions with. Despite the huge blind spots they have, they are the ones who seem to check their mirrors and see me the most. As a group I think that their behavior is excellent!

This fella' above is obviously an outlier......

magicbastarder

yeah, generally speaking i find them courteous and observant, i'd generally interact with them most between fairview and sandymount, i.e. near the port.

average_runner

daragh_ wrote: »

Says it all. Entitled motorised armchair users have little time for being held up on the way to the next red light and/or inevitable heart attack.

Why mention a heart attack?

daragh_

average_runner wrote: »

Why mention a heart attack?

OTT I know. Over reacting due to frustration. Edited post.

Duckjob

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Let me guess - you're driving round with four empty seats complaining about the space cyclists are taking up on the road, right?

Ah now, why shouldn't he? Doesn't he pay his road tax ?

average_runner

Duckjob wrote: »

Ah now, why shouldn't he? Doesn't he pay his road tax ?

But what is he doing for his kids health with the pollution and just for one person in the car

Duffryman

I'm mindful of several things here, including even how somebody else a few posts up said that sometimes people are 'ganged up on' when they ask a genuine question, but am going to try make an input anyway.....

Going back to the original hard shoulder question that somebody asked...I think the pics attached illustrate what he was talking about.

Pic 1 shows two cyclists in single file in the hard shoulder, and traffic overtaking in the regular lane while there's also oncoming traffic in the other direction. Assuming there's at least 1.5 metres between the cyclists and the vehicles overtaking them, all seems fine here, and everybody's happy - yes or no?

Pic 2 then shows what happens if one of the cyclists comes abreast of the other, into the regular lane. Now the traffic from behind will either attempt a close pass (and I'm NOT justifying it, just pointing out there's a chance of it happening), or else be slowed down to the cyclist's speed until there's a break in oncoming traffic - which on a busy road, could be quite some time.

I understand that sometimes a hard shoulder may be unsuitable for cycling in, but surely if it's okay for one of them, it's okay for the other too?

I also understand that the cyclists are entitled to be two abreast, with one or even both of them on the main carriageway. But I think the question was, why would they choose to be?

Line up in single file like pic 1, so that there's at least 1.5 metres passing distance, and there's no danger at all of a close pass for as long as the hard shoulder and regular lane remain that wide.

But line up like pic 2, and there could be a close pass at any time. Again, NOT trying to justify any close pass in that situation...just pointing out there's a very real chance of one happening.

Would be interested to hear people's thoughts....

Fighting Tao

Duffryman wrote: »

I'm mindful of several things here, including even how somebody else a few posts up said that sometimes people are 'ganged up on' when they ask a genuine question, but am going to try make an input anyway.....

Going back to the original hard shoulder question that somebody asked...I think the pics attached illustrate what he was talking about.

Pic 1 shows two cyclists in single file in the hard shoulder, and traffic overtaking in the regular lane while there's also oncoming traffic in the other direction. Assuming there's at least 1.5 metres between the cyclists and the vehicles overtaking them, all seems fine here, and everybody's happy - yes or no?

Pic 2 then shows what happens if one of the cyclists comes abreast of the other, into the regular lane. Now the traffic from behind will either attempt a close pass (and I'm NOT justifying it, just pointing out there's a chance of it happening), or else be slowed down to the cyclist's speed until there's a break in oncoming traffic - which on a busy road, could be quite some time.

I understand that sometimes a hard shoulder may be unsuitable for cycling in, but surely if it's okay for one of them, it's okay for the other too?

I also understand that the cyclists are entitled to be two abreast, with one or even both of them on the main carriageway. But I think the question was, why would they choose to be?

Line up in single file like pic 1, so that there's at least 1.5 metres passing distance, and there's no danger at all of a close pass for as long as the hard shoulder and regular lane remain that wide.

But line up like pic 2, and there could be a close pass at any time. Again, NOT trying to justify any close pass in that situation...just pointing out there's a very real chance of one happening.

Would be interested to hear people's thoughts....

Your 2 Microsoft Paint drawings represent real life scenarios so well. If only every situation is as simple as them.

