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

Danbo!

Danbo! wrote: »

Yeah I feel exactly the same tbh. Got hit a few weeks back by a driver making an illegal turn without indicating or checking mirrors and the gardai wouldnt even look at the video even though I had it on the phone ready when they arrived - "It's a civil matter"

You were definitely fobbed off. I got some serious verbal abuse and threatening behaviour with a car on camera and the Gardaí took a statement with a view to prosecution. If you were hit, I can't see how they wouldn't consider that to be more serious.

If you have the evidence, pursue it. Maybe contact a solicitor to see what your options are.

Kaisr Sose

jive wrote: »

Amen to that. Any time there is an event on in the Aviva or RDS it is absolute carnage with the taxi's down there basically doing whatever they want. I went by the RDS not knowing the biebs was playing and it was absolute chaos getting through there.

It was mental. I had two encounters with taxis - one on the way to RDS, the other at the RDS. Garda all over Ballabridge but ignoring the mayhem caused by taxis dropping fares everywhere, including the outer traffic lane!

Chiparus

Deleted User wrote: »

You were definitely fobbed off. I got some serious verbal abuse and threatening behaviour with a car on camera and the Gardaí took a statement with a view to prosecution. If you were hit, I can't see how they wouldn't consider that to be more serious.

If you have the evidence, pursue it. Maybe contact a solicitor to see what your options are.

Ask the Garda to get the insurance details.

Tombo2001

CramCycle wrote: »

There is a line, the hope would be that the person overtaking would be able to make that judgement. Overtaking slowly would imply that the overtake was unnecessary. But the advice is that you overtake as quickly as possible (and by possible, it is presumed they mean without increasing danger/risk losing control).

Alanstrainor wrote: »

Do you drive? What does your statement even mean? Overtaking too quickly means you are losing control of your vehicle? Rubbish. Passing a cyclist travelling at 30km/h could see a driver accelerate to 50km/h and pass quickly and safely. They might even shift down a gear and press the accelerator to the floor :eek:!

Accelerating hard is a normal part of driving, entering a 120km/h section of motorway and overtaking are two everyday examples. Nothing unsafe about it.

yes I do drive.

If you are swerving and accelerating at the same time, its difficult to control a vehicle.

Try it some time. Go to a roundabout - try to drive around it at 50k an hour, go around it two or three times.

Do you drive? This is basic stuff that driving instructors taught me.

tommythecat

Tombo2001 wrote: »

yes I do drive.

If you are swerving and accelerating at the same time, its difficult to control a vehicle.

Try it some time. Go to a roundabout - try to drive around it at 50k an hour, go around it two or three times.

Do you drive? This is basic stuff that driving instructors taught me.

And that's where you are going wrong! You don't pass a cyclist by circling around them a few times! Seriously WTF. Your example is nonsense stuff!

You don't pass a cyclist by "swerving" either! You steer the car as you would around any obstacle or turn. It's pretty basic stuff. You should be able to accelerate and steer at the same time. If you can't manage that you shouldn't be driving.

Chiparus

tommythecat wrote: »

And that's where you are going wrong! You don't pass a cyclist by circling around them a few times! Seriously WTF. Your example is nonsense stuff!

You don't pass a cyclist by "swerving" either! You steer the car as you would around any obstacle or turn. It's pretty basic stuff. You should be able to accelerate and steer at the same time. If you can't manage that you shouldn't be driving.

This morning I had a driver that tried to overtake me coming to a roundabout. then swerved in front of me, then got upset when I still managed to be in front of them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0KcXKKVQrU

cython

Tombo2001 wrote: »

yes I do drive.

If you are swerving and accelerating at the same time, its difficult to control a vehicle.

Try it some time. Go to a roundabout - try to drive around it at 50k an hour, go around it two or three times.

Do you drive? This is basic stuff that driving instructors taught me.

tommythecat wrote: »

And that's where you are going wrong! You don't pass a cyclist by circling around them a few times! Seriously WTF. Your example is nonsense stuff!

You don't pass a cyclist by "swerving" either! You steer the car as you would around any obstacle or turn. It's pretty basic stuff. You should be able to accelerate and steer at the same time. If you can't manage that you shouldn't be driving.

