Near Misses Thread Volume 2 (So close you can feel it)

MojoMaker

Yep. Can't let him away with that Cram. left unchecked, that will only be repeated and maybe worse.

cletus

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

This reminded me of my car door experience. Cycling along St Stephen's Green towards Leeson St and I got car doored by someone getting out of a parked car. Came off and my jeans were all ripped, bits of gravel embedded in my palms and my ankle really hurt. The man was all apologetic but I just shooed him away and limped back to work.
Afterwards I was thinking what you're supposed to do in those situations? It was a pair of diesel jeans worth about 160 quid and I was pretty shook up.
Are they liable for anything?
I nearly got car doored nearby soon afterwards when someone stopped outside Top Shop on St Stephen's Green to let his mate out of the car and I lost it at the guy getting out that I had to jam on for. Must have been pent up.

The reality is, unless your bike is damaged, or you require medical attention, I can't see you getting compensated.

Car insurance companies are highly unlikely to pay out for damaged clothing, and it's probably equally unlikely that the fella in the car is going to hand over cash to you if you tell him the cost of the jeans

Johnny Jukebox

cletus wrote: »

The reality is, unless your bike is damaged, or you require medical attention, I can't see you getting compensated.

Car insurance companies are highly unlikely to pay out for damaged clothing, and it's probably equally unlikely that the fella in the car is going to hand over cash to you if you tell him the cost of the jeans

That's why its advisable to engage a solicitor and let them handle any and all negotiations with insurance companies and 3rd parties. Plenty of young aggressive legal professionals out there....

magicbastarder

coming downhill past omni, a poxy ****stick in a white yaris drove right out onto the road in front of me from behind the wall on the left here (i.e. where the white SUV is). i had plenty of room and enough time to react and swerve around him, but what really annoyed me was his car had a nurburgring sticker on it. a yaris with a nurburgring sticker. the car should be taken from him and crushed.

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3888206,-6.2459068,3a,75y,150.17h,73.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sP_6hujffQc6iVj21GjqPzQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Seth Brundle

tjhook wrote: »

Apologies in advance for this segway. After your comment I had a random thought wondering if people can cycle on the nurburgring. Sure enough!

I'd say that'd be an experience.

Can you put a ring sticker on your bike afterwards?

magicbastarder

tjhook wrote: »

Apologies in advance for this segway. After your comment I had a random thought wondering if people can cycle on the nurburgring. Sure enough!

I'd say that'd be an experience.

a bunch of my colleagues have done it; relay races.

Seth Brundle

It was a deliveroo cyclist travelling along Dublins North quays in the new segregated cycle lane (on the RHS of the road). At a junction the driver who wanted to turn right had to give way to the cyclist who was travelling straight ahead.
The cyclist had right of way and yet the driver with their piss poor skills and knowledge figured that they would demonstrate this ignorance to others hoping for those others to like their obvious stupidity.
They didn't though!

MojoMaker

Glad to hear it. Was there even a hint of remorse or enlightenment from the uploader with his new-found understanding?

magicbastarder

he got roundly roasted, and deleted his video without comment or admission that he may have been in the wrong.

Stark

This was the last post from him https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116024826&postcount=2255

"How was anyone supposed to know where the cyclist was going". Lol.

MojoMaker

Not just a Morlock, a Grunt Morlock at that.

And the old "I do cycle in fact" for good measure :rolleyes:

magicbastarder

micar wrote: »

This was put up in the dash cam in the motorist section.

The YouTube description say "deliveroo cyclists......are a bane to motorists and here is why"

Thankfully the poster (who's also the driver) hasn't got any support.

i've been watching a few dashcam compilations of late, on an english youtube channel, and the amusing part is 90% of the comments is people enjoying the irony of so many people sending videos in which reveal their *own* colossal idiocy. they send the video in clearly with the intent of a 'look at this dose' reaction, and they're the dose.

magicbastarder

'lots of likes' being 'none'.
certainly on the dashcam thread, but not sure if you're referring to youtube?
he didn't get a single thanks on the post with the video, or any subsequent posts justifying his stance.

magicbastarder

whoops, you posted between me and Tombo2001, whose post i was replying to.

MojoMaker

magicbastarder wrote: »

'lots of likes' being 'none'.
certainly on the dashcam thread, but not sure if you're referring to youtube?
he didn't get a single thanks on the post with the video, or any subsequent posts justifying his stance.

He must be due an annual visit to this forum to object to stuff like the Strand Road cycle lane or bike sharing schemes..."as a cyclist" :rolleyes:

magicbastarder

as commented on the dashcam thread over in the motors forum, they probably deliberately salt those compilations with them because that drives (pun unintended) views.

