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 Volume 2 (So close you can feel it)

1…3637394142…94

Comments

  • #1902
    tnegun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,742 ✭✭✭tnegun


    It makes a bit more sense now seeing the original video, so do I understand it correctly both times he reported a driver for a dangerous pass and the guard agreed and prosecuted the driver but followed up with a fine for the cyclist for the lane changes! FFS the one with the van he's not far off the speed of the traffic and if you were in a car with the lane ending you would do the exact same and merge into that gap with the second he appears to move around on a poor road surface nothing more.
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • #1903
    breezy1985
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,129 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    cletus wrote: »
    I don't see myself as being biased in this instance (although maybe that's part of my bias...), and I think you'd be hard pressed to go through my posts on this forum and find any inherent biases towards (or would that be against) cyclists.

    I've already said I wouldn't have merged there on a bike, and from the video footage, probably wouldn't have done it in a car either

    You're be waiting an awful long time on a city road to change lane if that's too short a distance
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • #1904
    TheChizler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,474 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    The location is here if it helps anyone.

    https://www.google.com/maps/@51.8260084,-8.3963311
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • #1905
    tnegun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,742 ✭✭✭tnegun


    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.
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • #1906
    lawrencesummers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,621 ✭✭✭lawrencesummers


    cletus wrote: »
    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



    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.
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • #1907
    tnegun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,742 ✭✭✭tnegun


    cletus wrote: »
    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


    Its an urban road with a 50 kph limit, he should never of left the lane and this is the reason I loath to do it as you simply can't rely on someone to let you back in before you hit trouble.

    IMO he was traveling at a decent pace when he merged, the van driver in a 50 kph zone should of read the road ahead and expected the bike to move back in (he stayed to the right of that lane to me indicating that I'm not staying here)eased off as opposed to accelerating and allowed him to do so.

    If he was in the lane the traffic would still have had to slow so having to slow because he merged is a mute point. If this was a 60 or 80 zone I might look at it differently but the van driver is overwhelmingly at fault here.
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • #1908
    Weepsie
    Site Banned Posts: 20,685 ✭✭✭✭Weepsie


    But the vehicle is not in front of them. It's ahead of them, in another lane. Nobody is saying the van driver isn't sh!tty, but rather that signalling intent to merge, does not give you the right of way to do so. It's in the RTA
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • #1909
    lawrencesummers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,621 ✭✭✭lawrencesummers


    robinph wrote: »
    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?


    And here is a perfect example of people on this forum unable to accept criticism of a cyclist.

    Your creating hypothetical catastrophes to justify something that clearly isn’t in line with the requirements of a road user.

    Which takes priority, following the rules of the road or not following them because of some if my aunt had balls argument.
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • #1910
    lawrencesummers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,621 ✭✭✭lawrencesummers


    robinph wrote: »
    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.


    Lane marking don’t matter.

    Sure.
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • #1911
    Weepsie
    Site Banned Posts: 20,685 ✭✭✭✭Weepsie


    lawrence, there's absolutely no defending the driving either which you don't seem to be concerned with. This isn't a cyclist siege mentality. The quality of the driving is absolutely ****e, and the drivers awareness is poor at best, but from a purely legal point of view the cyclist, and I'm going by what they've said on twitter, seems to think a signal is enough to go ahead and merge.

    The driver deserves a serious talking to as well in this situation



    That's my poster hat on. This is my Mod Hat on, and again for your benefit.

    You have shown a history of coming on and going on about cyclists not showing responsibility, or wanting to blame this, that etc. You have rarely ever actually tried to engage in any proper discussion, so if you are going to post, first thing you can do is stop this nonsense "ah you can't criticise cyclists here", because you can. You can't come in bullheaded, with your mind made up though and not offer any reasonable debate though
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • Advertisement
  • #1912
    Weepsie
    Site Banned Posts: 20,685 ✭✭✭✭Weepsie


    lawrencesummers wrote: »
    Which takes priority, following the rules of the road or not following them because of some if my aunt had balls argument.

    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.
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • #1913
    lawrencesummers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,621 ✭✭✭lawrencesummers


    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.



    Another ridiculous argument.

