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

RobbieMD

tnegun wrote: »

I knew that alright, no never got a pulse number didn't know they had access to enter it into pulse I thought it just got forwarded to the local station.

Traffic Watch create the PULSE incident alright. They have limited access to PULSE and also create incidents for Gardai. Traffic watch incidents are not assigned to any particular Garda to investigate until it’s assigned by the Superintendent over the Garda district it occurred in. This simply depends on how efficient the superintendent/ his staff are. The traffic watch call taker could’ve given you the incident number, it’s right in front of them on the screen, and then you could’ve followed up with whatever station it occurred in.

Pinch Flat

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Another one found on Twitter (along Dublins North Strand): want to give blood? We will make contact with you...
https://twitter.com/Petefkil/status/1220368357352001536?s=19

Carried out my own risk assessment on those roads years ago (as no one else seems to have bothered) where I'm on 10kg bike and expected to share it with a 25 tonne bus, a lot of which seem to be driven by cavemen. Center of the lane all the way. It's the only way you can guarantee your safety.

gmacww

Was debating on putting this up (rider may well read these boards) but here we go. This is a regular occurrence that I see on the north quays heading toward the central bank and it ties in with the other thread about calling out other cyclists.

Couple of weeks ago cycling behind a guy up custom house quay. There is a bus pulled in at the bus stop just after the CHQ. I shoulder checked very early and saw another bus coming up the normal driving lane so I slowed down and indicating out. Guy in front didn't bother doing any of that. No shoulder check, no hand/arm out, just swerves out fairly bloody sharply to go around the stopped bus. Almost got himself killed.

Anyway I'm overtaking him a little further down and say to him "you nearly got yourself killed back there". His response: "I know, the bleedin prick and he's driving a bus!" I just said "he wasn't the one at fault". Well jesus I got called a few names and heard a few words I hadn't heard in quite some time.

It's about the 5th or 6th time I've seen that very same near miss along those keys in my time of cycling that way.

droidus

Came across an altercation between a cyclist and driver at the corner of Clonskeagh and Richview this morning. Dunno what happened, cyclist seemed shook and driver seemed keen to drive off but was being challenged. Some bystanders were keeping an eye on things and Gardai were being called.

Unknown Soldier

Not going to lie, I this.

https://twitter.com/DoCiclismo/status/1220344608548360192?s=20

jjpep

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

Not going to lie, I this.

https://twitter.com/DoCiclismo/status/1220344608548360192?s=20

If more people reacted like this I suspect driving standards might actually improve.*

*Obvs tounge in cheek

kenmm

gmacww wrote: »

It's about the 5th or 6th time I've seen that very same near miss along those keys in my time of cycling that way.

Lack of awarness is the biggest cause of most road incidents. Driving, cycling, hell even crossing the road (how many times someone stepped out when they didnt hear a car engine.. and soon realise a bike at pace is pretty scary stuff.. - and good luck to those guys when non ICE cars really take over)

People just don't look all around. I seen a guy nearly got hit the other day as a car pulled right from a T junction, realised the road was busy, reversed back into the T junction (at speed) and nearly took out the ped crossing the side road! Didn't even glance backwards while reversing at speed.

Sh!t like this happens all the time. On the motorway with lane hogging (no awareness behind), cars squeezing bikes, bikes skipping the Q to get to the front, ahead of the other bikes who just overtook them at 30+kmph etc and a million other things..

Cycle like you should drive - keeping an eye on the road ahead (not 3 meters in front) and pay attention to rear and where the 'blind' spot would be.

Simple as that.

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier View Post
Not going to lie, I this.

https://twitter.com/DoCiclismo/statu...548360192?s=20

I think a lot of us have done that ........ in our heads :P

John_Rambo

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

Not going to lie, I this.

https://twitter.com/DoCiclismo/status/1220344608548360192?s=20

Bully gets owned.

AndrewJRenko

Mc Love wrote: »

Got a call from the Garda that took on my incident to come in and give over the whole memory card so he can take all the footage, not just the two minutes either side I've taken off and put on a memory stick. I hope he doesn't take my memory card now.

