Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

1…1819212324…41

Comments

  • #1002
    cletus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,056 ✭✭✭cletus


    So it's after a junction, and there's a relatively long lane to allow the left turning traffic from that junction to get up to speed and merge. It wouldn't make sense to alter that to have the traffic already on the road merge with traffic joining the road

    It's a regional road, so I assume the speed limit is 80kph. Not exactly the same as merging in that gap on a city road
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1003
    hesker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,517 ✭✭✭hesker


    cletus wrote: »
    The reason I asked is because I don't know why its a merging lane. It could literally be that, a lane leading off a junction, allowing traffic to get up to speed before merging.

    It's a newly built filter lane to service access/egress from a new estate.

    It's this road here R611 soutbound, just after the entrance to Janeville.


    Like you I don't think I'm biased either. I've had this done to me when signalling to move over to take a right turn off a road. Sh**ty behaviour by the driver but I can't disagree with the Garda position on it. You don't have absolute right of way and putting your hand out doesn't give you any rights.

    https://goo.gl/maps/hXTJtgmQdGLQxjL2A
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1004
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,118 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    hesker wrote: »
    You don't have absolute right of way and putting your hand out doesn't give you any rights.

    The cyclist doesn't need any additional rights over the one that says don't other vehicles don't have any right to kill them. OK so that isn't actually written down anywhere, but it doesn't need to be. Being in a motorised vehicle does not give you any right of way over the cyclist, and if they are in front of the car/ van the priority is to the cyclist.

    The only road where a car/ van/ etc has a legitimate claim to say "but I didn't expect that to happen" as a defense for hitting a cyclist would be on a motorway where the cyclist has no right to be. All other roads if the motorised vehicle didn't leave enough room for the cyclists in front of them then the motorist is doing it wrong.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1005
    cletus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,056 ✭✭✭cletus


    robinph wrote: »
    The cyclist doesn't need any additional rights over the one that says don't other vehicles don't have any right to kill them. OK so that isn't actually written down anywhere, but it doesn't need to be. Being in a motorised vehicle does not give you any right of way over the cyclist, and if they are in front of the car/ van the priority is to the cyclist.

    The only road where a car/ van/ etc has a legitimate claim to say "but I didn't expect that to happen" as a defense for hitting a cyclist would be on a motorway where the cyclist has no right to be. All other roads if the motorised vehicle didn't leave enough room for the cyclists in front of them then the motorist is doing it wrong.

    That's true, and nobody, I don't think, is arguing that the driver was in the right. My issue, and I think others here are the same, was with the merging manoeuvre made by the cyclist.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1006
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,118 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    cletus wrote: »
    That's true, and nobody, I don't think, is arguing that the driver was in the right. My issue, and I think others here are the same, was with the merging manoeuvre made by the cyclist.

    The indicated, they waited for the first vehicle to pass, they moved into the gap following that vehicle.

    Next vehicle tried to run them off the road.

    Don't see what the cyclist did wrong.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1007
    cletus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,056 ✭✭✭cletus


    robinph wrote: »
    The indicated, they waited for the first vehicle to pass, they moved into the gap following that vehicle.

    Next vehicle tried to run them off the road.

    Don't see what the cyclist did wrong.

    In my opinion, he merged poorly. He indicated and merged, which, if the driver had responded correctly, would have caused the van to slow down. That's poor merging. You are not entitled to join a lane just because you want to. It's up to you to ensure it is safe to do so.

    Just to be clear, the driver's reaction subsequent to the merge was wrong, and very poor driving, but the initial merge was poor.

    In other words, the cyclist is not blameless in what was all round, a ****ty road interaction
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1008
    hesker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,517 ✭✭✭hesker


    tnegun wrote: »
    This is why we need the merge like a zip principal to be applied here, it's common sense to allow someone ahead of you to merge if their lane is ending abruptly. We're not talking about someone cutting in ahead on a motorway here but a bike in an urban setting as can be seen with this driver allowances need to be made and enforced by law as common sense doesn't prevail.

    Yes, the driver acted very badly here and he got fined. Maybe he should have received a harsher treatment but that’s another debate.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1009
    cletus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,056 ✭✭✭cletus


    tnegun wrote: »
    This is why we need the merge like a zip principal to be applied here, it's common sense to allow someone ahead of you to merge if their lane is ending abruptly. We're not talking about someone cutting in ahead on a motorway here but a bike in an urban setting as can be seen with this driver allowances need to be made and enforced by law as common sense doesn't prevail.

