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

Wishbone Ash

Somedude9 wrote: »

I think you'll find when you cycle in the middle of the lane you'll provoke rather than prevent dangerous overtakes.

Do you cycle regularly on busy roads?

Cycling at the edge of the lane provokes dangerous overtaking often without a reduction in speed and sends a signal to other drivers to do the same. It also eliminates any safety zone one may have. The vast majority of drivers will wait before overtaking a cyclist who is commanding the lane.

Cyclists are not second class road users and have the same rights as those using an internal combustion engine.

CramCycle

Somedude9 wrote: »

I think you'll find when you cycle in the middle of the lane you'll provoke rather than prevent dangerous overtakes.

I presume your cycling experience is minimal. Cycling close to the edge gives unaware drivers the impression that you are comfortable with a close overtake for various reasons.

One consciously or subconsciously, the driver sees how close you are to the edge and therefore assumes you are OK with someone being as close on your other side (no regard for the fact that it is moving, unstable and unpredictable).

Secondly, being out further on the road, forces the driver to give more room to make an overtake, therefore likely only to do so when space is there, as well as providing you with more space to move into should something go wrong.

Three, many presume you have moved in to signal an overtake is OK, without giving full consideration as to whether it is or not.

Somedude9

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Do you cycle regularly on busy roads?

Cycling at the edge of the lane provokes dangerous overtaking often without a reduction in speed and sends a signal to other drivers to do the same. It also eliminates any safety zone one may have. The vast majority of drivers will wait before overtaking a cyclist who is commanding the lane.

Cyclists are not second class road users and have the same rights as those using an internal combustion engine.

Yes I cycling regularly but judiciously not on busy roads. That's all well and good, but I'm not putting my life on the line for such principles. You may be in the right but nonetheless it's not an argument you'll win.

ED E

What CramCycle and Wishbone have detailed is far far safer.

CramCycle

Somedude9 wrote: »

Yes I cycling regularly but judiciously not on busy roads. That's all well and good, but I'm not putting my life on the line for such principles. You may be in the right but nonetheless it's not an argument you'll win.

You do get though that by not taking the lane you are quite likely encouraging overtakes when there really is not space to do so, therefore putting yourself at more risk. This is generally accepted as good roadcraft, even if it seems counter intuitive at first.

Somedude9

CramCycle wrote: »

You do get though that by not taking the lane you are quite likely encouraging overtakes when there really is not space to do so, therefore putting yourself at more risk. This is generally accepted as good roadcraft, even if it seems counter intuitive at first.

Yes I understand the rationale, but in my experience it rarely works in practice. Such roadcraft generates frustration in drivers & with certain hotheads - like our friend in the video - you're just asking for trouble. Therefore I consider it inadvisable & unsafe.

John_Rambo

Somedude9 wrote: »

Yes I understand the rationale, but in my experience it rarely works in practice. Such roadcraft generates frustration in drivers & with certain hotheads - like our friend in the video - you're just asking for trouble. Therefore I consider it inadvisable & unsafe.

It does work.

As a motorist I'll hang back behind a cyclist that's in front of me to avoid running over him/her the same as I would a tractor or slow moving car. I"ll pass when there's no oncoming traffic or if there's two lanes I'll move to the right hand lane and overtake.

Kaisr Sose

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

......The vast majority of drivers will wait before overtaking a cyclist who is commanding the lane.

Or deliberately drive at you as happened me. Nearly hit me too only for I had left space on the inside and I needed it!

Wishbone Ash

Somedude9 wrote: »

Yes I understand the rationale, but in my experience it rarely works in practice....

Your experience as a cyclist or motorist?

Somedude9

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Your experience as a cyclist or motorist?

Cyclist, as I don't drive.

TallGlass

Lads, sorry but I guess you drive cars also?

What's all this talk about people been close to the edge and overtaking..

Never in my life driving a car have I ever looking at any road user and thought that's a signal to overtake, EVER. If I overtake someone car/bike/truck, it's at my discretion and using my judgement not anyone else's, you could be on the other side of the road and I might not undertake/overtake you.

Don't believe your road position ever influences another road user as it does not ever.

