11 deaths this year , will we get the facts?

ED E

fat bloke wrote: »

My ten year old car worth about 4000 euro beeps at me if the front or the rear or any of the four corners approach an obstacle. It's great for stopping me reversing into my bin every Friday.

So why can't a 150,000 euro truck have a few of those to cover those blind spots???

Truck companies are notorious for running vehicles into the ground. Port of Miami(IIRC) was attracting loads of trucks through the city so they banned old ones with terrible emissions standards which was basically the entire cohort. Caused uproar.

Sensors aside, HGVs shouldnt be interacting with vulnerable road users during normal hours. London is a great example of that.

There's no reason why they cant run at night, many of them do anyways.

Alanstrainor

ED E wrote: »

Truck companies are notorious for running vehicles into the ground. Port of Miami(IIRC) was attracting loads of trucks through the city so they banned old ones with terrible emissions standards which was basically the entire cohort. Caused uproar.

Sensors aside, HGVs shouldnt be interacting with vulnerable road users during normal hours. London is a great example of that.

There's no reason why they cant run at night, many of them do anyways.

Completely agree here. There should be strict access times for trucks of a certain size. Most likely in the middle of the night. The amount of 8 wheeler trucks that you see in traffic in Dublin city centre at rush hour is madness.

The technology aspect is another huge issue. Volvo cars have had blind spot monitors for years now. They are icons on your wing mirrors that show a red light when a car or cyclist is in your blind spot. I've seen them working when I cycle by. A similar system should be available to new trucks at the very least.

07Lapierre

magicbastarder wrote: »

i have regularly seen cyclists undertake container lorries and other artics while crossing the east link.

+1 There are a lot of clueless cyclists out there.

beauf

ED E wrote: »

...There's no reason why they cant run at night, many of them do anyways.

Not quite the same for building work, when digging or pouring concrete.

While those in the car might not want them on the road, the locals won't want them working through the night.

Of course we could suggest that common HGV routes must have segregated cycle lanes.

the_pen_turner

nothing good will come from running trucks at night.
only a few trucks could run at night anyway. bin trucks, refuelling trucks etc.
all the rest are delivering stuff to companies. how would you react if your boss said you have to do a night shift to take deliveries. ok in a factory but a shop or pub.
all the extra noise would piss off the locals

Chuchote

the_pen_turner wrote: »

nothing good will come from running trucks at night.
only a few trucks could run at night anyway. bin trucks, refuelling trucks etc.
all the rest are delivering stuff to companies. how would you react if your boss said you have to do a night shift to take deliveries. ok in a factory but a shop or pub.
all the extra noise would piss off the locals

I spent a lot of my life doing night shifts, so I did.

ED E

beauf wrote: »

Not quite the same for building work, when digging or pouring concrete.

While those in the car might not want them on the road, the locals won't want them working through the night.

Of course we could suggest that common HGV routes must have segregated cycle lanes.

Concrete trucks spend 3-4 months blocking the segregated and elevated cycle lane at Charlemont a year or so ago. Every day. If they treat them as loading bays its kinda pointless.

the_pen_turner wrote: »

nothing good will come from running trucks at night.
only a few trucks could run at night anyway. bin trucks, refuelling trucks etc.
all the rest are delivering stuff to companies. how would you react if your boss said you have to do a night shift to take deliveries. ok in a factory but a shop or pub.
all the extra noise would piss off the locals

Bin lorries run during the day. In town and the 'burbs. Gone be the days of them being done by noon.

If thats your job its your job. Dunnes load their veg at 4AM daily. Tesco do stock until 2ish in many branches (More like 5 in the big ones like Dundrum). No reason why others can't. Its unloading cages, not digging the next port tunnel. Noise isnt an issue.

Only thing stopping it is business bottom lines and frankly that shoudnt come before public safety and the traffic chaos on our roads.

Chuchote

Mods, can we please have a separate Zeze Cyclists, Zey Are Crezzy thread for a) They Go Through Red Lights b) They Don't Pay Road Tax c) I Saw a Cyclist Do A Mad Thing clutter?

beauf

ED E wrote: »

Concrete trucks spend 3-4 months blocking the segregated and elevated cycle lane at Charlemont a year or so ago. Every day. If they treat them as loading bays its kinda pointless. ...

Well thats an enforcement issue.


http://irishcycle.com/2017/06/27/human-barrier-protects-cycle-lane-in-dublin-before-nightline-truck-driver-parks-up/

AndrewJRenko

homerjay2005 wrote: »

i am both a driver and a cyclist however the majority of issues i see are with cyclists taking risks they dont need to take.

So I guess you don't see the 82% of motorists breaking the speed limit that the RSA see?

Tombo2001

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So I guess you don't see the 82% of motorists breaking the speed limit that the RSA see?

