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

jameshayes

ThisRegard wrote: »

Are you sure the cyclist knew that the van was actually going to attempt to drive through him into the petrol station?

Why take the gamble.. whats it worth to a life?

jameshayes

magicbastarder wrote: »

did the cyclist attempt to undertake the van, or did the van overtake and swing left?

both lanes were moving similar speeds, van potentially moving slightly slower

magicbastarder

if the cyclist undertook a van he was approaching from behind, and the van was already indicating left, i would agree that the cyclist was an idiot.

ThisRegard

jameshayes wrote: »

Why take the gamble.. whats it worth to a life?

It's not necessarily a gamble if the cyclist was in the road space before the van and the van swung across him. There's not a lot you can do when put in that position. Are you advising every cyclist to stop at every junction or turn off if they sense a vehicle come from behind? You haven't made it clear as to what the circumstance were prior to it.

BoardsMember

ThisRegard wrote: »

It's not necessarily a gamble if the cyclist was in the road space before the van and the van swung across him. There's not a lot you can do when put in that position. Are you advising every cyclist to stop at every junction or turn off if they sense a vehicle come from behind? You haven't made it clear as to what the circumstance were prior to it.

I think its fair to say he's not advising that, rather that he's saying if someone is indicating to turn left that you maybe assume they wont see you and take appropriate action.

scaryfairy

today I witnessed 3 (or 4) near misses, all caused by some nutcase cyclist: as I was cycling myself towards the Eastlink tollbridge, a cyclist passes me, but not really overtaking me, just pedaling at my speed, well on the wrong side of the road. A few seconds later, a car turns from the opposite direction, narrowly missing said cyclist.
She then goes onto the bridge, first tries to cycle on the sidewalk, which is almost impossible: it's very narrow, and at this time of day there are always people there. So she first almost knocks down a couple of people, wobbles and almost swings on the bridge which is FULL of trucks and cars.. then tries to go on the road, cannot get through fast enough on the left hand side of the road, so goes between the 2 lanes. I saw a massive truck just about stopping from the opposite direction, driver shaking his had. Last I saw of her, she positioned herself at the side of an articulate lorry, which was about to turn left. For goodness sake. this was all within the space of about 3 minutes!

jive

magicbastarder wrote: »

if the cyclist undertook a van he was approaching from behind, and the van was already indicating left, i would agree that the cyclist was an idiot.

Yeah it's a common misconception that the cyclist has right of way here.

I used to view this as if it was a car turning across lanes of traffic, which essentially it is as some cycle lanes are distinct 'lanes'. I think it makes more sense for a vehicle turning across you to wait until the way is clear for them to do so.

However, rules of the road dictate that if someone is indicating and in front of you then they have right of way. Common sense dictates that the vast majority of people will not check their inside mirror for anyone undertaking them so you are 100% better off erring on the side of caution and slowing down, look at it as a few free calories burned

amcalester

shootermacg wrote: »

That made me laugh, it's the exact opposite in my experience.

You might be right, glass that I first saw last week was still there yesterday evening.

Danbo!

jive wrote: »

Yeah it's a common misconception that the cyclist has right of way here.

I used to view this as if it was a car turning across lanes of traffic, which essentially it is as some cycle lanes are distinct 'lanes'. I think it makes more sense for a vehicle turning across you to wait until the way is clear for them to do so.

However, rules of the road dictate that if someone is indicating and in front of you then they have right of way. Common sense dictates that the vast majority of people will not check their inside mirror for anyone undertaking them so you are 100% better off erring on the side of caution and slowing down, look at it as a few free calories burned

Does the cycle lane count as a lane I wonder - technically they may be indicating in front of you but if the cycle lane is considered a lane, then those already in the lane have right of way. This is kind of contradictory, because cars aren't allowed to first change lanes and then turn off the road, considering they're not allowed use the lane.