    Because you witnessed something somewhere else by someone doing something else it justifies not following rules of the road.
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • #1914
    lawrencesummers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,621 ✭✭✭lawrencesummers


    Weepsie wrote: »
    lawrence, there's absolutely no defending the driving either which you don't seem to be concerned with. This isn't a cyclist siege mentality. The quality of the driving is absolutely ****e, and the drivers awareness is poor at best, but from a purely legal point of view the cyclist, and I'm going by what they've said on twitter, seems to think a signal is enough to go ahead and merge.

    The driver deserves a serious talking to as well in this situation



    That's my poster hat on. This is my Mod Hat on, and again for your benefit.

    You have shown a history of coming on and going on about cyclists not showing responsibility, or wanting to blame this, that etc. You have rarely ever actually tried to engage in any proper discussion, so if you are going to post, first thing you can do is stop this nonsense "ah you can't criticise cyclists here", because you can. You can't come in bullheaded, with your mind made up though and not offer any reasonable debate though



    I didn’t defend the driving.

    If you took the time to read my post instead of jumping to attack my opinion of the cyclist not indicating correctly you might have noticed what I said.

    Il help you:
    “ 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”
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • #1915
    tnegun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,742 ✭✭✭tnegun


    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






    Given the conditions and his speed I think it was safe and an appropriate merge it goes both ways for merging this is in the ROTR



    "It is important to understand that the right of way is not an absolute right of way. You must proceed with caution, having regard for other road users."
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • #1916
    Weepsie
    Site Banned Posts: 20,685 ✭✭✭✭Weepsie


    lawrencesummers wrote: »
    Another ridiculous argument.

    Because you witnessed something somewhere else by someone doing something else it justifies not following rules of the road.

    I think you've missed the point here.
    lawrencesummers wrote: »
    I didn’t defend the driving.

    If you took the time to read my post instead of jumping to attack my opinion of the cyclist not indicating correctly you might have noticed what I said.

    Il help you:
    “ 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”

    And fair enough you didn't. But you're attacking posters not posts and decrying that they as cyclists can't take criticism of another cyclist. You've started quite a lot of your posts with this preamble. You're going in with your own bias, and if you keep doing so, it will be treated with the "oh I cycle myself" respect it deserves.
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • #1917
    Weepsie
    Site Banned Posts: 20,685 ✭✭✭✭Weepsie


    cletus wrote: »
    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.

    Yeah, I think we can draw a line under this one now as we have people on both sides and a few in the middle.
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • #1918
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,256 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    Righttobike really needs to dump the cameras and just enjoy his cycling. He certainly seems to experience far more close passes/incidents per day then anyone else I know.
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • #1919
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,500 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    Righttobike really needs to dump the cameras and just enjoy his cycling. He certainly seems to experience far more close passes/incidents per day then anyone else I know.

    How will dumping his cameras help?
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • #1920
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,256 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    How will dumping his cameras help?

    If it's not on camera, it didn't happen! ;)
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • Advertisement
  • #1921
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,016 ✭ [Deleted User]


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    Righttobike really needs to dump the cameras and just enjoy his cycling. He certainly seems to experience far more close passes/incidents per day then anyone else I know.

    I suspect this is a factor in the Garda going hard on him/her. YouTube and twitter has many videos posted by camera toting cyclists going out of their way to get material for their next Outrage video. Ordinary cyclysts going about their daily commute or pleasure cycle don't see nearly as many incidents as these drama queens.
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • #1922
    Wildly Boaring
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,653 ✭✭✭Wildly Boaring


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    going out of their way to get material for their next Outrage video.

    One way of looking at it.

    Perhaps if vehicles gave him the requisite gap on overtaking it'd be better
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • #1923
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,500 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I suspect this is a factor in the Garda going hard on him/her. YouTube and twitter has many videos posted by camera toting cyclists going out of their way to get material for their next Outrage video. Ordinary cyclysts going about their daily commute or pleasure cycle don't see nearly as many incidents as these drama queens.

    What exactly did he do that was 'going out of his way to get material' in this case?
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • #1924
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,189 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    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.
    lawrencesummers wrote: »
    And here is a perfect example of people on this forum unable to accept criticism of a cyclist.