    It mightn't be a motorway, but it's a regional road with a speed limit of (I assume) 80kph, not exactly urban driving.

    If your lane is ending abruptly, it's up to you to find a safe time and space to merge. If the traffic you merge into has to brake because of your merge. You've done it badly.

    Even if the driver had reacted well, brakes, and allowed the cyclist into the lane, the merge itself was still a poor one
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1010
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,118 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    lawrencesummers wrote: »
    A lot of posters here can’t accept any criticism of cyclists. I think your correct, no road user has a right to just join another lane of traffic, but every road user should be considerate and allow people to merge, every road user should be extra considerate to the more vulnerable road users.

    As far as I’m concerned the cyclist didn’t make any signal to move, what he did amounted to pointing at the ground when the standard for signalling is far different. His hand movement is easy to understand for fellow cyclists but it’s not the correct signal and it’s a bit rich complaining about other road users when your own behaviour isn’t correct.

    If he'd put his hand out directly then he could have been hit by the car (although there would be separate issues regarding road positioning then) but also the car could have taken it as a sign of him about to pull out in front of the car, I'd have read it as an intention not to pull out before the car but behind them and either way the van should have anticipated the move and left a space regardless of any indication. If there was a pot hole in the road and the bike needed both hand to avoid it and so didn't signal at all then the van should still be expecting them to be merging into their lane at that point.

    Which takes priority for a cyclist? Holding onto the handlebars, or putting your arm out to indicate?
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1011
    cletus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,056 ✭✭✭cletus


    robinph wrote: »
    .either way the van should have anticipated the move and left a space regardless of any indication....

    This is the crux of the matter. The van driver is not obliged to allow the cyclist into the lane. The cyclist is obliged to merge safely and appropriately.

    If it was a car trying to merge, it's the same story. The van driver doesn't have to allow any vehicle to merge there.

    What happened after the merge is the fault of the driver
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • Advertisement
  • #1012
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,118 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    cletus wrote: »
    This is the crux of the matter. The van driver is not obliged to allow the cyclist into the lane. The cyclist is obliged to merge safely and appropriately.

    If it was a car trying to merge, it's the same story. The van driver doesn't have to allow any vehicle to merge there.

    What happened after the merge is the fault of the driver

    The van is obliged to not deliberately crash into the vehicle in front of them though. If they see another vehicle infront, travelling at a similar speed and the road narrowing then they are obliged to do everything possible not to crash into them and leave room for the vehicle infront, regardless of any paint on the road. The lane markings don't really matter. If the van couldn't anticipate that the road was narrowing and the vehicle in front would need to move over then they are at fault.

    If it was a car then the van would 100% of left the space as they would have feared more for their paintwork and bumper, as it was a cyclist they figured they could intimidate the more vulnerable road user.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1013
    cletus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,056 ✭✭✭cletus


    I've said repeatedly, the driver's actions after the merge are wrong.

    But, and for the last time, the merge itself was poor. If the driver had slowed and allowed the cyclist in, it doesn't make the merge any better. The cyclist is still in the wrong, the driver just wouldn't have been an asshole.

    As Weepsie says above, if the cyclist was in the lane, then there's no issue. He was not, and changed lanes poorly
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1014
    cletus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,056 ✭✭✭cletus


    tnegun wrote: »
    If he was in the lane the traffic would still have had to slow so having to slow because he merged is a mute[sic] point. If this was a 60 or 80 zone I might look at it differently but the van driver is overwhelmingly at fault here.

    It's absolutely not a moot point regarding whether he was in the lane or not. There are very definite rules of the road regarding traffic in your lane, or traffic merging with your lane. Those rules are completely different.

    The cyclist having to slow down in order to re-merge with the lane is of no legal consequence to any traffic in the other lane. It is up to the cyclist to merge safely and appropriately.

    This does not excuse the actions of the driver subsequent to the merge, but in this specific incidence, the cyclist is not blameless
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1015
    cletus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,056 ✭✭✭cletus


    Weepsie wrote: »
    Oh and on this, rules of the road are not statue. Plenty of times I've witnessed road users have to break them because someone has put them at risk, or poor road design, etc etc.