Either way, I'll always hang back and allow them to complete the move if they're indicating. In my experience, a lot dont check mirrors and those that do end up waiting and there's this awkward "who is gonna go" moment so I'll sometimes wave them on, or else slip in behind them to give them a clear indication I'm not about to pass. Although I got a bit of guff here the last time I mentioned I'll wave them on :rolleyes:

axer

Danbo! wrote: »

Does the cycle lane count as a lane I wonder - technically they may be indicating in front of you but if the cycle lane is considered a lane, then those already in the lane have right of way.

I have never been able to find the answer to this. From what I can see it is not a traffic lane but it seems very unclear in law. If it wasn't a traffic lane (and was part of the adjoining lane) then cars would be able to legally drive on it but I think it is defined as a cycle track in law which means when lanes are being talked about in law they are not referring to cycle tracks so none of those rules about right of way apply to the cycle tracks. I asked the department of transport before but no reply. But either way, like you said, better to be safe and always stay back.

Moflojo

Danbo! wrote: »

Does the cycle lane count as a lane I wonder

Cycle lanes are metaphysical. They are both there and not there, at the same time.

If you think it's a cycle lane, then it's a cycle lane and you are correct.

If you don't think it's a cycle lane, then it's not a cycle lane and you are also correct.

Cycle lanes, in an Irish context, are purely an elaborate thought experiment.

Metaphysical cycle lanes are also extremely cheap to build, requiring zero investment but ensuring the maximum amount of protection that one can perceive. As such, the government has invested massively in them and an extensive network of metaphysical cycle lanes now exists across the country.

cython

Danbo! wrote: »

Does the cycle lane count as a lane I wonder - technically they may be indicating in front of you but if the cycle lane is considered a lane, then those already in the lane have right of way. This is kind of contradictory, because cars aren't allowed to first change lanes and then turn off the road, considering they're not allowed use the lane.

Either way, I'll always hang back and allow them to complete the move if they're indicating. In my experience, a lot dont check mirrors and those that do end up waiting and there's this awkward "who is gonna go" moment so I'll sometimes wave them on, or else slip in behind them to give them a clear indication I'm not about to pass. Although I got a bit of guff here the last time I mentioned I'll wave them on :rolleyes:

axer wrote: »

I have never been able to find the answer to this. From what I can see it is not a traffic lane but it seems very unclear in law. If it wasn't a traffic lane (and was part of the adjoining lane) then cars would be able to legally drive on it but I think it is defined as a cycle track in law which means when lanes are being talked about in law they are not referring to cycle tracks so none of those rules about right of way apply to the cycle tracks. I asked the department of transport before but no reply. But either way, like you said, better to be safe and always stay back.

I've posted this a few times, but since SI 332/2012 was implemented, there is no concept of a "cycle lane" in law, rather the term is "cycle track", which may arguably remove the concept of it being any sort of traffic lane, per axer's comment. The same SI clearly states that:

(b) A pedal cyclist may overtake on the left where vehicles to the pedal cyclist’s right are stationary or are moving more slowly than the overtaking pedal cycle, except where the vehicle to be overtaken—

(i) has signalled an intention to turn to the left and there is a reasonable expectation that the vehicle in which the driver has signalled an intention to turn to the left will execute a movement to the left before the cycle overtakes the vehicle,

(ii) is stationary for the purposes of permitting a passenger or passengers to alight or board the vehicle, or

(iii) is stationary for the purposes of loading or unloading.”,

So this would also suggest that regardless of the presence or absence of a cycle track if the cyclist is behind the left turning/indicating vehicle then they should wait there, unless they are sure of passing before the vehicle turns. It's less clear cut if they are alongside the vehicle when the indicator comes on, but in that case while legally the onus is probably on the vehicle to yield, it's one of those instances where self-preservation should prevail.