I could put on the whole clip on a memory stick if he wants

I've given probably about 50 statements with video submissions over the past few years and I've never been asked for this. I'd suggest that he's confused over the nature of helmet cameras vs CCTV systems.


I'd suggest you tell him that you downloaded the relevant file to your local computer at the time of the incident, so it is no longer on the memory card. Once you give this explanation within a statement, they have full 'chain of evidence' to support the video.

RobbieMD

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I've given probably about 50 statements with video submissions over the past few years and I've never been asked for this. I'd suggest that he's confused over the nature of helmet cameras vs CCTV systems.


I'd suggest you tell him that you downloaded the relevant file to your local computer at the time of the incident, so it is no longer on the memory card. Once you give this explanation within a statement, they have full 'chain of evidence' to support the video.

The correct procedure for CCTV is the Garda ought to retain the original Cctv. Doesn’t matter if it’s dash cam, helmet cam or from a business or residence. The original Cctv is copied several times. One is kept as a working copy for the garda to watch. Other copies are for disclosure to the defence, the DPP etc. The original is supposed to be kept in the Garda’s property and exhibits management system- PEMS. There is talk that these procedures may change to make using Cctv easier in future, but for the time being, this is what’s expected for the prosecution to present footage in evidence.

A statement is taken from the person who downloaded the footage to state they didn’t alter edit or change the recording along with other proofs for court. It could be argued that if you deleted the original recording or lost it, then the one presented to the court is an altered version. Of course that’s more so an argument for the defence to make, and it’s less likely to present as an issue at district court level, but nonetheless the Garda is correct to seek the original.

Perhaps he/she is seeking more footage than the two minutes either side, as the other person has made an allegation against you McLove? Has the Garda said what type of statement they’re taking from you? A witness statement means just that, however the norm for “drivers” including cyclists is a cautioned statement, whereby the formal caution is inserted at the commencement of the statement and whatever you state may be used against you.

AndrewJRenko

Dr_Colossus wrote: »

Jees, that's mad. I've been cycling in Dublin for over 20 years and I think I've called traffic watch 4 times and made a written statement once. Mind you they've all been within the last 2 years so I'm improving.

You think I'm bad (or good)? Check out Mikey, nearly one a day last year in the UK, though you don't have to give a written statement with many of the UK forces.


https://twitter.com/MikeyCycling

RobbieMD wrote: »

The correct procedure for CCTV is the Garda ought to retain the original Cctv. Doesn’t matter if it’s dash cam, helmet cam or from a business or residence. The original Cctv is copied several times. One is kept as a working copy for the garda to watch. Other copies are for disclosure to the defence, the DPP etc. The original is supposed to be kept in the Garda’s property and exhibits management system- PEMS. There is talk that these procedures may change to make using Cctv easier in future, but for the time being, this is what’s expected for the prosecution to present footage in evidence.

How does this work with a CCTV network with hard drive storage? Are you supposed to hand over the entire device to the Gardai?



Are people really supposed to hand over a 30-quid or 60-quid memory card to help the Gardai with their inquiries?

RobbieMD

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

How does this work with a CCTV network with hard drive storage? Are you supposed to hand over the entire device to the Gardai?



Are people really supposed to hand over a 30-quid or 60-quid memory card to help the Gardai with their inquiries?

Best practice would certainly tend that way. Yes entire hard drives have been seized. It really depends on what court is going to be hearing the matter. Generally in the district court, the defence tend not to argue too much on the Cctv but in the higher courts there’s certainly more examination of the Cctv and the defence will work to exclude certain evidence from being admitted if possible.

In a recent case, the defence were trying to get Cctv made inadmissible because the Gardai hadn’t formally requested Cctv from the data controllers pursuant to the Data protection act and the Cctv systems hadn’t been registered with the data protection commissioner.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/senior-garda-who-harvested-3500-hours-of-cctv-did-not-consider-data-protection-court-hears-956362.html

AndrewJRenko

RobbieMD wrote: »

Best practice would certainly tend that way. Yes entire hard drives have been seized. It really depends on what court is going to be hearing the matter. Generally in the district court, the defence tend not to argue too much on the Cctv but in the higher courts there’s certainly more examination of the Cctv and the defence will work to exclude certain evidence from being admitted if possible.