    MOD VOICE: I'm just going to nip this in the bud as it comes up every few weeks. This forum more than any other I have seen holds cyclists to a higher standard and often puts.regular posters to rights when they make errors, myself included. Focus on the discussion, if you go down this road again, you'll find yourself banned as it's lazy trolling rather than discussion.
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • #1925
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,016 ✭ [Deleted User]


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    What exactly did he do that was 'going out of his way to get material' in this case?

    In this case? Or in all the other cases he posts on twitter? Perhaps the Garda is trying to discourage such activity by issuing a small fine to say 'keep out of trouble'.
    Regardless, if the fines are unjustified he can contest them.
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • #1926
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,500 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Deleted User wrote: »
    In this case? Or in all the other cases he posts on twitter?

    Either - take your pick. Please show any video where he 'went out of his way' to cause an incident.
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • Advertisement
  • #1927
    lawrencesummers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,621 ✭✭✭lawrencesummers


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    Righttobike really needs to dump the cameras and just enjoy his cycling. He certainly seems to experience far more close passes/incidents per day then anyone else I know.



    His montage of the numerous incidents approaching a roundabout is pretty frightening. The fact that so many cars / vans are doing the exact same incorrect thing would suggest the junction/ road layout / signage itself needs adjusting because it not fit for the purpose of the many road users who use it.
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • #1928
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,016 ✭ [Deleted User]


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Either - take your pick. Please show any video where he 'went out of his way' to cause an incident.

    Look, I'm just raising the possibility that it could well be a factor in the Garda's thinking. If you're looking for one of your never ending boards arguments you aint getting it here Andy.
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • #1929
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,256 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Look, I'm just raising the possibility that it could well be a factor in the Garda's thinking. If you're looking for one of your never ending boards arguments you aint getting it here Andy.

    It’s possible that’s what the Garda thought, but that’s no reason to issue a fine. The only illegal manoeuvres caught on tape are motorists.
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • #1930
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,256 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I suspect this is a factor in the Garda going hard on him/her. YouTube and twitter has many videos posted by camera toting cyclists going out of their way to get material for their next Outrage video. Ordinary cyclysts going about their daily commute or pleasure cycle don't see nearly as many incidents as these drama queens.

    I don't think he goes out of his way to "generate" footage for his cameras, but he does seem to relish the confrontations. If he catches up with the driver at the next set of lights, he confronts them.

    Ah I dunno, maybe I'm just immune to these close passes now, but I do enjoy cycling and I think if I was to start recording every single incident on film, I'd end up turning myself offcycling.
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • #1931
    micar
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,903 ✭✭✭micar


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    If he catches up with the driver at the next set of lights, he confronts them.

    Some motorists are completely oblivious to the dangers they put cyclists in..

    They have no understanding of what 1m from their wing mirror actually is or the impact of not being fully aware of what's going on around them.

    It's important to challenge those incidents in the hope their driving pattern changes.
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • Advertisement
  • #1932
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,256 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    micar wrote: »

    It's important to challenge those incidents in the hope their driving pattern changes.

    Agree. But challenging a motorist at the next set of lights is not the way to do it. All that does is confirm to the motorist that cyclists are crazy,aggressive, non road tax paying muppets. We know that's wrong, but your not going to change their view by shouting at them.

    IMO, By all means Record the incident. Then report it to the Gardai.
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • #1933
    cnocbui
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,111 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    Wildly Boaring wrote: »
    One way of looking at it.

    Perhaps if vehicles gave him the requisite gap on overtaking it'd be better

    Takes two to tango.
    partyguinness wrote: »
    It's called 'dominating the road'. It is a tactic and deemed a lot safer than hugging the footpath. It makes the car slow right and to think about it when passing you.
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116382321&postcount=5283

    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.
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • #1934
    Wildly Boaring
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,653 ✭✭✭Wildly Boaring


    cnocbui wrote: »
    Takes two to tango.

    You often see cyclists 3 abreast and believe they should pay road tax?
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • #1935
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,256 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    cnocbui wrote: »
    I have encountered a cyclist dominating the road on an R road. When passing him, I couldn't provide a 1m.