Duffryman

Duckjob wrote: »

I'm genuinely interested to know what "care" a cyclist can take to protect themselves from a fast vehicle travelling in the same direction approaching them from behind who has *decided* they are not going to be forced to slow down.

As per pic 1, in the situation that kicked off this whole discussion, he could simply tuck in behind his cycling buddy on the hard shoulder, instead of cycling in the main carriageway. This removes him from any danger of being struck or close passed by a vehicle following from behind, unless for some reason that vehicle enters the hard shoulder too.


Obviously this is not a catch-all answer for all situations, but it's relevant to the one that was asked about here.

AndrewJRenko

Try Pic 1 again with a 1.5m passing distance measured out to scale and see how that works.

ED E

Love all this talk as if hard shoulders are mostly paved roads.





Outside of the main arterial N roads which cycles tend to avoid (I hate use the N11 in Wicklow for example) the hard shoulder is either full of junk or non existent.

AndrewJRenko

Rave.ef wrote: »

All I'm saying is it's a danger for me to rapidly decrease my speed.

Why would it be a 'rapid decrease'? Do you not watch the road ahead and react accordingly in good time?

RobertFoster

Duffryman wrote: »

This removes him from any danger of being [...] close passed by a vehicle following from behind

Not in my experience. I've found even just 10 cm either side of the yellow line can change driver behaviour greatly.

10 cm to the right and you'll get proper overtakes, drivers crossing the white line, most giving you 1.5 m+. 10 cm to the left and the line becomes a magic barrier. It's as if once you're in the hard shoulder you don't exist so some drivers feel they can hold their line and maintain their speed without it affecting the cyclist (or walker/jogger) they're passing. The truly courteous drivers who can recognise the line for the paint it is (usually trucks and large vehicles) stand out.

You make assumptions about passing distance in your post, but these aren't guarantees. The two cyclists in the scenario are possibly trying to strike a balance. They could be trying to up the odds of being passed properly by being visible in the lane while also being out of the way by straddling the line. Nobody wants to be a hindrance, everyone wants to be safe.

Thargor

Even on a perfect newly built road the hard shoulder is full of muck and leaves for 2/3 of the year and random debris for the rest, I dont think the council sweeps them so how can you expect them to be clear?

Duffryman

ED E wrote: »

Love all this talk as if hard shoulders are mostly paved roads.





Outside of the main arterial N roads which cycles tend to avoid (I hate use the N11 in Wicklow for example) the hard shoulder is either full of junk or non existent.

I wouldn't even count that as a hard shoulder, and it's definitely not the type of hard shoulder I have in mind when asking the question. Instead, here's a stretch of the road I drive to work myself every day:

https://www.google.ie/maps/@52.6395821,-6.3579679,3a,75y,263.71h,77.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srs4wtnrOJ93Iy_zLfvMJFg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192


(Apologies - can't figure out how to put the actual pic in here)


Anybody any thoughts on how the situation outlined above would apply in conditions like these?

magicbastarder

Duffryman wrote: »

I also understand that the cyclists are entitled to be two abreast, with one or even both of them on the main carriageway. But I think the question was, why would they choose to be?

when you go out for a walk with someone, do you walk behind them and talk at the back of their head?

07Lapierre

Duffryman wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/maps/@52.6395821,-6.3579679,3a,75y,263.71h,77.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srs4wtnrOJ93Iy_zLfvMJFg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192



Anybody any thoughts on how the situation outlined above would apply in conditions like these?

What's the speed limit on that road?

If I was cycling on that road (I'm assuming you chose it because it has a "bike lane" as opposed to a hard shoulder?) I'd cycle just inside the bike lane. That is, I'd cycle as close to the "traffic" lane as I could. cycling to the extreme left of the cycle lane would only encourage motorists to pass me without slowing down or moving to the right.

Ideally, I'd much prefer to cycle in a group of 6 or 8 riders cycling two abreast, as a single rider would be very vulnerable and motorists would not slow down when approaching a cyclist from behind. The blast of wind from a HGV passing at 80kph could blow a single cyclist off their bike.

magicbastarder

that's the most perfect example of typical 'provisioning' for cyclists i think i've seen.
i.e. one where they've actually done nothing to provide anything or do anything specifically for cycling, except to paint a white line on the road in an existing space, and pretend that they've catered for cyclists.