Kaisr Sose

Where you are along side a vehicle that has given no early indication of turning left, the assumption must be that it is also proceeding straight on. The whole concept of early indication is to clearly signal intent on advance of the junction, and thus avoid any confusion by other road users. Self - preservation, while apt to deploy, should not come into it if the motorist indicated intent in sufficient time.

josip

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Where you are along side a vehicle that has given no early indication of turning left, the assumption must be that it is also proceeding straight on. The whole concept of early indication is to clearly signal intent on advance of the junction, and thus avoid any confusion by other road users. Self - preservation, while apt to deploy, should not come into it if the motorist indicated intent in sufficient time.

Whilst what you've quoted is 100% correct from a legal standing perspective, it is 100% wrong from a self preservation point of view.
I prefer the "everything out there is trying to kill me" approach and rely heavily on paranoid checking, peripheral vision and jungle instincts to stay alive.
No point being in the right and dead.

Kaisr Sose

josip wrote: »

Whilst what you've quoted is 100% correct from a legal standing perspective, it is 100% wrong from a self preservation point of view.
I prefer the "everything out there is trying to kill me" approach and rely heavily on paranoid checking, peripheral vision and jungle instincts to stay alive.
No point being in the right and dead.

Sorry, I never advocated being right and dead. I actually advocated for self-preservation if you read that again, but it's motorist behaviour that needs the most advancement. Self-preservation is not a perfect science and it will not work each and every time.

helimachoptor

The two junctions on the N11, firstly on the way up to stillorgan SC and then Oatlands are death traps.

This morning on the hill, a driver went through a clear red light.

At oatlands, there was a drive turning right to go city centre direction, and a lunatic in a ford galaxy behind, she turned on red and the guy behind then proceeded to floor it and tear across 2 carriageways of traffic that had a green light. Myself and 3/4 cyclists were moving with me in the lead, i frantically waved to get him to stop, but instead he put the foot down and mounted the mini island and went on his merry way.

Didnt get the reg but have tweeted garda traffic and will go down and make a complaint.

Danjamin1

helimachoptor wrote: »

The two junctions on the N11, firstly on the way up to stillorgan SC and then Oatlands are death traps.

This morning on the hill, a driver went through a clear red light.

At oatlands, there was a drive turning right to go city centre direction, and a lunatic in a ford galaxy behind, she turned on red and the guy behind then proceeded to floor it and tear across 2 carriageways of traffic that had a green light. Myself and 3/4 cyclists were moving with me in the lead, i frantically waved to get him to stop, but instead he put the foot down and mounted the mini island and went on his merry way.

Didnt get the reg but have tweeted garda traffic and will go down and make a complaint.

That's a bad junction, there's no right filter light for traffic turning on to the dual carriageway iirc, gets blocked up very easily. Especially considering how close the next lights are at trees road, traffics at a standstill there in the morning.

helimachoptor

Danjamin1 wrote: »

That's a bad junction, there's no right filter light for traffic turning on to the dual carriageway iirc, gets blocked up very easily. Especially considering how close the next lights are at trees road, traffics at a standstill there in the morning.

Yeah i know, mon-thurs its fine because there's so much traffic that cars cant really go flying through the junction, fridays tend to be pretty bad

Chuchote

It would be a big advantage if the body in charge of traffic lights (Transport for Ireland?) had an app like See it! Say it! where you could report dangerous junctions, traffic lights out of order and junctions that need filters or changes in sequence.

V-man

It does not count as near miss but.....

Charlemont bridge this morning.
Big truck stopped halfway the turn and lots of police.
All the marks of another cyclist down....

But in this case the truck broke down.
Thank goodness

PaulieC

helimachoptor wrote: »

The two junctions on the N11, firstly on the way up to stillorgan SC and then Oatlands are death traps.

Those junctions are fine. That some road users choose not to obey the signals doesn't make them bad junctions.

Danjamin1

PaulieC wrote: »

Those junctions are fine. That some road users choose not to obey the signals doesn't make them bad junctions.