MojoMaker

Zaidan is no friend of the motorist don't forget.

buffalo

buffalo wrote: »

One for Trafficwatch on Monday morning:

Remembered to follow up with the Garda today - points and a fine issued.

That's the most satisfactory result I've gotten from reporting, and it's the only time I haven't gone through TrafficWatch. Part of me wonders if they take you more seriously when you go to the effort of showing up at the station to make the complaint straight off, but it's probably just luck of the draw.

magicbastarder

did you get any 'why weren't you on the cycle path?' from the gardai?

MojoMaker

Well done.

Will it have any positive effect, or will it sour that auld lad's attitude towards cyclists in the future......who knows, but it had to be done ��

buffalo

magicbastarder wrote: »

did you get any 'why weren't you on the cycle path?' from the gardai?

No, I don't think they picked up on it when I showed them the video, and they didn't know the area that well.

I was forthright about it when making the statement, explained that it wasn't a great section of cycle lane, but they didn't see it as an issue at all.

Seth Brundle

tnegun wrote: »

...if you've to drop in a USB of the footage.

I've recently been giving them the video via streamable.com as I'm too tight to be buying us keys just to give them away - so far I've never been refused.

buffalo

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I've recently been giving them the video via streamable.com as I'm too tight to be buying us keys just to give them away - so far I've never been refused.

I was asked to crop the video to the bare minimum and email it. I think I had to get it down to about 1.5-2 seconds before it was successfully received.

But no bounce message when it was too large, so I got a phone call from a Garda wondering why I hadn't sent in the video a week later.

In the past, I had a Garda who used their phone to record the video playing on my laptop.

Edit: I offered a link to youTube or Vimeo, but they said the Garda computers wouldn't allow access to those sites.

fatbhoy

fatbhoy wrote: »

A couple of friends said to me that sorry isn't good enough, and the more I thought about it the more I agreed. So I reported it to the Gardai with a view to claiming off his insurance for the medical charge and a set of scuffed pedals. The Garda said she'd pass on his insurance details to me so I can claim.

Just mentioning this in case it happens to someone else.

Update: the manager of the Dominos branch paid for new pedals and the A&E charge today; took about a day, so they were really quick and easy to deal with. Although I had to sign a waiver letter saying there would be no further expenses or liability, but I was happy to sign it.

Seth Brundle

I'd report that!
It wouldn't surprise me if they deliberately were punishing you not being on the (crappy) cycle path.

buffalo

VonLuck wrote: »

I'm always torn on these situations. Yes, the car was entirely in the wrong, but there also was a usable cycle lane beside you. I say 'usable' because I get that there are issues with it being a shared path/cycle lane in parts and you go at 30kmph, but there could be the argument to go slower.

Unfortunately it's a case of being damned if you do, damned if you don't.

When explaining these sort of situations, I sometimes compare it to taking the motorway instead of the old N road that twists and turns and goes through every village and town. Sure the N road is 'usable', but why should somebody be damned for choosing the faster and safer* route?


*That's safer assuming nobody deliberately makes it otherwise, as above.

Seth Brundle

VonLuck wrote: »

I'm always torn on these situations. Yes, the car was entirely in the wrong, but there also was a usable cycle lane beside you. I say 'usable' because I get that there are issues with it being a shared path/cycle lane in parts and you go at 30kmph, but there could be the argument to go slower.

Unfortunately it's a case of being damned if you do, damned if you don't. Why don't local authorities prevent these from being constructed? Do they not know of the issues associated with them?

Regardless where a cyclist should be, there is no excuse for a dangerous overtake

magicbastarder

doughef wrote: »

(Waits for ban)

you're entitled to your opinion.

anyway, there are certain cycle paths i refuse to use, safe in the knowledge that if i were to have an issue while not using one, the reaction of the gardai would be to refuse to deal with it.

Seth Brundle

doughef wrote: »

I’m quite genuine. Just because you don’t like the truth.

Simple fact is the guy chose to ignore the cycle land and place himself in harms way.

(Waits for ban)

It would help your argument if you actually knew the law rather than trotting out tired old nonsense :rolleyes:

MojoMaker

Nobody should be cycling at 30kph in an off-road cycle track shared with pedestrians (even if pedestrians aren't visibly present). If you're travelling at that speed the road is the correct place for you.

Raised cycle tracks on pavements are for slow moving bicycle traffic, conscious of the omnipresent bidirectional pedestrians, joggers, e-scooters, other bicycles, and dog walkers - before we even get to discuss suitability of surface and presence of manmade hazards. On the road, traffic is going in one direction and in a wider space, and bicycles are protected in the road traffic laws as a legitimate form of traffic.