In a recent case, the defence were trying to get Cctv made inadmissible because the Gardai hadn’t formally requested Cctv from the data controllers pursuant to the Data protection act and the Cctv systems hadn’t been registered with the data protection commissioner.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/senior-garda-who-harvested-3500-hours-of-cctv-did-not-consider-data-protection-court-hears-956362.html

Thanks, I can see the point in seizing a hard drive of a commercial CCTV system, but I can't really see the point of seizing a dashcam or helmetcam. I'd swear they wouldn't be even thinking about seizing it if you responding to one of their calls for help, but when you take the initiative of reporting a crime, they seem to come up with all kinds of barriers.

tnegun

Jesus this afternoon was something 99% of my cycling is commuting so usually on the road for 7am and back again at 4pm so usually heavy traffic. Worked a half day today and thought home would be easy but no several stupid passes reasonably low speed but still and WTF is with walkers I've about 10k of a 22k commute on canal or park land so lots of potential to cross paths.

There were lots more people out than normal fair enough it was the middle of a Saturday but the amount getting in a hump for me ringing a bell, or saying passing your left etc. on approach one group told me to go around them on the grass with another telling me I should be on the road!!

tnegun

You'd swear it was an air horn the way some people reacted, some where absolutely fine with it and I did my utmost to be courteous lots of please, thank you etc. but we're really a nation of 50% a holes!!

Pinch Flat

Lots of water around this morning after heavy overnight rain. Indicated right to move out of a large puddle taking up half the road near clonee - numb nuts behind me in a Nissan quashqai overtakes then immediately left hooks me to a left turn. That was at 8.15 am.

Was faced by a car overtaking another coming against me over a solid white line in a residential street close to home just now. 50 km/hr speed limit obviously too slow for captain tool.

Two bookends to an average sunday cycling in Ireland

Acquiescence

Last two spins I've been on have been conspicuous by their lack of close passes.

It's a bad state of affairs when it's a novelty to not feel in imminent danger at any point while trying to do a bit of exercise..

I'm probably going to get murdered next week.

John_Rambo

Was indicating and going left from the Malahide road on to the Crescent in Dublin in very slow traffic in my car on Friday, completely missed a cyclist in my mirrors going up the inside of me. He roared at me, no contact, but I'd say he got a fair fright. Immediately put my hands up and apologised, in fairness, he just shook his head and cycled off.

Failed to actually shoulder check and carry out a safe manoeuvre. Won't do it again. If it's one of you (bandanna wearing road biker) sincere apologies.

tnegun

If you were indicating and he went up the inside of you I'd say it was his fault unless there's a dedicated bike lane there?

John_Rambo

tnegun wrote: »

If you were indicating and he went up the inside of you I'd say it was his fault unless there's a dedicated bike lane there?

I hear you, but no, my fault. I started moving as he came up on the inside to get by a car going straight. I squeezed him. I was initially stopped and thought I'd fit through a gap. I didn't check properly to see if there was any oncoming cyclists on my inside. :mad:

tnegun

ah ok I get you now, so initally you were waiting behind the car in front then moved into the space to the left of it without checking properly? I'd still assign some fault to the cyclist. I'm always very cautious going up the inside of any car indicating.

John_Rambo

tnegun wrote: »

ah ok I get you now, so initally you were waiting behind the car in front then moved into the space to the left of it without checking properly? I'd still assign some fault to the cyclist. I'm always very cautious going up the inside of any car indicating.

Yeah, exactly. Carelessness, no malice. Just relieved I didn't hit him, I'd be pissed off if I was him.

eeeee

5uspect wrote: »

Irish people really don’t seem to understand the point of a bicycle bell. They see it as an affront to their personal dignity rather than simply an indication of your presence.

Don’t get me started on the walkers in the Phoenix Park cycle lanes.

Bad as they are, the design of the cycle and ped lanes in the park put a lot of peds in them. I just pedal on Chersterfield Avenue before Christmas from the second roundabout, the lights thing in the zoo that time had it full of families, kids and prams in the dark.