    True, but they are a practical application of the laws on the statute book
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1016
    cletus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,056 ✭✭✭cletus


    Look, this is going round in circles. I can't honestly look at that video and say the cyclists actions are good, or that the merge was appropriate or safe. I don't think any opinion here will change my mind.

    Equally, there are posters here who see no issue whatsoever with the cyclists actions, who won't have their mind changed by anything I say, so I'm out.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1017
    hesker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,517 ✭✭✭hesker


    Seaswimmer wrote: »
    Now I enjoy my cycling, cycle defensively, acknowledge courtesies and rarely if ever have any motorist interactions.

    I try to do the same now. I don’t have a camera and feel It’s just not worth engaging. But you have to admit this approach does nothing to reduce the number of incidents. One is not related to the other.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1018
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,249 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    cnocbui wrote: »
    I have encountered a cyclist dominating the road on an R road. When passing him, I couldn't provide a 1m gap because there was a stone wall to the right and the cyclist was almost cycling down the middle of the road and to the right of the center line of the lane.
    sounds like he or she was taking primary position, which cyclists are advised to do at times.

    would you have been able to overtake the cyclist in this context, if the cyclist had been in secondary position, given him or her 1.5m clearance (the guidance is 1.5m above 50km/h), and *not* have to place your wheels into the oncoming lane?

    that'd require a 4.5m wide lane, give or take, which is very wide.

    if it was narrower than 4.5m, you'd have had to place your wheels into the oncoming lane, which you'd only do when there was no oncoming traffic (and quite visibly no oncoming traffic), so you'd have to wait for a safe overtaking spot anyway, surely? so if you have a safe overtaking manouevre it doesn't matter what position the cyclist takes in the lane, unless he or she is riding right in the centre of the road, really.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1019
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,118 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    The best thing to improve road safety for those not driving cars would be to require everyone to pass a test for a motorbike licence before they could gain a car licence, or get some exemption from that if you can show years of riding bicycles on roads. Car drivers will remain oblivious to other road users for as long as they don't think of themselves in the same vulnerable position.

    In the absence of anything like that ever being brought in before anyone can gain a car licence the only other form of re-education available is to capture videos of the incidents and show car drivers what they are doing to put others at risk... And hope that it make some tiny difference.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1020
    cletus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,056 ✭✭✭cletus


    robinph wrote: »
    The best thing to improve road safety for those not driving cars would be to require everyone to pass a test for a motorbike licence before they could gain a car licence, or get some exemption from that if you can show years of riding bicycles on roads. Car drivers will remain oblivious to other road users for as long as they don't think of themselves in the same vulnerable position.

    In the absence of anything like that ever being brought in before anyone can gain a car licence the only other form of re-education available is to capture videos of the incidents and show car drivers what they are doing to put others at risk... And hope that it make some tiny difference.

    Putting everyone that drives a car through the pointless beuracracy of obtaining a separate licence that they don't want or won't use doesn't seem to me to be the most sensible idea, quite apart from the fact that it makes the assumption that every car driver is poor/unaware/whatever. It's also dangerously close to calls for cyclists to have to do some sort of licence/test.

    Perhaps a long term (multiple year/ongoing) media campaign in the same vein as the drink driving and speeding campaigns, along with enforcement and improved infrastructure would seem like a better option
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • Advertisement
  • #1021
    buffalo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,099 ✭✭✭buffalo


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    Not having a camera wont make his daily cycling safer, but ive viewed a lot of his footage on Twitter and a lot of the roads he cycles on look very cyclist unfriendly. I often wonder if their are safer routes he could use, but he chooses these routes as they offer more opportunities for "Good footage".

    I would say they are the most direct routes, and his cycling them is an effort to assert a cyclist's right to be on the road and take the most direct route, even if it's not the most safe or pleasant.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1022
    cletus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,056 ✭✭✭cletus


    Steoller wrote: »
    I'm going to have to take issue with your assertion there. Even with the current licensing regulations, too many people who are dangerously unqualified to drive are being certified to get behind the wheel. Asking for those regulations to be beefed up, is not equivalent to asking for an unnecessary license on a mode of transport that is no more dangerous than walking.