I've had debates with motorists on a regular enough basis on the designation of mandatory cycle lanes. Without fail the belief of every motorist has been that "mandatory cycle track" meant mandatory for cyclists to use when present. All are usually quite surprised to understand that "mandatory" in this usage means "mandatory for vehicular traffic to stay out of". [Contra-flow & pedestrianised locations noted].

Tbh, I think Leo set the tone for this confusion when he was transport minister - the message was never tightened up enough to enlighten drivers and to protect cyclists.

Seth Brundle

VonLuck wrote: »

Where did I say there was an excuse for the dangerous overtake? I explicitly said the driver was in the wrong!

Point taken but your post was suggesting that the cyclist should be going slower and you refer to the cycle path beside the OP. Neither of which are really relevant in terms of a prick driver putting someone in danger.

VonLuck wrote: »

They totally have the right, but that won't stop drivers being pissed off as a result. You might think "so what", but an angry driver is more likely to perform risky manoeuvres like in the video. I'd prefer to be alive instead of right.

This is solely down to the driver but is fuelled by misinformation about cycle lanes and a vast misunderstanding about the legal obligations of various road users.

Seth Brundle

doughef wrote: »

You fly boys craic me up !!

Just obey the rules / be where your meant to be and all will be ok.
We can’t pick and chose which rules apply to us.

Stay safe

You really need to re-read the rules of the road because you're quite incorrect in your understanding of them.

Seth Brundle

kennethsmyth wrote: »

There is also a risk on cycle path, going on and off or someone/something stepping onto it. At some point of mitigation of risk it becomes that you are not actually living and have zero experiences due to reducing risk. Cycling on road is normal, drivers need to expect cyclists and so long as the cyclists are not taking the mick then there should be no frustration between either party.

That in itself is a problem.
I've challenged drivers for stupid passes only to be told how I was "all over the road" despite me travelling in a straight line.
People frequently see what they want to see!

magicbastarder

it's quite easy and simple to boil down; if you feel more comfortable and safer on the road, use the road. if you feel more comfortable and safer on the cycle path, use the cycle path.

quite often it's safer to not use the cycle path. IMHO.

magicbastarder

Eamonnator wrote: »

Are you seriously using a fictional character to back up an argument?

i'm just trying to wrap my head around quoting someone using the past tense for something they say in the 24th century.

cletus

doughef wrote: »

Hi guys

Just wondering if there is something in the charter about posting pictures of peoples cars, with the registration clearly visible .

Is this not against GDPR regulations ?

Is the reg not clearly visible while he's driving around the road?

There's no expectation of privacy when in a public place

Edit: multiple people in ahead of me

magicbastarder

doughef wrote: »

Yes, but capturing it and posting it to social media platform without consent might be against the regulations?

under the law or under social media regulations? i can't see either having anything to say on the matter. if you take a video in a public place of an occurrence in a public place, it's legal to upload it to social media.
and regarding the car reg being visible. that's the point of a car reg, it legally must be visible.

doughef wrote: »

Also .. these drivers are being accused of acting illegally without their knowledge.
Surely that’s against the regulations/ law ?

if they're being incorrectly accused of acting illegally - for example, if the video had been edited to misrepresent the situation - then i suspect you could be right. however, if it's a straight unedited clip, it's a bit more straightforward.

magicbastarder

doughef wrote: »

I do feel there is cause for concern if we can openly accuse people of acting illegally without their consent ?

but we can do that anyway.
i could accuse you of being a criminal, without evidence, by posting that (just using plain text); but we don't remove the ability of users to post anything, based on them thus having that capability.

if there is a case where there's a genuine concern that someone has been accused of something in the wrong, that's dealt with as and when it happens.

buffalo

Weepsie wrote: »

No. People are not identifiable by a car registration plate. Also, driving your car on a public road, you are allowed be filmed/photographed etc.

Youtube would have a hell of a time cleaning stuff up if it was remotely a problem.

What people think GDPR covers, and reality are often a mile apart.

youTube took a video of mine offline because it featured a registration plate and apparently the driver claimed this was PII. There was no appeals process.

magicbastarder

buffalo wrote: »

youTube took a video of mine offline because it featured a registration plate and apparently the driver claimed this was PII. There was no appeals process.

curious how the driver found it.

anyway, given the number of dashcam videos on youtube, they could have their hands full if people started doing this in any sort of numbers. how would they verify you *are* the owner of the car you claim is depicted?

buffalo

magicbastarder wrote: »

curious how the driver found it.

anyway, given the number of dashcam videos on youtube, they could have their hands full if people started doing this in any sort of numbers. how would they verify you *are* the owner of the car you claim is depicted?