I mean that last part in the nicest possible way also. Don't think because your in the middle of the lane someone want try something stupid. Don't think someone has seen you because you got that impression either. Don't think someone will not cut close to you because your going close to the edge.

TallGlass

TallGlass wrote: »

Fairview Park, people walking along beside the cycle track with uncontrolled dogs. Usually I slow down, thankfully today was the same as I had to jam on to stop for some black little Terrier that drifted into the cycle lane.

Not even a sorry from the owner, gob****e.

Don't go near that cycle path; its a mish mash of dogs, dog ****, broken glass, branches, pedestrians exiting the park, pedestrians getting off buses etc.

I cycle the malahide Rd into fairview every morning. When I hit the bottom and turn right, if I make the lights, I stay in the bus lane until the bridge /fire brigade station. You sometimes have to take the lane to prevent taxis from trying to kill you but it's better than the cycle lane.

If I don't make the lights, I cross at the pedestrian lights and go through the park itself. Much more pleasant, though not half as quick.

dreamerb

TallGlass wrote: »

...

Don't believe your road position ever influences another road user as it does not ever.

I mean that last part in the nicest possible way also. Don't think because your in the middle of the lane someone want try something stupid. Don't think someone has seen you because you got that impression either. Don't think someone will not cut close to you because your going close to the edge.

Road position absolutely influences other road users. It often makes the difference between a driver thinking there's just space to squeeze by, and realising they have to make an actual proper manoeuvre.

Does it stop all drivers being aggressive or taking unreasonable risks? Of course not, but it will make a lot of people be more careful. More importantly, if you cycle assertively and take space, you have somewhere to go if someone does something horribly stupid / aggressive / dangerous. If another road user puts you in danger, you have a far better chance of being able to compensate by moving left or at worst throwing yourself off to the left. You're making space to move to if someone else is being stupid that is not under their (or someone else's) wheels.

R.D. aka MR.D

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Mostly young-ish men and women.

Brought up the issue of cycling safety the other day at work. It was shocking that the people with the most vitriol for cyclists were the younger people. My point was that when you are driving (driver myself) you are in a vehicle that can do more damage than pedestrians or cyclists. It was the middle aged and older people who were the most understanding of that.

A close family member commutes by bike everyday so the topic is close to my heart. And I hear all the near miss stories!

Maybe it's harder for younger people to put themselves in other's shoes. Might be an idea to start a campaign like that very upsetting one they have for drink driving at the moment showing how a cyclist death can impact their family and friends.

magicbastarder

had a fun one - technically not a near miss i suppose, but i'd crested howth summit and was heading northbound, down towards dublin bay, and had ratcheted up the speed. there's a car park a few hundred metres below the summit on that side, and a woman pulled up in a car to exit it - looked straight at me - and pulled out in front of me. slowly, so the worst of both worlds. thankfully i'd copped what she was about to do, and braked hard, but not panic braking, stopped about 5m short of her, and she just drove off. i think it was the fact that she'd just given me enough time to get angry that i shouted some profanity at her. if it had happened quicker, i wouldn't have had the luxury of it.

i reckon it was a classic case of 'oh that's a cyclist, he'll take ages to get here'.

Chuchote

R.D. aka MR.D wrote: »

Brought up the issue of cycling safety the other day at work. It was shocking that the people with the most vitriol for cyclists were the younger people. My point was that when you are driving (driver myself) you are in a vehicle that can do more damage than pedestrians or cyclists. It was the middle aged and older people who were the most understanding of that.

A close family member commutes by bike everyday so the topic is close to my heart. And I hear all the near miss stories!

Maybe it's harder for younger people to put themselves in other's shoes. Might be an idea to start a campaign like that very upsetting one they have for drink driving at the moment showing how a cyclist death can impact their family and friends.

I honestly blame dangerous radio jocks for this crap. They're fomenting hatred, and should be stopped doing it.

Danjamin1

Saw a fella nearly get wiped out going across this cycle lane this morning, it's the main reason I don't use that lane myself, drivers aren't expecting a bike to come across their path as they approach the junction. Far safer to stick to the road along this route in my opinion.

Boom_Bap

To be fair, there is a yeild sign on the cycle lane there so the cyclist shouldn't be whipping accross it.