    On what basis is your assertion about dangerously unqualified drivers being licenced made?
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1023
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,118 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    cletus wrote: »
    On what basis is your assertion about dangerously unqualified drivers being licenced made?

    Car drivers claiming that cyclists put them at risk and are a danger on the road would be a good indicator that they need more awareness on the road and of other road users.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1024
    cletus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,056 ✭✭✭cletus


    This feels very like a discussion we had here before about roads being more dangerous. Without rehashing it all again, the empirical data doesn't support this.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1025
    cletus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,056 ✭✭✭cletus


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    That’s also a good point. IMO Our roads are not THAT dangerous. But then again, how do you judge a safe road? I cycle along roads which I feel are safe, but others who are not as experienced/confident on a bike as I am think the roads I cycle on are lethal!

    If you take the footage that started this discussion, would everyone be happy to send a 12yearold child cycling on that road?

    Edit: I had a discussion online about a certain road and how safe it was and I was told it’s perfectly safe as “there’s no record of any fatalities on that road”
    This is true, but is that the best way to determine if a road is safe?

    At any point in time, given a set of circumstances any road or section of road can be lethal, insofar as somebody could die on it. You can't base any macro understanding of anything at all, not just road safety, on anecdotes, one off incidences, personal histories, or anything else that's not aggregated data that has been collected and compiled, preferably over a number of years, so that there are sets of data to compare with. Otherwise it's the old "my grandmother smoked till she was 93, and she never got cancer" routine.

    My initial question here was mostly rhetorical, because I don't believe the poster I asked it of actually has any data to back up the assertion that there are large numbers of dangerously unqualified drivers are being given licences
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1026
    cletus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,056 ✭✭✭cletus


    robinph wrote: »
    Car drivers claiming that cyclists put them at risk and are a danger on the road would be a good indicator that they need more awareness on the road and of other road users.

    That is not the same as, quote "...too many people who are dangerously unqualified to drive are being certified to get behind the wheel"end quite
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • Advertisement
  • #1027
    hesker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,517 ✭✭✭hesker


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    That’s also a good point. IMO Our roads are not THAT dangerous. But then again, how do you judge a safe road? I cycle along roads which I feel are safe, but others who are not as experienced/confident on a bike as I am think the roads I cycle on are lethal!

    If you take the footage that started this discussion, would everyone be happy to send a 12yearold child cycling on that road?

    Edit: I had a discussion online about a certain road and how safe it was and I was told it’s perfectly safe as “there’s no record of any fatalities on that road”
    This is true, but is that the best way to determine if a road is safe?

    I know the road in question extremely well. It’s not particularly dangerous. It depends on the 12 year old and their level of road craft.
    That particular merge point would be seen the length and breadth of the country
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1028
    cletus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,056 ✭✭✭cletus


    Steoller wrote: »
    Admittedly, personal experience, from the boss who ran his van over a row of ducks and didn't realise it despite two passengers telling him to watch out, or the neighbour who drove well into his nineties despite not being able to make out road-signs, and several others.

    But besides that, the existence and extent of drink driving, hit and runs, and single car collisions suggests to me that there is a large cohort people out there driving vehicles they cannot be in control of.

    Not to mention the drivers out there on their Amnesty driving licenses.

    OK, the Amnesty thing is a red herring. It happened in 1979, 42 years ago, and at the time it accounted for 45,000 people. At this juncture there would likely be much fewer of them on the road.

    You have given two examples of poor driving, and alluded to others. You have made no comment about how many examples of good driving you might see on any given day. The last time I cycled to work, I had a ridiculously close pass by a bus driver. It stands out to me because of how bad it was. I did not extrapolate this out to all bus drivers, or all drivers around Naas, or any other subset.

    With regards to fatalities etc. the last time this was discussed, I showed data that demonstrated that driving in Ireland was certainly no worse than many other EU countries, and better than many.

    So, again, is there any actual data that supports your contention that there is largenumbers of dangerously unqualified drivers being issued licences in this country.