Duffryman

RobertFoster wrote: »

Not in my experience. I've found even just 10 cm either side of the yellow line can change driver behaviour greatly.

10 cm to the right and you'll get proper overtakes, drivers crossing the white line, most giving you 1.5 m+. 10 cm to the left and the line becomes a magic barrier. It's as if once you're in the hard shoulder you don't exist so some drivers feel they can hold their line and maintain their speed without it affecting the cyclist (or walker/jogger) they're passing. The truly courteous drivers who can recognise the line for the paint it is (usually trucks and large vehicles) stand out.

You make assumptions about passing distance in your post, but these aren't guarantees. The two cyclists in the scenario are possibly trying to strike a balance. They could be trying to up the odds of being passed properly by being visible in the lane while also being out of the way by straddling the line. Nobody wants to be a hindrance, everyone wants to be safe.

All fair points, and yes, a short distance either way could make a big difference, depending on the width of the hard shoulder and main carriageway itself.


But please have a look at another pic attached (yes, I really do need to learn how to embed them!). This is another stretch of my daily drive. Note that this is looking backwards from the Google car. Say the van is 2 metres wide. It shows that without even having to cross to the other lane, the driver can give 2 metres clearance to a cyclist (or anybody else) who's in the middle of the hard shoulder. Again, the surface of the hard shoulder is every bit as good as the main part of the road, and there's no debris or anything else.

I think this too might have been along the lines of what the other poster here had in mind. In a case like this, would it not be better for all if a second cyclist followed behind the first one, instead of coming onto the main carriageway to ride abreast of him?

Fighting Tao

magicbastarder wrote: »

that's the most perfect example of typical 'provisioning' for cyclists i think i've seen.
i.e. one where they've actually done nothing to provide anything or do anything specifically for cycling, except to paint a white line on the road in an existing space, and pretend that they've catered for cyclists.

It’s not a white line. It’s a secret forcefield to protect cyclists. All drivers know that they can drive as close to it as possible without harming people on bikes. Don’t tell anyone I told you...seeing that you are a cyclist and not meant to know.

Duffryman

magicbastarder wrote: »

when you go out for a walk with someone, do you walk behind them and talk at the back of their head?

Well, perhaps unwittingly, you seem to have answered one of the questions of the guy who brought this all up in the first place, when he asked 'is it just so they can talk?'. You seem to be saying that it is. Fair enough. At least we got one question answered.


Personally, no, I don't generally talk at the back of somebody's head.



For what it's worth, I go running on these roads myself, sometimes in a group of up to six or eight people, that can be two or even three abreast on the hard shoulder or shared pedestrian/cycle lane. Not one of us would ever even think about entering onto the main carriageway though. And when we're running on a narrower road, we're either in single file, or quickly get into single file whenever we hear a car approaching from behind. Are we wrong?

Duffryman

07Lapierre wrote: »

What's the speed limit on that road?

If I was cycling on that road (I'm assuming you chose it because it has a "bike lane" as opposed to a hard shoulder?) I'd cycle just inside the bike lane. That is, I'd cycle as close to the "traffic" lane as I could. cycling to the extreme left of the cycle lane would only encourage motorists to pass me without slowing down or moving to the right.

Ideally, I'd much prefer to cycle in a group of 6 or 8 riders cycling two abreast, as a single rider would be very vulnerable and motorists would not slow down when approaching a cyclist from behind. The blast of wind from a HGV passing at 80kph could blow a single cyclist off their bike.

Speed limit along that stretch is 80 km/h. It's part of what used to be the N11 from Camolin into Gorey, before the Gorey bypass opened. Was a 100 km/h road before that (or maybe 60 mph, if it was back in the 'old' days), but was downgraded to R status and a lower limit when the bypass opened.
The stretch in the other pic I put up (the one with the van in it) is part of what's still the main N11 road, just south of Ferns, with a 100 km/h limit.