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

This is some real off the meds stuff now ffs. I encounter this both in the car and on the bike every week, someone who needs to do a U or back out of a space, or drive way or what ever I sit up or slow down or flash / wave them out and we're on our way again and it works in reverse I'm looking to turn right maybe to home I get a car slow and let me cross.

There are things to be outraged by on our roads and this doesn't even register. To pretend otherwise is just trolling Andrew and a piss poor effort at that.

Weepsie

Ahhhh. It was safe and it was legal. You're absolutely wrong so just stop.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

. If he had driven along the opposite carriageway to do an overtake, he would have been lambasted here, and rightly so.

And now you're imagining a completely different type of scenario, in which different relevant speeds and lines of vision apply. Again changing your angle on why you are so appalled by it to justify it. It's commendable just how much deeper you can dig yourself into this. Keep doubling down, you still won't be correct.

CramCycle

I agree with the frog, I'm out

Chiparus

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The driver hadn't a snowball's chance in hell of completing the turn without blocking the oncoming traffic. And he presumably was well aware of this, and explicitly decided to inconvenience other people instead of putting himself to the inconvenience of doing this safely and legally. Driving onto the opposite carriageway to do a u-turn is not normal, routine business driving. If he had driven along the opposite carriageway to do an overtake, he would have been lambasted here, and rightly so. But for some reason, because he's doing a u-turn, we're supposed to be 'understanding' of how his convenience is more important that other people's convenience. Nah, not gonna happen.

The driver could have reversed into the entrance, instead decided to pull a u turn when the road was not clear, the road was clear for the cyclist to proceed.
I see lots of people injured ( and one cyclist killed ) when people pull uturns when it is not safe to do so. Taxis are the worst.

Odyssey 2005

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's one option. Or the driver could not have done an illegal u-turn in the first place. Or the driver could have given way to the cyclist and not blocked cycle traffic.

What u-turn ?

Budawanny

Whatever about the rights and wrongs of the cars maneuver that was some seriously bad bikecraft.

average_runner

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I didn't make any comment about the cycling being good or bad, other than to note that the cyclist pushed through.

But it's interesting to see that unless I proactively bash the cyclist, everyone runs to defend the motorist who is explicitly breaking at least three provisions of ROTR, here in the cycling forum.

All you ever do is bash motorist, want people to hunt down random drivers in Lucan because one red mini did a bad thing.!!!
When cyclists do something wrong like at the bridge in the quays the other day, you post a video about cars turning left there. It had nothing to do with the incident.

Stark

average_runner wrote: »

All you ever do is bash motorist, want people to hunt down random drivers in Lucan because one red mini did a bad thing.!!!

Replace motorists with cyclists in that sentence and you start to get a sense for how frustrating most conversations involving cycling with people who don't cycle are.

average_runner

Stark wrote: »

Replace motorists with cyclists in that sentence and you start to get a sense for how frustrating most conversations involving cycling with people who don't cycle are.

I agree there is alot of bashing of cyclists also but we need to have a balance point of view, alot of people here give that. Alot of posts around the u-turn incident shows that

KevRossi

Interesting read from Joanna Donnelly, she of the weather on RTE. This could get a bit of traction, she's well known.

https://twitter.com/JoannaDonnellyL/status/1164650689055862784

Seth Brundle

KevRossi wrote: »

Interesting read from Joanna Donnelly, she of the weather on RTE. This could get a bit of traction, she's well known.

https://twitter.com/JoannaDonnellyL/status/1164650689055862784

Great write up - fair play to her and I completely understand how she feels.


Was it just me or did any of you head straight onto Google maps to find her?

AndrewJRenko

Odyssey 2005 wrote: »

What u-turn ?

The u-turn done by the driver of the oncoming red car that nearly hit the cyclist. Well, to be more accurate, I suppose it was a three point turn, rather than a u-turn.

Deleted User wrote: »

This is some real off the meds stuff now ffs. I encounter this both in the car and on the bike every week, someone who needs to do a U or back out of a space, or drive way or what ever I sit up or slow down or flash / wave them out and we're on our way again and it works in reverse I'm looking to turn right maybe to home I get a car slow and let me cross.

There are things to be outraged by on our roads and this doesn't even register. To pretend otherwise is just trolling Andrew and a piss poor effort at that.

Honestly, the 'off the meds' reference is quite offensive. Please don't joke about mental health issues or use it to score points in a debate.