    Then you shouldn't have tried to overtake!
    Cyclist, car, truck, van, pedestrian....it doesn't matter who or what you are overtaking...if it's not possible to overtake safely, you shouldn't overtake.
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • #1936
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,500 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Look, I'm just raising the possibility that it could well be a factor in the Garda's thinking. If you're looking for one of your never ending boards arguments you aint getting it here Andy.

    You're probably right that this kind of thinking was a major factor in the Garda action. I'm just pointing out that it has no basis in fact.
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • #1937
    Seaswimmer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭Seaswimmer


    micar wrote: »
    Some motorists are completely oblivious to the dangers they put cyclists in..

    They have no understanding of what 1m from their wing mirror actually is or the impact of not being fully aware of what's going on around them.

    It's important to challenge those incidents in the hope their driving pattern changes.


    I'm with 07Lapierre here. When I went back cycle commuting in 2006 I spent the first year trying to "educate" motorists nicely when I felt they had put me in danger or done something which I felt was wrong. It turned into an incredibly frustrating experience which led to numerous shouting matches with me feeling stressed and angry afterwards. I doubt if I changed a single bit of driver behaviour. Now I enjoy my cycling, cycle defensively, acknowledge courtesies and rarely if ever have any motorist interactions.
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • #1938
    Hurrache
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,246 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    He certainly seems to experience far more close passes/incidents per day then anyone else I know.

    He seems to, but it's not due to his cycling style in fairness. Some people can be a bit provocative no matter what transport they're using, but the many incidents are simply a reflection of appalling driving and dropping his usage of cameras won't improve it.

    I wouldn't drop the use of a camera, I have one case in the courts for dangerous/careless driving (probably will be reduced to careless). If anyone is a dangerous dick they need to be hauled up for it. I don't go around shouting at people, but I wouldn't be a stranger in using non parliamentary language when I deem it required.

    People do it in cars all the time, probably generally for innocuous incidents. Only reason people don't get their knickers in a twist is because you don't hear them from within their vehicles.
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • #1939
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,500 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Seaswimmer wrote: »
    I'm with 07Lapierre here. When I went back cycle commuting in 2006 I spent the first year trying to "educate" motorists nicely when I felt they had put me in danger or done something which I felt was wrong. It turned into an incredibly frustrating experience which led to numerous shouting matches with me feeling stressed and angry afterwards. I doubt if I changed a single bit of driver behaviour. Now I enjoy my cycling, cycle defensively, acknowledge courtesies and rarely if ever have any motorist interactions.

    That's your choice. For me, it is absolutely cathartic to engage, even more so to make Garda reports with video evidence.
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • #1940
    Seaswimmer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭Seaswimmer


    hesker wrote: »
    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.


    Absolutely. I guess we all handle things in our own way. If it helps Andy to engage and pursue it then great. He may change a motorists behaviour. For me I dont think motorists are deliberately out to get me. Certainly if I felt there was a deliberate attempt to harm me then I would surely try and do something about it but I believe the vast majority of motorists are the same as the vast majority of cyclists.
    We all suffer from laziness, incompetence and poor behaviour on the roads now and again regardless of our mode of transport. But 99% of the time it is not an issue..
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • #1941
    The J Stands for Jay
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,810 ✭✭✭The J Stands for Jay


    cnocbui wrote: »
    Takes two to tango.

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116382321&postcount=5283

    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.

    Replace cyclist with car, and you've got dangerous driving there. Why did you think to overtake in an unsuitable location?
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • Advertisement
  • #1942
    FinnC
    Registered Users Posts: 586 ✭✭✭FinnC


    Seaswimmer wrote: »
    I'm with 07Lapierre here. When I went back cycle commuting in 2006 I spent the first year trying to "educate" motorists nicely when I felt they had put me in danger or done something which I felt was wrong. It turned into an incredibly frustrating experience which led to numerous shouting matches with me feeling stressed and angry afterwards. I doubt if I changed a single bit of driver behaviour. Now I enjoy my cycling, cycle defensively, acknowledge courtesies and rarely if ever have any motorist interactions.