It's the cyclists going the wrong direction in them that piss me off. Especially at night, with no lights.
I mean they have to go from the correct side of the road to the wrong one I see one person cycling in Castleknock gate, and they cross from the correct side of the road to the wrong side of the road cycle lane iykwim
I don't understand it at all. All of the signs point the wrong way for them, you think that would be a hint. And the side of the road they just came off. But no. :mad:

Kaisr Sose

RobbieMD wrote: »

Best practice would certainly tend that way. Yes entire hard drives have been seized. It really depends on what court is going to be hearing the matter. Generally in the district court, the defence tend not to argue too much on the Cctv but in the higher courts there’s certainly more examination of the Cctv and the defence will work to exclude certain evidence from being admitted if possible.

In a recent case, the defence were trying to get Cctv made inadmissible because the Gardai hadn’t formally requested Cctv from the data controllers pursuant to the Data protection act and the Cctv systems hadn’t been registered with the data protection commissioner.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/senior-garda-who-harvested-3500-hours-of-cctv-did-not-consider-data-protection-court-hears-956362.html

Thanks to the Fat Freddie Thompson Murder trial, there is a Special Criminal Court ruling on the admissibility of CCTV evidence recorded in a public space.

Exerpt:
Judge Hunt said the task of gardai was to “gather evidence within the legal boundaries which apply to them”, and not to trouble themselves as to whether others have breached their duty in gathering that evidence.

Judge Hunt said the court had found “found no illegality or breach in An Garda Siochana’s statutory duty in gathering the CCTV evidence in this case”.

Full: https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/absurd-freddie-thompson-fails-in-bid-to-get-cctv-footage-thrown-out-of-murder-trial-36913607.html

However, when it suits AGS they will discount CCTV provided by cyclists claiming its not evidence or it can't be relied upon. Well, it convicted Mr Thompson, where the burden of proof would be very high due to the implication of a conviction (life sentence = denial of liberty for a very very long time) so why no go for minor traffic offences?
Absurd stuff from AGS

RobbieMD

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Thanks to the Fat Freddie Thompson Murder trial, there is a Special Criminal Court ruling on the admissibility of CCTV evidence recorded in a public space.

Exerpt:
Judge Hunt said the task of gardai was to “gather evidence within the legal boundaries which apply to them”, and not to trouble themselves as to whether others have breached their duty in gathering that evidence.

Judge Hunt said the court had found “found no illegality or breach in An Garda Siochana’s statutory duty in gathering the CCTV evidence in this case”.

Full: https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/absurd-freddie-thompson-fails-in-bid-to-get-cctv-footage-thrown-out-of-murder-trial-36913607.html

However, when it suits AGS they will discount CCTV provided by cyclists claiming its not evidence or it can't be relied upon. Well, it convicted Mr Thompson, where the burden of proof would be very high due to the implication of a conviction (life sentence = denial of liberty for a very very long time) so why no go for minor traffic offences?
Absurd stuff from AGS

The special criminal court doesn’t set any precedent. It would have to be appealed to The Court of Appeal or go to the Supreme Court to set a precedent. The judge’s decision in the case doesn’t necessarily mean that future cases regarding Cctv won’t be challenged in a similar way, and it’s a common enough matter during Voir dire.

To be fair he wasn’t convicted on CCTV alone. His fingerprints and DNA were found in and on various objects in cars used in the murder. He refused to account for his fingerprints DNA and him being present on CCTV when the Gardai invoked inferences.

I don’t know if you know much about inferences in Irish Law but in essence they suspend an accused’s right to silence during interview. The accused is warned they must account for their presence at a location, in this case CCTV in close proximity to a murder scene and in cars connected to a murder. They must also account for any mark they have left, in this case both his fingerprints and DNA in cars used in connection with the murder. He maintained a no comment stance when inferences were invoked. I should add you cannot be convicted based solely on inferences, and in this case there was a sufficient quantity of circumstantial evidence that he was convicted.

He was convicted to the same burden of proof that every person must be, beyond reasonable doubt. That’s the same burden for murder as it is for drunken driving or any other charge laid by the Gardaí. Road traffic offences don’t mean a lower burden of proof is required.

I imagine the reluctance of Gardai to go for minor traffic offences on helmet cams or dashcam is borne out of laziness and the workload involved in investigating such a minor offence versus say they witnessing and prosecuting an offender based solely on their own observations.