Danjamin1

You're right actually, I hadn't noticed the yield sign on the lane. I tend not to use the lane on this route as it goes across people's driveways & you don't have right of way at the junctions, the road's safer in my opinion.

Boom_Bap

Totally agree, sometimes the road is the better option.

Roadhawk

Danjamin1 wrote: »

You're right actually, I hadn't noticed the yield sign on the lane. I tend not to use the lane on this route as it goes across people's driveways & you don't have right of way at the junctions, the road's safer in my opinion.

A lot of people dont notice these yield signs but even if they did would it make a difference? I would be more inclined to think not.

Moflojo

Danjamin1 wrote: »

Saw a fella nearly get wiped out going across this cycle lane this morning, it's the main reason I don't use that lane myself, drivers aren't expecting a bike to come across their path as they approach the junction. Far safer to stick to the road along this route in my opinion.

The raised cycle path says "There was an attempt" but the wide sweeping curve says "Feel free to take this turn at speed".

Bad infrastructure results in bad outcomes, especially for the most vulnerable road users. The radius of that corner kerb should be around 50cm, but it's more like 10 metres and thus promotes cornering at speed.

Danjamin1

Roadhawk wrote: »

A lot of people dont notice these yield signs but even if they did would it make a difference? I would be more inclined to think not.

Common sense should prevail on both parts, personally I'd never approach such a junction either by bike or by car at speed and would be prepared to stop. The problem this morning was that the cyclist had already passed the yield marking and was crossing the junction when the car approached at speed without taking the cycle lane in to account. Both parties should ideally have been more cautious.

LpPepper

Danjamin1 wrote: »

Saw a fella nearly get wiped out going across this cycle lane this morning, it's the main reason I don't use that lane myself, drivers aren't expecting a bike to come across their path as they approach the junction. Far safer to stick to the road along this route in my opinion.

That cycle lane is dangerous going both directions. As you said you go across driveways etc, bad surface and you must be prepared to stop at every single junction. Safer and better on the road, only problem is some motorists seem to have an issue with it...

Pinch Flat

Danjamin1 wrote: »

Saw a fella nearly get wiped out going across this cycle lane this morning, it's the main reason I don't use that lane myself, drivers aren't expecting a bike to come across their path as they approach the junction. Far safer to stick to the road along this route in my opinion.

This is where the law and / or perception needs to be changed, IMHO, to give right of way to cyclists. The phoenix park has similar situations - realise they might be slightly different (by lws etc) but the principal is still the same.

I lived in German for a while and you'd come across these situations quote often - some cycle lanes I used crossed the slip roads of the A5, one of the main autobahns going from north to south. You'd be given right of way 100% of the time, never an issue.

https://goo.gl/maps/JynyegE87rt

HivemindXX

Danjamin1 wrote: »

Common sense should prevail on both parts, personally I'd never approach such a junction either by bike or by car at speed and would be prepared to stop. The problem this morning was that the cyclist had already passed the yield marking and was crossing the junction when the car approached at speed without taking the cycle lane in to account. Both parties should ideally have been more cautious.

I assume the driver was approaching from behind the cyclist and then turned left across their path? This sort of thing is the primary reason I detest so many cycle lanes in Dublin.

So you have to yield, which is annoying enough since if you were on the road you wouldn't, but it's hard to tell if cars approaching from behind are planning to turn or not. It can be very hard to see if an indicator is lit when looking behind especially if there are multiple cars, and as everyone should know, indicator usage is very far from universal.

I love Sean nos

Moflojo wrote: »

The raised cycle path says "There was an attempt" but the wide sweeping curve says "Feel free to take this turn at speed".

Bad infrastructure results in bad outcomes, especially for the most vulnerable road users. The radius of that corner kerb should be around 50cm, but it's more like 10 metres and thus promotes cornering at speed.

I'm getting conflicting signals from that junction. On a bike, you have a yield sign painted on, yet a raised crossing that suggests priority. On the road, the curve radius encourages speed, yet again the raised crossing suggests to yield.

Is there not a design manual that should be followed for these things?