    This is not to say there isn't poor driving, but we need to be careful with the language we use and how we present our arguments.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1029
    hesker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,517 ✭✭✭hesker


    I’ve looked at it several times there now again to see if my view has changed. The rearward view gives a better perspective I think. His arm doesn’t go out until the car has passed and he almost immediately is crossing the dotted line. From when his arm goes out to when the van draws level with him is about 2-3 secs.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1030
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,118 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    That the van has the time to make the move to the left in retribution for him daring to merge means there was plenty of space and that the van knew they were there.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1031
    hesker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,517 ✭✭✭hesker


    I’m done arguing. The Gardai found fault with both road users. It’s easy to spin the argument that the cyclist is being victimised but the video won’t support his appeal in my opinion in this instance. But you never know how these things will play out
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • Advertisement
  • #1032
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,249 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    waiting to do a U-turn at a set of lights earlier, taxi in front of me. we got a general green, and the taxi driver (who was taking a right) pulled away from the lights and then had to stand on his brakes in the middle of the junction, because he only saw the cyclist coming the other direction at the last second. i completed my u-turn, and as i passed the cyclist passed some comment about him being invisible. 'huh?' 'that taxi driver who just nearly drove into you'
    'what taxi driver?'
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1033
    buffalo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,099 ✭✭✭buffalo


    Tombo2001 wrote: »
    Not to be too controversial about it, but if this cycle path was in Dun Laoghaire, it would be very well known.

    Yeah, but if it was in Sandymount it'd be the subject of a court order! :pac:
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1034
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,351 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Coincidentally, Dunsink Observatory tweeted this earlier...

    https://twitter.com/RaesideRose/status/1367478016889266178
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1035
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,351 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    VonLuck wrote: »
    Not to be flippant, but that woman who replied has pretty much doxed herself. There might be 2 or 3 houses within 700m of the observatory!
    I had to include either her response or the one the observatory was responding to in order to embed the tweet. I chose hers simply because it was below the one I wanted to show.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1036
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,249 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    i've met a chap a few times who grew up in the observatory itself. he's an ex-colleague of a friend of mine.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1037
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,691 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    https://twitter.com/clazbae/status/1368175481460305926
    Post edited by CramCycle on

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #1038
    MojoMaker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,746 ✭✭✭MojoMaker


    That is pi$$ poor alright. Would it have killed them to go up 20-30m more if they absolutely *had* to park there?
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1039
    Breezer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,228 ✭✭✭Breezer


    They were driving the wrong way down a one way street beside the Grand Canal cycle track in Portobello earlier. Here.

    No blue lights, sirens, or anything else. They were going slowly, but if someone had swung in it could have been messy.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1040
    5uspect
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,518 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    A stupid, impatient overtake today while I was mid sentence complaining about a motorist tailgating a cyclist going the other way.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g00IMGbM4ME


    360 version:
    https://youtu.be/g00IMGbM4ME

    Was great to see so many cyclists out today, almost outnumbering motorists.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1041
    buffalo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,099 ✭✭✭buffalo


    stoneill wrote: »
    This is a near miss the other way, I don't have video but there was a cyclist on the M4, on the actual motorway this morning who nearly got creamed about 4 times coming up to junction 6. What short-cut could possibly be worth putting your life at risk?

    Well it's very hard to answer that without knowing which direction he was coming from.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • Advertisement
  • #1042
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,351 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    I used to drive the M50 (J7-J14) and back every day for years.
    I would have reported a number of cyclists and pedestrians (and drivers) on the road to garda Trafficwatch.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1043
    buffalo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,099 ✭✭✭buffalo


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    ?? A cyclist on a motorway? Not good in any direction no?

    That wasn't the question.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1044
    5uspect
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,518 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    Here's another one from yesterday. Tesco van driver couldn't have picked a worse time to overtake.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2mnvyjMyDE


    360 version.
    https://youtu.be/q2mnvyjMyDE
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1045
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,351 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Interesting, in the UK, it appears that a cyclist who was reprimanded for swearing whilst being assaulted is having his five complaints against the police upheld (including that the police did not punish the driver) - I've included the original video below...
    Cycling UK member David Brennan was assaulted while cycling to work. The driver was not prosecuted and shockingly, David himself was given a police warning for swearing. Now he’s teaming up with Cycling UK to call for significant changes in the way vulnerable road users are treated in Scotland.
    https://twitter.com/magnatom/status/1369644952452542465

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYp2BBEVO28
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1046
    Duckjob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,859 ✭✭✭Duckjob


    fat bloke wrote: »
    That's an over reaction from the cyclist imo

    Edit, whoops! By which I mean the man on the bicycle! :)

    I don't think it's such an over reaction TBH, a car driver speeding up and moving in swiftly in on top on you for no good reason, other than to threaten.