    Yeah agree 100%. I’d very rarely have any issues with motorists either.
    Of course there are bad motorists out there that need to change their behaviour, and plenty of bad cyclists who need to change their behaviour also tbf,but I’m like you I just enjoy myself and not get stressed. If you’re getting stressed while cycling I don’t see the point in doing it.
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • #1943
    Steoller
    Registered Users Posts: 191 ✭✭Steoller


    cletus wrote: »
    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

    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.
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • #1944
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,256 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    Hurrache wrote: »
    He seems to, but it's not due to his cycling style in fairness. Some people can be a bit provocative no matter what transport they're using, but the many incidents are simply a reflection of appalling driving and dropping his usage of cameras won't improve it.

    I wouldn't drop the use of a camera, I have one case in the courts for dangerous/careless driving (probably will be reduced to careless). If anyone is a dangerous dick they need to be hauled up for it. I don't go around shouting at people, but I wouldn't be a stranger in using non parliamentary language when I deem it required.

    People do it in cars all the time, probably generally for innocuous incidents. Only reason people don't get their knickers in a twist is because you don't hear them from within their vehicles.

    Fair enough. Using a camera to capture incidents is fine. Submitting a report to the gardai and using the footage as evidence is the way to do it.

    I just feel righttobike really, REALLY relishes the confrontation and he does seem to go out of his way to confront the drivers at every opportunity.

    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".
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • #1945
    Steoller
    Registered Users Posts: 191 ✭✭Steoller


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    Fair enough. Using a camera to capture incidents is fine. Submitting a report to the gardai and using the footage as evidence is the way to do it.

    I just feel righttobike really, REALLY relishes the confrontation and he does seem to go out of his way to confront the drivers at every opportunity.

    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 agree, but I wouldn't go so far as to say he chooses his routes for max confrontation, from what i've heard from other Cork cyclists it is a bit wild there. I can't fault his roadcraft on the bike, and I agree with his opinion of the driving he encounters. I personally would not engage to the level he does - but that's personal taste. He's in the right almost every time I've seen him put up a clip.
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • #1946
    Hurrache
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,246 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


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

    Can't speak for that poster, but eyes often help me make that assertion.
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • #1947
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,256 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    cletus wrote: »
    This feel 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.

    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?
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • #1948
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,500 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Seaswimmer wrote: »
    Absolutely. I guess we all handle things in our own way. If it helps Andy to engage and pursue it then great. He may change a motorists behaviour. For me I dont think motorists are deliberately out to get me. Certainly if I felt there was a deliberate attempt to harm me then I would surely try and do something about it but I believe the vast majority of motorists are the same as the vast majority of cyclists.
    We all suffer from laziness, incompetence and poor behaviour on the roads now and again regardless of our mode of transport. But 99% of the time it is not an issue..

    "not deliberate" won't be much consolation to those you leave behind. There are different legal and moral expectations of driver behaviour and cyclist behaviour for very good reasons, given the very different levels of danger involved.
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • #1949
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,500 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    07Lapierre wrote: »

    I just feel righttobike really, REALLY relishes the confrontation and he does seem to go out of his way to confront the drivers at every opportunity.

    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".

    You see a very small selection of his cycling so you can't jump to conclusions about "every opportunity".

    And so what if he relishes confrontation? That doesn't mean that confrontation is wrong.

    It's not the roads he uses that are cyclist unfriendly. It is the drivers on those roads that are cyclist unfriendly.
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • #1950
    Steoller
    Registered Users Posts: 191 ✭✭Steoller


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

    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.
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


  • Advertisement
  • #1951
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,256 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    You see a very small selection of his cycling so you can't jump to conclusions about "every opportunity".

    And so what if he relishes confrontation? That doesn't mean that confrontation is wrong.

    It's not the roads he uses that are cyclist unfriendly. It is the drivers on those roads that are cyclist unfriendly.

    Of course i can jump to conclusions...this is the internet ! :)

    Look you make good points. he's free to record what he wants, confront who he wants and use whatever roads he wants.

    I may not be able to jump to conclusions, but i can express an opinion. In my Opinion he certainly likes confronting motorists who do wrong. I feel he should record the incidents and report them to the Gardai. Its my opinion that confronting drivers at the next set of lights only reaffirms the negative image most motorists wrongly have of most cyclists.
    Post edited by magicbastarder on


Advertisement