Indeed, I asked the same question, but there was no meaningful engagement from the faceless bureaucratic automatons.

edit: I also asked why the reg was considered PII, but also no answer to that.

buffalo

VonLuck wrote: »

All I was trying to say is that it is generally safer to use dedicated lanes, even if shared, but you may have to compromise on speed as a result.

I'm not sure that's true when it comes to the Irish experience.

We have so few fully dedicated lanes that you usually end up being put back on the road at junctions. Junctions are the most likely place for a cyclists to be in a collision IIRC.

When you stay on the road, you can take the lane and position to prevent a left hook from all but the most determined/****ty drivers. When you're off-road, you're out of sight, out of mind for a lot of drivers. Often you'll be put back on the road on the inside of left-turning traffic, which of course is a dangerous place to be at the best of times, but probably far worse when a driver hasn't seen you ahead of them on the road at any point.

magicbastarder

the problem in ireland is that generally those dedicated lanes are put in precisely where it's easy to (i.e. where there's space anyway); they attempt to fix problems where they don't really exist, and don't address problems where they do exist.
and because they usually make no attempt to re-engineer how junctions are designed, which is where the vast majorit of risk exposure happens, they actually often make things worse.

cf. the famous cycle path where the N11 meets foster's avenue. or further on, at donnybrook bus station.

MojoMaker

Now you're getting it VonLuck. So if you were to guess, which one of those is the OP?

smacl

VonLuck wrote: »

All I was trying to say is that it is generally safer to use dedicated lanes, even if shared, but you may have to compromise on speed as a result.

This might be true if said lanes were well designed but very often they're not. So for example here where if you're taking the last exit the cycle lane leaves you on the inside of left turning traffic, or here where the cycle lane abrubtly stops forcing you to rejoin a busy road with a single lane in the direction you're travelling, or here where they've painted in cycle lanes where there isn't actually any space for them. Don't get me wrong, I think there's some solid cycling infrastructure out there too but there is some that is downright dangerous.

Duckjob

Another problem with some cycle paths is lack of safe accessibility. By that I mean in some cases getting on to the path while operating within the typical traffic environment could itself be a risky maneuvre.

I tried to point out this concept over on C&T in a thread where certain posters were complaining about people on bikes not using the 100m stretch of cycle path up to the royal canal at North Strand Marino.

I was explaining that if i'm doing 35-40kph in the bus lane towards the canal, with a 14 tonne double decker bus behind me in the bus lane, hot on my heels ( a common enough real world scenario) , the last thing I can do safely is slow my speed in the bus lane down to the 15-20kph which would be necessary to make the somewhat tight turn into the cycle path, over a kerb (where if I get the angle wrong and end up hitting the floor on the bus lane I'm dead), to enter a fairly confined space where people are walking. Therefore, in such instances its simply safer to continue on the bus lane at the speed I'm going up to the lights.

Needless to say my explanations fell on deaf ears with certain posters who, despite having no experience of cycling that stretch themselves, still felt qualified to reject the experiences of someone who cycles it regularly, and make their pronouncements that use of the bike lane is safer.

Seth Brundle

Wildly Boaring wrote: »

Not a near miss but an angry man

Cycle paths both sides of road white this morning so I cycled up the road (the inhumanity)

Got lifted out of it by angry little chubby fella

There can be a fair bit of agression outside Intel (where your pic was taken).
The road is now has a different route & layout to the above image. They've introduced a new crossroads and any traffic behind you coming from the roundabout (where your image was taken) must get to the red lights of that junction before you.
The cycle paths are shared footpaths had you taken it, then at the point where you are forced to rejoin the road (just further on) may well have a car parked in it (usually waiting for someone to leave the Intel construction site).
It is common to see cars waiting in both the bus stop areas and also on the footpath/cyclepath.
I actually emailed Intel about it last week and received a response soon afterwards about how they had notified the gardai and would be working with the gardai to help prevent it going forwards.
As for the chubby git, they're just angry at being a chubby git!

Skrynesaver

VonLuck wrote: »

All I was trying to say is that it is generally safer to use dedicated lanes, even if shared, but you may have to compromise on speed as a result.

I've been hospitalised off a bike twice, on both occasions I was on Irish dedicated cycling infrastructure.

Once a car turned through a traffic lane and a cycle lane without checking for cyclists and once when the lane was not treated and I lost it on black ice.

I no longer use Irish cycling infrastructure as it is, to generalise, a series of under maintained, poorly designed obstacle courses.

magicbastarder

still remains my favourite* cycle path:

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.2753161,-6.1902165,3a,75y,237.86h,81.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spw6lbAXTuTO9f7qQttDd-Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

*not my favourite

Stark

Funny thing is the people saying that's perfectly fine are the same people moaning about cyclists on the footpad.