Moflojo

I love Sean nos wrote: »

I'm getting conflicting signals from that junction. On a bike, you have a yield sign painted on, yet a raised crossing that suggests priority. On the road, the curve radius encourages speed, yet again the raised crossing suggests to yield.

Is there not a design manual that should be followed for these things?

Yes there is, the Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets (DMURS). http://www.dttas.ie/corporate/publications/english/design-manual-urban-roads-and-streets

Danjamin1

HivemindXX wrote: »

I assume the driver was approaching from behind the cyclist and then turned left across their path? This sort of thing is the primary reason I detest so many cycle lanes in Dublin.

So you have to yield, which is annoying enough since if you were on the road you wouldn't, but it's hard to tell if cars approaching from behind are planning to turn or not. It can be very hard to see if an indicator is lit when looking behind especially if there are multiple cars, and as everyone should know, indicator usage is very far from universal.

Nope, the car was approaching the junction from the side road to turn left joining the main road, so they were approaching perpendicular to the cyclist, as a result the cyclist was millimeters from being T-boned.

Roadhawk

Danjamin1 wrote: »

Common sense should prevail on both parts, personally I'd never approach such a junction either by bike or by car at speed and would be prepared to stop. The problem this morning was that the cyclist had already passed the yield marking and was crossing the junction when the car approached at speed without taking the cycle lane in to account. Both parties should ideally have been more cautious.

I agree, both sense and caution should displayed from both road users. You have to put yourself in their shoes...If you were on a bike crossing there, the only thing you need to do is have a little look over the shoulder. If all is clear then plough on...if not then stop/slow. If you were a car turning in you would check you mirrors, signal then turn. You would not expect people (bike or pedestrian) to fly out across the road in front of you but you should be ready for either way.

amcalester

Danjamin1 wrote: »

Nope, the car was approaching the junction from the side road to turn left joining the main road, so they were approaching perpendicular to the cyclist, as a result the cyclist was millimeters from being T-boned.

Well then surely the motorist was 100% at fault? If the cyclist has started to cross the road then he/she has right of way, no?

Roadhawk

Danjamin1 wrote: »

Nope, the car was approaching the junction from the side road to turn left joining the main road, so they were approaching perpendicular to the cyclist, as a result the cyclist was millimeters from being T-boned.

In the pic above, was the cyclist travel from right to left or left to right?

I presume it was right to left...either way it not as if the car could have been traveling at any significant speed that would contribute to an incident. The cyclist could/should have seen the car and yielded.

Roadhawk

amcalester wrote: »

Well then surely the motorist was 100% at fault? If the cyclist has started to cross the road then he/she has right of way, no?

Aw if only there was a laughing hysterically crying emoji for this comment...

How would the motorist have been at fault if there was a collision here?

07Lapierre

Roadhawk wrote: »

I agree, both sense and caution should displayed from both road users. You have to put yourself in their shoes...If you were on a bike crossing there, the only thing you need to do is have a little look over the shoulder. If all is clear then plough on...if not then stop/slow. If you were a car turning in you would check you mirrors, signal then turn. You would not expect people (bike or pedestrian) to fly out across the road in front of you but you should be ready for either way.

This is exactly why cycling on the road is better/safer (in this case). even then, many motorists when turning left will "left hook" cyclists. As you say people should "expect the unexpected" when on the roads.

Danjamin1

Roadhawk wrote: »

In the pic above, was the cyclist travel from right to left or left to right?

I presume it was right to left...either way it not as if the car could have been traveling at any significant speed that would contribute to an incident. The cyclist could/should have seen the car and yielded.

The cyclist was travelling left to right.

I totally disagree with you on this, the car was 100% at fault as by the time the car reached the point where the lane meets the cycle lane the cyclist was directly in front of the bonnet. The driver was going too fast (thankfully not too fast to stop in time) but the cyclist was already half way through the crossing so the car should have yielded. I wasn't on the cycle lane so I don't know what visibility the cyclist had of the car approaching the junction but given the speed the car approached at I wouldn't be surprised if the way had looked clear as the cyclist approached.

amcalester

Roadhawk wrote: »

Aw if only there was a laughing hysterically crying emoji for this comment...