Ah the one at Oatlands I'd disagree with, it could do with a right filter. I've often seen cars in the junction waiting to turn right when the carriageway gets the green light. Then again the congestion there is a worse issue than the light sequence.

AndrewJRenko

Chuchote wrote: »

It would be a big advantage if the body in charge of traffic lights (Transport for Ireland?) had an app like See it! Say it! where you could report dangerous junctions, traffic lights out of order and junctions that need filters or changes in sequence.

These are generally local authority responsibilities, so you can use FixMyStreet.ie for reporting stuff. How seriously they will take reports is another question.

CramCycle

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Where you are along side a vehicle that has given no early indication of turning left, the assumption must be that it is also proceeding straight on. The whole concept of early indication is to clearly signal intent on advance of the junction, and thus avoid any confusion by other road users. Self - preservation, while apt to deploy, should not come into it if the motorist indicated intent in sufficient time.

Interestingly, I have found that after a few years, you can almost see it coming. I know when the majority of cars are going to turn without indication, or swerve or do some other stupid sh1t. Not always, but alot of the time. Doesn't shift the onus in anyway, just a comment on the subtle sensory cues people develop towards certain behaviours over time.

amcalester

CramCycle wrote: »

Interestingly, I have found that after a few years, you can almost see it coming. I know when the majority of cars are going to turn without indication, or swerve or do some other stupid sh1t. Not always, but alot of the time. Doesn't shift the onus in anyway, just a comment on the subtle sensory cues people develop towards certain behaviours over time.

I'd agree with this, happens quite a lot that when approaching a junction or left filter that I slow down behind a car that isn't indicating because I think that they're going to turn left, and they do.

Danbo!

CramCycle wrote: »

Interestingly, I have found that after a few years, you can almost see it coming. I know when the majority of cars are going to turn without indication, or swerve or do some other stupid sh1t. Not always, but alot of the time. Doesn't shift the onus in anyway, just a comment on the subtle sensory cues people develop towards certain behaviours over time.

Same here, hard to put into words or explain exactly how. Find the same with mobile phone use as I approach a car, be it a very slight drift, not quite following the lane or slow to move off, about 90% you guess right and they're buried in their phone.

I love Sean nos

I've just been reading this and I've a question: in Ireland, if someone loses control of a vehicle and crashes, but no one is injured and only property, if anything is damaged, how is that recorded?

RobertFoster

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

These are generally local authority responsibilities, so you can use FixMyStreet.ie for reporting stuff. How seriously they will take reports is another question.

Is there a difference between FixMyStreet and FixYourStreet? I just checked and DLR, Fingal, and SDCC all link to FixYourStreet.

Chuchote

RobertFoster wrote: »

Is there a difference between FixMyStreet and FixYourStreet? I just checked and DLR, Fingal, and SDCC all link to FixYourStreet.

Probably I and maybe others are miscalling it. I tend to use the See it! Say it! app for rubbish, and Dublin City Council's own site for potholes, etc

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

clod71

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Weepsie wrote: »

I mean taking the full lane. In urban traffic I'm not going to be at the kerb if I can help it as much as possible. It invites close overtakes for some and is rutted, potholed, and covered in standing water at the moment.I take ownership of the lane as I can generally keep pace with it, though am often faster. Part of my route have decent enough cycle lane so I'll use it then. Drumcondra road has a brutal cycle lane, but more often than not I'll use it as it's the stretch where I think people will get impatient or take a stupid chance.

That's interesting.  Something I've thought about, and should probably do more of.

Best example of this is bus lanes.  Taxis will over take unless you dominate the lane.

Funny enough, I would identify the bike lane on Drumcondra road as quite a high risk place, simply as pedestrians are so likely to walk onto the lane.  And also, cyclists often undertake on this lane.

I think the point you're making is key to safely cycle on the road. You need to dominate/own the lane and more generally the road and constantly communicate with the cars behind.
Squeeze up on the left doesn't help with anything here, neither the cyclists reputation nor their safety.