    And WTF is wrong with that driver ? I mean, you're in a bit long line of traffic, you're going nowhere fast anyway. Why the need to be an aggressive dick because someone on a bike filters past and goes in front of you ?
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1047
    buffalo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,099 ✭✭✭buffalo


    CramCycle wrote: »
    While the driver was completely in the wrong for the assault and for driving to the rear of the car in front, he didn't drive at the guy on the bike, he possibly (stupidly) thought the space the bike used was enough and then the cyclist started drifting out. The car is 100% in the wrong but maybe I am numb to poor driving I don't think it was intentional. From the car drivers perspective the bike drifts out before he has fully filtered and then belts his car. Not that the cyclist had too as its in the same lane but I would have indicated to show I plan to go around the turning car.

    I wouldn't say he's drifted out, I'd say he's completed an overtake (on the left) and is taking the lane again. The driver is clearly either aggressive or not paying the slightest bit of attention, hard to tell from outside. The 'every day' comment makes me think it was the former.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1048
    Enduro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,725 ✭✭✭Enduro


    CramCycle wrote: »
    He had barely completed it though, now the fault is 100% with the motorist for being a bit of column A (driving up the arse of the other car) and column B (didn't realise what was actually happening). Don't get me wrong, the driver is a pr1ck and deserves to be locked up but just as a side note, I don't think he intentionally drove at him, at best he intentionally cut him off for no real reason. Like I said, I see worse every day so it kind of blows over me. I wouldn't have pulled out until the driver had acknowledged I was coming out or I was fully ahead.

    It looks to me like it was intentional. Before the filtering you can see that the car is so far right that he has crossed over the center line marking of the road. Given the subsequent interaction I would guess he was deliberatly trying to prevent the ccyclist from getting in front (like he does "every day"), and got angry because the cyclist filtered left, throwing his blocking master plan into disarray. He was very quick out of the car.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1049
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,249 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    the speed at which the driver gets out and assaults the cyclists speaks volumes. anyone who was innocent of malice in that instance would have been sitting in the car thinking 'WTF?' but he's out and assaulting the cyclist within seconds. and as above, the 'every day' comment would seem to support this.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1050
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,118 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    The car driver was looking for a confrontation. Blocking the chance of a pass on the right, then gets annoyed that the cyclist moved to the left whilst he wasn't watching his mirrors so squeezes him to the left.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • Advertisement
  • #1051
    Breezer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,228 ✭✭✭Breezer


    Driver was a tosser who was deliberately blocking an overtake on the right the whole way up, and moved to block the cyclist in after he overtook on the left. However, it was all very low speed and the cyclist was in no danger. The best thing to do would have been to let the left turning car go left. At that point, the eejit driver would either have been stopped in traffic and there’d be space to go ahead again, or he’ll be moving and the cyclist could filter in behind him.

    The cyclist was hysterical. Hitting the car was totally unwarranted in those circumstances. I suppose the driver could have been on the phone and therefore likely to continue to push him off the road, though it’s more likely he would have hit the car in front first. The cyclist had a split second to make up his mind, but I still think I’d have adjusted my course and shouted, at most.

    Obviously that all changed when the driver got out of the car and assaulted him. No excuses there, and the police not prosecuting is inexcusable.

    On the wider issue, when I first started cycling daily 3 years ago, I read this thread a lot. I learned a lot about road position and how to anticipate stupid things drivers are likely to do. As a result, I’ve had, I think, two incidents that could be called dangerous. I’ve had a lot of annoying incidents, and some of those could have been dangerous had I not reacted (as in braking, not having a row). My view is that these incidents happen on the roads, no matter what mode of transport you’re using, and it’s better for my enjoyment of my day not to engage.

    I still haven’t gotten a camera. Maybe I should have one. I did have an incident in a car once, where a dash cam would almost certainly have resulted in an insurance pay out in my favour, and instead I had to pay for a repair. But I think they also lead certain people to become more confrontational. I should caveat that my commute is mostly bus and cycle lane, and there are some videos of truly dangerous driving on here, that I’ve learned a lot from. And I’d probably feel differently if I were out with kids, or whatever.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


Advertisement