Kaisr Sose

@RobbieMD
I am not as familiar with the case detail as you are. I am aware there was other evidence but this was evidence the defence tried to have withheld.

Anyway, the your last paragraph sums it up. AGS are not being consistent on this. Garda laziness should not be a factor. If its evidence, their role is to gather it. However, at superintendent level they are deciding cctv is not evidence or sufficient on its own. In relation to the topic of this thread, what other evidence can a cyclist present of a close pass on rural road?

Salary Negotiator

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

@RobbieMD
I am not as familiar with the case detail as you are. I am aware there was other evidence but this was evidence the defence tried to have withheld.

Anyway, the your last paragraph sums it up. AGS are not being consistent on this. Garda laziness should not be a factor. If its evidence, their role is to gather it. However, at superintendent level they are deciding cctv is not evidence or sufficient on its own. In relation to the topic of this thread, what other evidence can a cyclist present of a close pass on rural road?

Broken bones or a corpse.

And even then it'll likely not be enough.

RobbieMD

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

@RobbieMD
I am not as familiar with the case detail as you are. I am aware there was other evidence but this was evidence the defence tried to have withheld.

Anyway, the your last paragraph sums it up. AGS are not being consistent on this. Garda laziness should not be a factor. If its evidence, their role is to gather it. However, at superintendent level they are deciding cctv is not evidence or sufficient on its own. In relation to the topic of this thread, what other evidence can a cyclist present of a close pass on rural road?

I’ve possibly said it before on this thread, one thing we like to do in this country is to do things on the cheap. The Garda Síochána Act 2005 brought in a section that allowed the Gardaí to institute criminal proceedings for the vast majority of offences without any input from the DPP. This in my opinion is because we’d require a massive investment in recruitment of Dpp staff if the DPP had to direct on every criminal proceedings.

Superintendents generally will have a vast amount of experience of criminal investigations. It wouldn’t be fair to say they are deciding Cctv isn’t evidence or sufficient on its own. Each case is judged on the strength of the evidence, the likelihood of conviction and whether it’s in the public interest. Go into any district court in the country and a large amount of cases will include CCTV evidence and often that CCTV evidence may be the only evidence the Gardai rely upon. I’m thinking of filling station drive offs here.

mr spuckler

Should point out that as I've posted on here before, I had a case prosecuted solely based on my camera footage where I wasn't even the victim and indeed the victim wasn't known or party to the case.

The inconsistency is infuriating, if it had been another station / Superintendent, the case may well not have been prosecuted.

tnegun

The cycle manual implies otherwise for dedicated lanes with solid as opposed to broken white lines. https://www.cyclemanual.ie/manual/designing/4-5-left-turns/

Ray Palmer

buffalo wrote: »

The cycle manual is (unfortunately) not the law.

If there is a cycle lane (solid line) the car is crossing a lane of traffic. When entering or crossing a lane of traffic you don't have right of way the lane of traffic does.

tnegun

I know its not the law I was just pointing out(badly) how unclear it is. I'm pretty sure you can pass a car indicating left so long as you are confident you can complete it before the car starts to turn or something to that effect. Anyway it just goes to show what a joke we are in relation to cycling.

tnegun

tnegun wrote: »

I know its not the law I was just pointing out(badly) how unclear it is. I'm pretty sure you can pass a car indicating left so long as you are confident you can complete it before the car starts to turn or something to that effect. Anyway it just goes to show what a joke we are in relation to cycling.

These are rules for overtaking on the left as they refer to it. I "think" that's in the road traffic act somewhere I just can't find it.

From here https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/cycling/cycling_offences.html

Can I overtake a vehicle on the inside?
A cyclist can overtake a vehicle on the left (or inside of the flow of traffic) if the vehicles to the right are stationary or moving more slowly than the cyclist.