No-one 'needs' to do a U. They choose to do a U rather than finding a safer way to change direction that might cost them a minute or two. So they choose to do the U. Backing out of anything onto a main road similarly is down to the driver making bad choices. Isn't backing out onto a main road illegal? You can choose to do what you like in these circumstances, but I generally choose NOT to enable selfish driving. That doesn't mean I don't give way to drivers who are doing normal driving. I absolutely do, give way to drivers, cyclists and pedestrians pulling out from side roads, turning right across me, whatever is normal driving. But I don't generally give way to selfish drivers. I don't hit them, or drive or cycle into dangerous positions around them. And sometimes, like this situation, that means that I have no other choice but to give way to them.

average_runner wrote: »

All you ever do is bash motorist

That's not true, sometimes I bash pedestrians as well as motorists.

average_runner wrote: »

want people to hunt down random drivers in Lucan because one red mini did a bad thing.!!!

It's generally considered bad form to drag stuff from one thread into another. But seeing as you brought it up, I'm happy to clarify that I provide some advice or suggestions as to how someone could identify a dangerous driver of a red mini. There was no suggestion about hunting down random drivers.

average_runner wrote: »

When cyclists do something wrong like at the bridge in the quays the other day, you post a video about cars turning left there. It had nothing to do with the incident.

Just to clarify, the initial story was that the cyclist had a green light and the pedestrian who stepped out in front of him had a red light. The related video shows cars turning left against a no-left-turn sign, but your devotion to protecting the reputation of motorists at all times is noted.

average_runner wrote: »

I agree there is alot of bashing of cyclists also but we need to have a balance point of view, alot of people here give that. Alot of posts around the u-turn incident shows that

Who is the 'we' that you seem to be speaking for here?

Weepsie wrote: »

Ahhhh. It was safe and it was legal. You're absolutely wrong so just stop.

It contradicted several of the requirements of ROTR and resulted in a near miss incident. That doesn't meet my definition of 'safe'.

Weepsie wrote: »

And now you're imagining a completely different type of scenario, in which different relevant speeds and lines of vision apply.

I'm comparing it to another type of incident that would involve the driver on the opposite side of the road. It's not the same incident, and you're correct to say it would involve different relevant speeds.

Weepsie wrote: »

Again changing your angle on why you are so appalled by it to justify it. It's commendable just how much deeper you can dig yourself into this. Keep doubling down, you still won't be correct.

Just to be clear, I don't need your approval or agreement. The driver did a manoeuvre that contradicted several of the requirements of ROTR and resulted in a near miss incident, all to save themself a minute or two, despite causing similar delays to a few other road users.

Type 17

Stop, Just Stop.

We've all had enough.

Chiparus

Had another MGIF pass today heading into a roundabout, except today it was a applegreen petrol tanker HGV . Luckily he heard my shouts and pulled into the right turn lane then proceeded straight on , caught up with the driver at the petrol station he was delivering to, he said it was my fault because I had not indicated - I was going straight!


He told me to go to the Guards, as he clearly did not care.

I got rid of the audio due to the my profanities.

average_runner

Chiparus wrote: »

Had another MGIF pass today heading into a roundabout, except today it was a applegreen petrol tanker HGV . Luckily he heard my shouts and pulled into the right turn lane then proceeded straight on , caught up with the driver at the petrol station he was delivering to, he said it was my fault because I had not indicated - I was going straight!


He told me to go to the Guards, as he clearly did not care.

I got rid of the audio due to the my profanities.

Should of asked him, did he indicate he was going straight:D

DaveyDave

Would the RSA care about his dodgy driving? I believe they're the ones who are strict when it comes to trucks, especially ones with a haz load?

blackwhite

Contact Applegreen directly at their head office (there's details on their website).

Fuel companies are exceptionally picky about H&S - and behaviour of their drivers is something they tend to be incredibly strict about if it's brought to their attention

hesker

Chiparus wrote: »

Had another MGIF pass today heading into a roundabout, except today it was a applegreen petrol tanker HGV . Luckily he heard my shouts and pulled into the right turn lane then proceeded straight on , caught up with the driver at the petrol station he was delivering to, he said it was my fault because I had not indicated - I was going straight!


He told me to go to the Guards, as he clearly did not care.

I got rid of the audio due to the my profanities.