What he said. If you have to swerve to commence an overtake, that to me suggests that you are doing it wrong by following too close, and accelerating from the same speed as the overtakee from directly behind them. You should by rights be sitting back a bit, and accelerating from a distance so that you can pull out smoothly and commence your pass at or near your peak speed and minimise the time spent pulled out. If you do this smoothly and correctly, your trajectory should be a comparatively gentle but elongated deflection from travelling straight, rather than a marked but short "bump" towards the centre of the road.

Weepsie

I had as close as I've ever had tonight. Passing the airport coming to the turn for either Swords or Santry, a foreign reg car went by me close enough for me to touch at high speed. The coach following it was only marginally better.

I was hoping it was going to be stopping at the lights up ahead but it had a filter light. For the good of both of our health as I was not going to let them past the junction if they'd been going the other way.

Had the rear camera on, forgot to put in the memory card however

Arcade_Tryer

The problem with overtaking manoeuvres is that many motorists seem to view cyclists as simply an obstacle they must avoid hitting or colliding with, rather than a legitimate road user or mode of transport. For example, on my regular route, there is a flat, straight stretch of road for about half a kilometre, and yet even when there is no oncoming traffic, cars will often come within touching distance of me. Of course it's dangerous, and illegal, and reckless, but rather than it deliberately being those things on the part of the motorist, it is ignorance of them. And while ignorance of the law is not an excuse in court, I won't really care about that when I'm dead or paralysed. The crucial factor is a fundamental lack of understanding by motorists concerning cycling/cyclists. A lack of a culture of cycling is a major problem outside the cities. That type of overtaking behaviour is primarily down to poor, or non existent, driver education or knowledge of cycling. I've had cars come right up beside me on this straight stretch that could have spent 20 or 30 seconds cruising along the opposite side of the road without being in any danger whatsoever. And yet they chose to pass so close to me as to create a dangerous situation, as well as break the law. Mind boggling. But is it really a surprise?

Enforcement is vital. But it's also not the solution to uneducated motorists. It's simply punishing stupidity and ignorance, rather than implementing policies which will prevent the dangerous behaviour by aiming to redress the stupidity and ignorance. Obviously both strategies are vital, but until the society or culture changes surrounding how we view cycling and cyclists, enforcement will never catch up to the social loss due to the stupidity of drivers.

You're right, but there is a significant number of motorists who do not care or who deliberately act maliciously towards people as soon as those people get on a bike.

They really see no problem with using their killing machine as a weapon to intimidate and punish.

I've gotten to the point now where I will become very anxious when any car comes up behind me, especially in a bus lane.

It's not just a problem outside the cities.

Tombo2001

tommythecat wrote: »

And that's where you are going wrong! You don't pass a cyclist by circling around them a few times! Seriously WTF. Your example is nonsense stuff!

You don't shouldn't pass a cyclist by "swerving" either! You steer the car as you would around any obstacle or turn. It's pretty basic stuff. You should be able to accelerate and steer at the same time. If you can't manage that you shouldn't be driving.

FYP - if you watch any of the 'near misses' video clips shared on this thread you'll find plenty of overtakes that were done too quickly and involved swerving. If that wasn't happening then this thread wouldn't exist.

But whatevs.....its nonsense stuff, the cyclists are all imagining it - the viewcams are obviously imagining it too.

Miklos

Not quite a near miss this morning but passed an unaccompanied learner driver going by the Merrion hotel reading a pamphlet!

mr spuckler

Miklos wrote: »

Not quite a near miss this morning but passed an unaccompanied learner driver going by the Merrion hotel reading a pamphlet!

was the pamphlet to do with the rules of the road or indeed how to operate a motor car? :pac:

I love Sean nos

Tombo2001 wrote: »

FYP - if you watch any of the 'near misses' video clips shared on this thread you'll find plenty of overtakes that were done too quickly and involved swerving. If that wasn't happening then this thread wouldn't exist.

But whatevs.....its nonsense stuff, the cyclists are all imagining it - the viewcams are obviously imagining it too.