How would the motorist have been at fault if there was a collision here?

Failing to yield to traffic on his right for starters.

CramCycle

The yield signs are horrendously placed and show again my issue with segregated cycle lanes. There are similar ones on the churchtown road only the Yield sign is for the motorist, but most motorists think it is for the main road and not the cycle path.
If the cyclists slowed, looked and the proceeded when apparently clear, I am unsure what they could have done wrong. The motorist at the time the cyclist passed the yield sign would have been on a different road and certainly should have been going slow enough to stop as it is not as if the cyclist was invisible.
The corner is far to wide and does promote speeding, you could argue that nothing promotes it, it is just what some people do, but lets not BS, it promotes taking the corner at speed.
Imagine that cycle path was a parallel lane way, the car slowed, seen the road was clear and proceeded. Then the other car its it side on, who would be at fault here. I suppose the problem with my example is, if it were a car, it would have been noticed and they would have designed the junction better.

Chuchote

It would be worth putting in a report under "Street Furniture" here, explaining that it's dangerous and subject to misinterpretation.

http://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-services-roads-and-traffic-road-maintenance-and-street-repair/repair-road-or-footpath

arse_jackeen

I cycle that route every day and do not use the cycle lanes on either side. As well as the reasons above they are in poor condition.

Roadhawk

Danjamin1 wrote: »

The cyclist was travelling left to right.

I totally disagree with you on this, the car was 100% at fault as by the time the car reached the point where the lane meets the cycle lane the cyclist was directly in front of the bonnet. The driver was going too fast (thankfully not too fast to stop in time) but the cyclist was already half way through the crossing so the car should have yielded. I wasn't on the cycle lane so I don't know what visibility the cyclist had of the car approaching the junction but given the speed the car approached at I wouldn't be surprised if the way had looked clear as the cyclist approached.

I have to question the whole speeding thing because you make it sound like the Parabolica at Monza...how fast can a car really be traveling when approaching a speed ramp immediately before turning 90 degrees onto a main road? I would guestimate at 20km-30km at a push.

If there is no visibility for the cyclist when they have to yield then the first thing that they should have done was to slow down, then read the junction and proceed when clear. That is what yielding is. This is not an awkward junction with blind spots, its one straight road meeting another at a "T" junction.

If you were to change it up a bit and presume the same scenario except change the bicycle to a car...then the car failing to yield and cross the path of oncoming traffic is at fault...no question about it. I dont know why it changes when on a bicycle?

Danjamin1

Roadhawk wrote: »

I have to question the whole speeding thing because you make it sound like the Parabolica at Monza...how fast can a car really be traveling when approaching a speed ramp immediately before turning 90 degrees onto a main road? I would guestimate at 20km-30km at a push.

If there is no visibility for the cyclist when they have to yield then the first thing that they should have done was to slow down, then read the junction and proceed when clear. That is what yielding is. This is not an awkward junction with blind spots, its one straight road meeting another at a "T" junction.

If you were to change it up a bit and presume the same scenario except change the bicycle to a car...then the car failing to yield and cross the path of oncoming traffic is at fault...no question about it. I dont know why it changes when on a bicycle?

Are you serious? 20-30km/h is nothing on a motorway but it's too fast to approach both a junction and an intersecting lane. I'm only giving my opinion on the situation that I witnessed which put the driver more at fault. I already agreed the cyclist could have been more observant.

Chiparus

Moflojo wrote: »

Yes there is, the Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets (DMURS). http://www.dttas.ie/corporate/publications/english/design-manual-urban-roads-and-streets

South county Dublin seem to ignore it, just look at the new Bird Avenue scheme.

Danbo!

I too cycle the above road in both directions. In 11 years I've never once used the cycle track - it's sh*te, covered in bins on bin day, and yielding at every junction is a joke. There are 5 junctions inbound and 4 outbound in less than 800m. The road is wide enough to accommodate an on-road cycle track too - the road actually narrows after the roundabout inbound and they've a perfectly good on-road cycle track there.