Could you explain what he did wrong here. I’m not seeing it. Was it before the start of the video or the bit where he was on the roundabout.

I mean I can see the vid but I can’t see the issue.

KevRossi

Now this is seriously scary.

https://twitter.com/pward82/status/1164858341644034048

Chiparus

hesker wrote: »

Could you explain what he did wrong here. I’m not seeing it. Was it before the start of the video or the bit where he was on the roundabout.

I mean I can see the vid but I can’t see the issue.

Ok there are two lanes left is straight and left turn, right lane is right turn only, he partially overtook men then cut back into the left lane , I shouted and he pulled into the right turn lane , then he went straight,

Duckjob

On hols in France at the moment and my experience tallies depressingly closely with others that have recently spent time here and shared similar to what I have to share.

I have the use of a road bike so I've been pootling around the local area on it- a mix of some separate bike paths but plenty of on road cycling on narrow roads.

I haven't had anything approaching a near miss.

I just don't understand what's wrong with these drivers :-

- they don't beep at me
- they don't rev their engines at me
- they don't shout abuse out their window
- they stay quietly behind me until they can pass me safely - even if it means waiting a good while- they do it!
- if I need to cross a zebra crossing to get over to a bike path, they stop immediately when I get to the crossing


It's so refreshing to share the road with civilised people that constantly show some respect and regard for my safety and so depressing to think that next week I'll be back to sharing a very different road with a bunch of childish psychopaths.

Odyssey 2005

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The u-turn done by the driver of the oncoming red car that nearly hit the cyclist. Well, to be more accurate, I suppose it was a three point turn, rather than




The cyclist is in the wrong there
If he had been paying attention hed have seen the car doing a 3 POINT TURN. They take a few seconds to do and the cyclist was being a cnut not allowing the car to finish the manover and get off the road.

AndrewJRenko

Odyssey 2005 wrote: »

The cyclist is in the wrong there
If he had been paying attention hed have seen the car doing a 3 POINT TURN. They take a few seconds to do and the cyclist was being a cnut not allowing the car to finish the manover and get off the road.

Was the driver being a cnut by choosing to do the three point turn in front of oncoming traffic that he was clearly going to hold up?

ganmo

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Was the driver being a cnut by choosing to do the three point turn in front of oncoming traffic that he was clearly going to hold up?

The driver was not a cnut for holding up one car for less a 5 seconds.
The cyclists only put himself in danger, the driver was observant enough to see what was going on and stopped before it happened.
I have often seen cyclists(myself included in the past) taking chances to maintain momentum and that's what I'm guessing is the case here.

Neither person in this case is without fault, the driver could of picked a better spot to turn and the cyclist could of free-wheeled from a distance giving the driver a chance to complete the turn.

VW 1

I thought it had stopped. Make it stop.

Seth Brundle

VW 1 wrote: »

I thought it had stopped. Make it stop.

Agreed!

AndrewJRenko

ganmo wrote: »

The driver was not a cnut for holding up one car for less a 5 seconds.

Interesting to see that the three oncoming cyclists (probably more people than in the two cars combined) apparently aren't a factor in decisions about holding up traffic in your book.

ganmo wrote: »

The cyclists only put himself in danger, the driver was observant enough to see what was going on and stopped before it happened.

The danger was caused by the driver initiating the turn a dangerous place/time. The cyclist noticed that apparently the driver was planning on continuing to drive regardless of what the oncoming traffic was doing, and adjusted his position accordingly.

ganmo wrote: »

I have often seen cyclists(myself included in the past) taking chances to maintain momentum and that's what I'm guessing is the case here.

I have often seen drivers, pedestrians and cyclists(myself included in the past) taking chances to maintain momentum and that's what I'm guessing is the case here.

ganmo wrote: »

Neither person in this case is without fault, the driver could of picked a better spot to turn and the cyclist could of free-wheeled from a distance giving the driver a chance to complete the turn.

That's true, though the cyclist would have been relying on the driver behind him also noticing the three-point-turner and also slowing accordingly, which may or may not have happened. Just one more complicating factor. I suppose the more important question is - why should the four oncoming road users having their journey disrupted by the three-point-turner?

Type 17

Thread unsubscribed.

CramCycle

MOD VOICE: The next person to mention or reference that three point turn or the video gets a week off. No one is going to change their opinion on it so the discussion is over.

magicbastarder

something in the air today. 60km spin, and every overtake was considered and courteous.