Hold on. You're evaluating driving using examples of ****ty driving as proof. This is a near miss thread. Of course the standard of driving is going to be poor.

What's being argued here is for overtaking to be performed in a swift, confident and controlled manner. Hanging around in the offside lane is good for no one.

BoardsMember

Saw one during the week on Dundrum Road here in morning rush hour.

Cyclist coming down from Dundrum, passing on the inside of stopped/slow traffic that was keeping the yellow box clear. Car coming up from Milltown took the opportunity to take a right and nearly wiped out cyclist. He pulled his brakes, went over bars and went down. He didn't appear to be half as annoyed with the driver as I would have been. He just picked himself and his bike up, and went on his way.

As a driver (as well as a cyclist), this is one of the things that is easy enough to do when driving, taking the opportunity to get through a gap, and not see a cyclist that is partially hidden by cars.

When I am cycling in similar situation, I will often cycle to the right of the cars where I am more visible. You're more hidden to cars joining the road from the left, and more prone to cars taking a right turn without indicating, but I feel often it is the slightly safer approach.

Alanstrainor

BoardsMember wrote: »

When I am cycling in similar situation, I will often cycle to the right of the cars where I am more visible. You're more hidden to cars joining the road from the left, and more prone to cars taking a right turn without indicating, but I feel often it is the slightly safer approach.

It's a tricky one. Yes sometimes passing on the right can be better, but you are now open to the possibility of cars in traffic suddenly turning right (u-turn or other manoeuvre). If I can pass on the left I will take it handy and if approaching a junction I'll stand up out of the saddle to get a good view on approach and proceed with extreme caution.

Weepsie

That's the situation that folk like cycledub eejit get uppity about. Yes, cars should know to expect cyclists on the inside of cars before they take a right turn. But equally, a cyclist should know that if traffic is stationary and there's a yellowbox, or junction with a gap, that there is a chance that a vehicle will be turning into it, or emerging from it and not be able to see them.

I see it everyday on Portland row where cars are turning onto or from Dunne street as the traffic is at a standstill. They inevitably have to brake as a bike breezes through not recognnising that traffic is stopped for a reason.

papu

Weepsie wrote: »

That's the situation that folk like cycledub eejit get uppity about. Yes, cars should know to expect cyclists on the inside of cars before they take a right turn. But equally, a cyclist should know that if traffic is stationary and there's a yellowbox, or junction with a gap, that there is a chance that a vehicle will be turning into it, or emerging from it and not be able to see them.

I see it everyday on Portland row where cars are turning onto or from Dunne street as the traffic is at a standstill. They inevitably have to brake as a bike breezes through not recognnising that traffic is stopped for a reason.

If the cars turning or emerging cannot see , they should not proceed , simples.

Weepsie

papu wrote: »

If the cars turning or emerging cannot see , they should not proceed , simples.

The same should be said for the cyclist who often can't see that a car is turning. It has to work both ways and there needs to be some responsibility for one's own safety.

Kaisr Sose

My brother witnessed a cyclist getting hit on a roundabout. The cyclist was t-boned while on the roundabout and went up on the bonnet and onto the windscreen leaving dents on the windscreen – one from his body and one from his head! He seemed to be ok (was up , sore and furious with the driver). My brother pacified! The guys helmet was cracked, so it did its job. He did not say if he was taken to hospital but I would say he may have been. My brother is a good witness to have and is making a statement.

Macy0161

Weepsie wrote: »

The same should be said for the cyclist who often can't see that a car is turning. It has to work both ways and there needs to be some responsibility for one's own safety.

Ultimate responsibility lies with the motorist, but cyclist should be at least aware of the risk and be proceeding slower/ prepared to stop. Shouldn't have been an over the handlebars emergency stop I would suggest.

btw, the time i was knocked off on my commute was going up the outside and someone deciding to do a U turn without indicating (or checking mirrors). Case by case basis which I do now, even at the same points!

I was about to cross Sandyford road near Ballaly on the greenman / greenbike crossing when I glanced to my right to see a car making no attempt to stop. It just tore through the red light missing my front wheel by inches. I nearly had a clip out fail I had to stop so quickly.