If by risks he means getting on the bike in the first place then perhaps yes he is right.

By definition, cycling is risky when drivers behave they way they do.

con___manx1

07Lapierre wrote: »

Cyclists will be banned from public roads. :mad:
(Mandatory use of cycle lanes)

I was cycling down a hill recently at a decent pace. There was car waiting to pull out on the main road. I could see that he saw me but pulled out in the road right in front of me anyway. I had to slam on the breaks and maneuver and missed his car by a small distance.
I was really hoping he would get caught in traffic as I would have kicked his head in or at least kicked the crap out of his car.
He didn't care about my safety or my life . I'm not really a cyclist just took it up recently but in on there side now.

Arcade_Tryer

con___manx1 wrote: »

I was cycling down a hill recently at a decent pace. There was car waiting to pull out on the main road. I could see that he saw me but pulled out in the road right in front of me anyway. I had to slam on the breaks and maneuver and missed his car by a small distance.
I was really hoping he would get caught in traffic as I would have kicked his head in or at least kicked the crap out of his car.
He didn't care about my safety or my life . I'm not really a cyclist just took it up recently but in on there side now.

Don't do either of those things. You lose credibility, and are only asking for trouble. Threaten to report the person to the police instead, and perhaps throw them a finger or an ironic thumbs up.

I love Sean nos

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Threaten to report the person to the police instead

There's less credibility in that empty threat.

Arcade_Tryer

I love Sean nos wrote: »

There's less credibility in that empty threat.

Does not have to be an empty threat, and it is credible if they are convinced you are going to report them.

machiavellianme

I always like to tell whoever caused my near miss that I have the whole thing on camera and I'll be dropping it into the garda barracks on my way past in the morning. It's nice to also throw in that I hope it was worth almost killing me just to end up caught at the next red light anyway.
There's usually a change in their tone to something more apologetic.

Thing is, I don't even have a camera but they don't need to know that.

I love Sean nos

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Does not have to be an empty threat, and it is credible if they are convinced you are going to report them.

They may be convinced on the reporting aspect, but they'd be rightly skeptical about there being any consequences coming from it. I know I would.

con___manx1

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Don't do either of those things. You lose credibility, and are only asking for trouble. Threaten to report the person to the police instead, and perhaps throw them a finger or an ironic thumbs up.

Yea your probly right but my god I was so angry. The police would do nothing.

I love Sean nos

machiavellianme wrote: »

I always like to tell whoever caused my near miss that I have the whole thing on camera and I'll be dropping it into the garda barracks on my way past in the morning. It's nice to also throw in that I hope it was worth almost killing me just to end up caught at the next red light anyway.
There's usually a change in their tone to something more apologetic.

Thing is, I don't even have a camera but they don't need to know that.

Yeah, your invisible camera would really help your credibility.

machiavellianme

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Yeah, your invisible camera would really help your credibility.

Cameras can be pretty small these days. They even come inside lights.
They don't have to be big stupid lenses sticking out of a helmet.
Plus, my bike has a lot of unusual looking gadgets (reelight neo and lumos indicating helmet) so how are they to tell in the heat of the moment?

I love Sean nos

machiavellianme wrote: »

Cameras can be pretty small these days. They even come inside lights.
They don't have to be big stupid lenses sticking out of a helmet.
Plus, my bike has a lot of unusual looking gadgets (reelight neo and lumos indicating helmet) so how are they to tell in the heat of the moment?

I'd still call your bluff. There are posts on the forum where the Gardai refused to even look at footage presented.

machiavellianme

Yes, but most motorists haven't read this forum to learn that.
I'd doubt some have ever even read the rules of the road.

It has been pretty effective to date.

I love Sean nos

machiavellianme wrote: »

Yes, but most motorists haven't read this forum to learn that.
I'd doubt some have ever even read the rules of the road.

It has been pretty effective to date.

At stopping motorists from performing unsafe manoeuvres?

machiavellianme

At getting an apology and recognition that we all share the road.

I love Sean nos

machiavellianme wrote: »

At getting an apology and recognition that we all share the road.

So, they're still threatening your wellbeing, but at least they're nice about it afterwards.

That's an improvement of sorts I suppose.

AndrewJRenko

I love Sean nos wrote: »

I'd still call your bluff. There are posts on the forum where the Gardai refused to even look at footage presented.

You might well, having thought these issues through - but the average Joe driver probably wouldn't know what to even look for, and wouldn't know anything about the likelihood of the Gardai accepting it.

Certainly, if you got any hint of someone trying to pull a 'compo' job, and you don't have it on camera, you should tell them that you DO have it on camera.

check_six

I love Sean nos wrote: »

I'd still call your bluff. There are posts on the forum where the Gardai refused to even look at footage presented.