Funnily enough, I can only recall being beeped once on that stretch for using the road in the thousands of times I've cycled it. But, I should mention the guy that beeped made up for all the others that didn't. He pulled in further down the road waiting for me, went absolutely nuts verbally and, only for his poor missus pleading with him to get back in and holding him back, would have swung for me. I've made a few silly mistakes in my time but this was literally just because I was on the road and not on "THE F*CKING RED BIT"

That was when I decided it was time for a camera.

AndrewJRenko

jamesbil wrote: »

With so many near misses and so many eejits on the roads, combined with poor road lighting and shady, gloomy areas, why do some have a problem with wearing something that makes you stand out or keep you a little safer?

I don't think anyone has a problem with anyone who chooses to wear hi-vis. I think many people have a problem with the expectation that ALL cyclists HAVE to wear hi-vis ALL the time, or else it's OK to run them down - which isn't too far from the common thinking of The Journal commentariat.

Chiparus wrote: »

South county Dublin seem to ignore it, just look at the new Bird Avenue scheme.

Bird Avenue is Dun Laoghaire Rathdown area. What's the problem with the work done there?

Chiparus

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I don't think anyone has a problem with anyone who chooses to wear hi-vis. I think many people have a problem with the expectation that ALL cyclists HAVE to wear hi-vis ALL the time, or else it's OK to run them down - which isn't too far from the common thinking of The Journal commentariat.


Bird Avenue is Dun Laoghaire Rathdown area. What's the problem with the work done there?

Sorry you are correct about DLR area.
They widened the footpath on the north side narrowed the footpath on the southside and put in parking bays the then narrowed the road.

When it was pointed out that there was no provision for cyclists, they painted some bicycles on the road - no cycles .

I was driving along it a month ago saw a female cyclist nearly get killed when she suddenly stopped when she dropped some thing.

https://dlrcoco.citizenspace.com/transportation/bird-avenue-road-safety-improvement-scheme/

http://irishcycle.com/2016/11/05/council-uses-guidance-to-justify-no-spaceforcycling-but-ignores-advice-on-removal-of-slip-turns/

Crocked

Had a farmer nearly take out half our group on a club spin at the weekend. Looking back at the fly6 this evening and I'm lucky I made it home to my family.

I'm sure the farmer made his point though the ****ing ****

TallGlass

Actually in Fairview Park I have noticed some poor markings. As you enter the park by the second entrance after WestWood, you'll notice there are markings on the ground one side has a bike going forward and another going the opposite way.

The fact is the other lane is non existent. The left lane further up has both bicycles in one lane. So there is only one lane but the entrance would have you think there are two lanes. They can't even get the markings correct, I have little faith in them getting anything else done correctly.

It's appalling. What makes it worse and I hate it when I hear it, 'cyclists don't pay road tax', well this one does! On both a car and a motorbike

papu

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eUoogLMVP0

This is a really nasty junction, cars turning right often just go for it, had a few near misses here.
It's also an area lots of cars have left hooked me on.

cython

Cycling home through Rialto yesterday, with the OH on her first commute from her relatively new job, and the traffic is backed up as usual, so we're filtering on the left in the cycle track. Cue one clown in a Micra out of nowhere (i.e. traffic is still stationary and has been for as long as we've been nearby, so there is no reason to expect a decision to manoeuvre, and they have not bothered to indicate) electing to turn off the road, and in here. They started the turn as I was alongside, and I just got by, but rather than this near miss and my gesticulating prompting them to check the track for more cyclists, they continue, and nearly clear the OH out of it. We had one bystander (who was nearly a witness to a serious incident) shouting at us to go back and get their registration number, but given my temper at the time, no good was going to come from engaging the moron in the Micra.

Alanstrainor

Alanstrainor wrote: »

Most passes I deal with are not to do with people not seeing me. They are to do with people who do see me, and decide to chance their arm in passing where there is no room to do so. I have 2 lights front, and 2 lights rear. I do have some highvis gear, but I don't always wear it, and I definitely don't agree with RSA's fetish for highvis clothing.

This about sums it up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE0YZ-y6hKA

Call now logged with traffic watch, awaiting call back from local station.

The person who answered the call on the traffic watch line was fantastic, asked for the details of the incident (which I had a lot of!) and just said she would pass on all information to the local station. I'll keep you all posted with how I get on.