Closest call in a while.

AndrewJRenko

Miklos wrote: »

Not quite a near miss this morning but passed an unaccompanied learner driver going by the Merrion hotel reading a pamphlet!

A pamphlet on how to drive safely, perhaps?

Weepsie wrote: »

That's the situation that folk like cycledub eejit get uppity about.

Perhaps you'd like to get uppity about it, instead of dictating to others?

buffalo

Weepsie wrote: »

The same should be said for the cyclist who often can't see that a car is turning. It has to work both ways and there needs to be some responsibility for one's own safety.

Both should be proceeding with caution, but the cyclist has right of way in this example so the onus is on the driver of the turning vehicle to ensure the way is clear*.


*better alive than right T&C apply

Weepsie

buffalo wrote: »

Both should be proceeding with caution, but the cyclist has right of way in this example so the onus is on the driver of the turning vehicle to ensure the way is clear*.


*better alive than right T&C apply

It's a situation where ROTR etc need to be replaced by good common sense. Slow down when approaching such junctions. Sometimes it's easier and safer to give up right of way and it often helps portray the image that cyclists are people too.

As I said give and take.

I've got into the habit of giving a little wave when I get a good overtake, more and more I'm getting a beep, or thank you wave back. If I see such junctions, or a red light up ahead, I tend to slow down to let traffic out too if it's between me and light/junction.

I find it helps to not be unpredictable.

papu

Weepsie wrote: »

It's a situation where ROTR etc need to be replaced by good common sense. Slow down when approaching such junctions. Sometimes it's easier and safer to give up right of way and it often helps portray the image that cyclists are people too.

As I said give and take.

I've got into the habit of giving a little wave when I get a good overtake, more and more I'm getting a beep, or thank you wave back. If I see such junctions, or a red light up ahead, I tend to slow down to let traffic out too if it's between me and light/junction.

I find it helps to not be unpredictable.

These two things contradict each other. You preemptively giving up your right of way as a cyclist for your own safety, may have a negative consequence for the next cyclist they encounter who does not.
It also encourages motorists to think of cyclists as an obstacle or entity who will give up their right of way to them.

I had such an experience this morning where a lady in an SUV pulled out right infront of me, and just expected me to give way to her while I was traveling at speed.

check_six

BoardsMember wrote: »

Cyclist coming down from Dundrum, passing on the inside of stopped/slow traffic that was keeping the yellow box clear. Car coming up from Milltown took the opportunity to take a right and nearly wiped out cyclist. He pulled his brakes, went over bars and went down. He didn't appear to be half as annoyed with the driver as I would have been. He just picked himself and his bike up, and went on his way.

I know a fellow who was in a crash in a similar but opposite manoeuvre. He was on the bike turning right, a stopped van in the outside oncoming lane obscured his view of a car coming up the inside oncoming lane. He got pretty badly bashed up when the car ran into him. As he was recounting what I had assumed was a cautionary tale of being extra careful turning across multiple lanes I suddenly realised that he was putting the blame squarely on the shoulders of the oncoming car. Other listeners were urging legal action and the like.

I was a bit shocked to be honest. I didn't have the heart to point out that the car in that situation had the right of way, or even ask them to imagine the reversed roles scenario like in your story and get them to think about who made the mistake in those terms. I just kind of nodded along and wished him a get well soon.

ED E

papu wrote: »

I had such an experience this morning where a lady in an SUV

You didnt need to finish that sentence.

Weepsie

papu wrote: »

I had such an experience this morning where a lady in an SUV pulled out right infront of me, and just expected me to give way to her while I was traveling at speed.

That's different to what I had described though. I described traffic at a standstill basically where the cyclist can not see the oncoming traffic and the oncoming traffic can not see the cyclist.

In those instances, it should be a no brainer to slow down, prepare to have to stop, or as is written everywhere "proceed with caution".

But yeah, lady in SUV, that's not a surprise to be honest.

check_six

ED E wrote: »

You didnt need to finish that sentence.

Thank goodness that vehicle has bull bars on the front for negotiating the urban jungle. Will come in handy when they have their inevitable series of crashes.