"I'd like to report an incident with a dangerous motorist. I have it all on camera."

"Ah, look, at the end of the day it's your word against theirs."

"But I have the video right here..."

"Nah nah nah. I can't hear you!" *sticks fingers in ears* *shuts eyes really tightly*

""

Shedite27

machiavellianme wrote: »

I always like to tell whoever caused my near miss that I have the whole thing on camera and I'll be dropping it into the garda barracks on my way past in the morning. It's nice to also throw in that I hope it was worth almost killing me just to end up caught at the next red light anyway.
There's usually a change in their tone to something more apologetic.

Thing is, I don't even have a camera but they don't need to know that.

What are you hoping to achieve by that? Just give the driver a little scare? Or looking for an apology?

Macy0161

Shedite27 wrote: »

What are you hoping to achieve by that? Just give the driver a little scare? Or looking for an apology?

Does it matter? If it makes the driver think of other consequences (as obviously nearly killing someone just isn't enough), who cares on the motivation?

magicbastarder

there's a simple solution to this. instead of using the threat of camera footage to report a motorist, use the actuality of camera footage to report a motorist.
otherwise the 'i'll send the footage in to the gardai' threat will possibly become the cycling equivalent of telling someone in a callcentre 'i'm going to ring joe duffy about this'.

There's no simple way to submit footage for reporting road-traffic incidents, though. You have to ring Traffic Watch, give lots of tedious details over the phone and hope that a Garda eventually rings back.

Miklos

https://instagram.com/p/BV4eYmlHGzT/

Look at this absolute guff from the RSA. I despair.

Shedite27

Macy0161 wrote: »

Does it matter? If it makes the driver think of other consequences (as obviously nearly killing someone just isn't enough), who cares on the motivation?

Just curious if there's any reaction that the poster would have been happy with, was he looking for a genuine discussion on it, some sort of compensation, wanted to see the driver upset? It's a genuine question

Alanstrainor

Miklos wrote: »

https://instagram.com/p/BV4eYmlHGzT/

Look at this absolute guff from the RSA. I despair.

This video should be changed to:

"Before you or your passengers exit your vehicle into a carriageway, be sure to check your mirror and blind spot before opening a door."

It reminds me of this RSA gem, with doctored footage to make blind spots appear larger than they are:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXgFnojE--k

It's especially annoying because both videos do contain some valid information. Yes, as a cyclist you should keep distance from car doors, but the video should put the onus on motorists to do the necessary checks before exiting. And again with the truck, yes of course you should not be on the inside of a truck when it is turning (or ever really...), but they doctored the footage to exaggerate it all. UGHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

mrcheez

Deleted User wrote: »

There's no simple way to submit footage for reporting road-traffic incidents, though. You have to ring Traffic Watch, give lots of tedious details over the phone and hope that a Garda eventually rings back.

I burned my video to DVD, went up to the Gardai station and filed a report.

They acted on it and it went all the way to the courts.

I've never used Traffic Watch, I always file a report directly. In fact the Gardai on the case said he wished more people did this as it made it clear cut.

AndrewJRenko

mrcheez wrote: »

I've never used Traffic Watch, I always file a report directly. In fact the Gardai on the case said he wished more people did this as it made it clear cut.

How does going directly make it any more (or less) clear cut?

tomasrojo

Re: the RSA blind-spot video

I think what happened is that they were trying to recreate a British short film that made the point about blind spots very concisely and clearly, but unfortunately the RSA picked a Scania truck, and those trucks have very small blind spots, so they ended up faking the reveal at the end (getting the cyclists to start off-camera and then to move into shot beside the truck) because they just couldn't find the real blind spots: no matter where they put them beside the truck, the cyclists were visible in the truck wing mirrors.

mrcheez

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

How does going directly make it any more (or less) clear cut?

Perhaps he was referring to the way I provided the evidence.

Rather than giving a description over the phone, I gave them a video which showed the incident immediately after it happened. No delay (read paperwork) in pursuing the culprit after the incident.

I also added still photos and a .txt copy of the account on the DVD.

rubadub

Alanstrainor wrote: »

"Before you or your passengers exit your vehicle into a carriageway, be sure to check your mirror and blind spot before opening a door."

+1, usually in these type of ads the person doing dangerous stuff like that suddenly has a big OTT shocked reaction, knowing they were in the wrong. Yer one gets out of the car and sees the cyclist and not even the slightest reaction from her of surprise. She was a crazy auld one driving though, you can tell by the lack of helmet.

It is a snippet from this ad from 2013,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PocLSapuXa8

Unknown Soldier

Shedite27 wrote: »

What are you hoping to achieve by that? Just give the driver a little scare? Or looking for an apology?

Shedite27 wrote: »

Just curious if there's any reaction that the poster would have been happy with, was he looking for a genuine discussion on it, some sort of compensation, wanted to see the driver upset? It's a genuine question

You seem to be quite eh, restricted, in your scenarios.

"Give the driver a scare? Wanted to see the driver upset?" Really?

Maybe, just maybe, it might make the driver think a tad about the situation, and maybe they'd learn something, possibly leading them to be more careful in the future. Or just think that every cyclist might have a camera on them so "better safe than sorry AKA caught on camera"

Either works for me tbh.

07Lapierre

Alanstrainor wrote: »

This video should be changed to:

"Before you or your passengers exit your vehicle into a carriageway, be sure to check your mirror and blind spot before opening a door."

It reminds me of this RSA gem, with doctored footage to make blind spots appear larger than they are:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXgFnojE--k

It's especially annoying because both videos do contain some valid information. Yes, as a cyclist you should keep distance from car doors, but the video should put the onus on motorists to do the necessary checks before exiting. And again with the truck, yes of course you should not be on the inside of a truck when it is turning (or ever really...), but they doctored the footage to exaggerate it all. UGHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

To be fair, the rsa do have a video which does ask drivers to look out for cyclists when opening doors.

https://youtu.be/r368KLyaWDM

Fian

rubadub wrote: »

It is a snippet from this ad from 2013,

That 2013 Ad - in fairness to RSA I can't fault it. Good ad, contains good advice. Wish it were running again now.

mrcheez

Fian wrote: »

That 2013 Ad - in fairness to RSA I can't fault it.

Apart from the daft old bint getting out of her car without a care in the world

Chiparus

Deleted User wrote: »

There's no simple way to submit footage for reporting road-traffic incidents, though. You have to ring Traffic Watch, give lots of tedious details over the phone and hope that a Garda eventually rings back.

I reported a driver to the guards , they were not interested, until I showed them the video, I was offered a range of actions, settled for a call around and an apology.

I reported a driver via Traffic Watch and did eventually go in to give a statement and the video evidence. I haven't heard anything since, though I understand that it can take some time. I just think that there should be a way to submit footage and incident details directly to the Gardaí online, so that there is an electronic paper trail the whole way. Ringing up, hoping for a call back and bringing in a DVD is cumbersome and I feel as though you can be easily forgotten about.

It's not the tedious details that I mind, it's giving it over the phone and hoping that everything it taken down properly.

I don't really mind the system that's in place that much - at least it's something. I just think it could be improved.

Thud

Weepsie wrote: »

Tedious details are important though I would suggest. If you take the time to ring, and give detailed information and said tedious details then hopefully something is done.

An easy upload and submit system would see eejits like Cycle dub clog it with endless amount of footage

It would clog it up but it would also highlight the amount of times it occurs to them and might make drivers less likely to do it if they knew they could be reported like that

CramCycle

Weepsie wrote: »

Tedious details are important though I would suggest. If you take the time to ring, and give detailed information and said tedious details then hopefully something is done.

An easy upload and submit system would see eejits like Cycle dub clog it with endless amount of footage

I would love an easy upload system if there was someone there at the other end to sift through it. It really strikes me as a job for a trained civilian team who can filter through actionable data and pass on the relevant info to an assigned team or station. It may get clogged but it has to be better than the mess of having to meet the Garda on duty, at the right time, if they have time with confusion over what is and what is not acceptable proof.

mrcheez

Deleted User wrote: »

I reported a driver via Traffic Watch and did eventually go in to give a statement and the video evidence. I haven't heard anything since, though I understand that it can take some time. I just think that there should be a way to submit footage and incident details directly to the Gardaí online, so that there is an electronic paper trail the whole way. Ringing up, hoping for a call back and bringing in a DVD is cumbersome and I feel as though you can be easily forgotten about.

Were you not given the name of a Gardai assigned to the case?

I was given the name of the Gardai and rang up on occasion to get an update on the progress (which I'm sure moved it back to the top of the queue).

He then regularly called me with updates.

Macy0161

An easy upload system would also give the authorities of the true picture of the roads. FAQ's and a properly constructed form should get most details.

Obviously, it should also be applicable to other camera footage - dashcams, buscams (for bus lane infringements?) - and I'd include cycling offences such as RLJ as being appropriate footage as well as vehicles.

If the uploader identified location and/or reg then repeat offenders and problematic locations could also be tackled (road design, loads of RLJ etc)

Disproportionate uploaders could also be addressed, if they're suprious or putting themselves in harms way. Could actually reduce conflict/ road rage, if rather than get in a row, stuff was just submitted for action. Can't see how it's not a win for all road users. The only problem would be getting it properly resourced.