However as a cyclist you cannot overtake on the inside if the vehicle you intend to overtake:

Is signalling an intention to turn to the left and will move to the left before you overtake it
Is stationary for the purpose of allowing a passenger to alight or board the vehicle
Is stationary for the purposes of loading or unloading

Darrener

N plate Black 03D Golf (driver sporting a nice woolly hat) nearly killed me this morning. I was on the Swords road. Driver was turning onto Swords Road from the Old Airport Road. He saw me coming but decided to accelerate instead of stopping(missed my front wheel by inches) and then drove up towards Alsaa/Red Car Park. Time to start wearing the camera again me thinks. He didn't give a sh*te about me and I was very well illuminated.

Pinch Flat

I find N plate drivers some of the worst out there. Depressing thought, considering they've taken lessons and passed the test recently.

papu

Dangerous overtake just after the Rathgar junction heading out of town yesterday at 6.25am, a "not in service" Dublin bus skimmed me so close I started banging on the windows as it passed. Absolutely appalling driving seeing as the road was empty and I was very much on the left. I purposefully kept left, as the bus stopped up just a foot behind me as I was waiting for the lights to change and I wanted to keep away from it.:mad:

Have logged a complaint, received the bus license plate info and requested CCTV to submit to traffic watch. (my front camera wasn't recording..)

John Hutton

Confronted some prick today who drove out of the train station after me. Single white line, other lane full of traffic. Gutter full of drains etc so I take the lane, as there is insufficient room to overtake a bike anyway with the other lane full of traffic. There's also traffic lights 100 yards away. Two or three cars wait the less than 30 seconds and safely overtake me leaving loads of room. This lad then overtakes me (in fairness it wasn't too close) but does so while leaning on the horn and gesticulating.... Only to stop at the red lights about 30 meters away. I pull up beside him and look in, he glares at me so I ask him what he was beeping for... Says he "gave an audible signal as per the rules of the road you can't drive in the middle of the lane" So I told him I did nothing wrong and he should be patient he didn't exactly get far, he goes on about the "the rules of the road" again and I just lost my temper and gave him a few choice words and told him to f off.

I got a bit of a lol though when he said that he wouldn't f off, light has turned green at this stage and I say "well you're about to f off aren't you?" And he says no, cops the light is green, stutters and then drives off.

HE THEN PULLS INTO AN ESTATE LESS THAN A THREE MINUTE WALK AWAY FROM THE STATION

wtf like.

It occurs to me now that I think this is the same guy who before Christmas did something similar coming out of the train station except pulled up really close behind me and started revving and going mad. Clearly unstable so maybe confronting wasn't the best idea. He must get the same train so I'll probably see him again, he didn't look happy ! Although he was middle aged and pretty short so if it got physical I'd be fine, more concerned he will try a punishment pass.

ED E

Audi or beamer?

John Hutton

ED E wrote: »

Audi or beamer?

Neither, it was a VW! A small one like a new model lupo or something

John Hutton

MojoMaker wrote: »

wtf is this BS now

No idea, I can only guess he meant to say cycle in the middle of the lane! He was a pompous moron and irked me to such a degree I'm annoyed with myself

tnegun

tuxy wrote: »

I don't know about this case but most the time you really do have to take the lane and make sure they have to leave that lane to get past.

Taking the lane and signaling isn't worth a w@nk to some. Rough enough stretch of road as its all dug up, took the lane early, arm out to turn right, drop my arm to hold on as the surface eis so bad and make the turn so he sees it as his cue to go around me rather than wait a few seconds.



https://streamable.com/3j62s



I could post these clips all day the complete lack of consideration for cyclists right now is astounding.

tnegun

People make sh1t up to suit themselves a guy in the office today was giving out me about you lot meaning cyclists. Don't we know it's illegal to cycle on the road when a cycle lane is provided I told him I wasn't getting in it with him and to go Google that.

Kaisr Sose

ED E wrote: »

Audi or beamer?

Bad drivers in all marques and as many in bangers as luxury vehicles.

Hurrache

axer wrote: »

Just for clarity if there was a cycle lane it wouldn't make a difference. Cycle lanes (cycle tracks) do not give cyclists right of way-which is one of the reasons such non - segregated ones are so dangerous because some people do think it gives them right of way.

This tweet descended into all sorts of madness based on a similar incident, Joanna Donnelly getting involved too, but I wouldn’t agree with her. IMO the cyclist was pretty dumb to do what he did, regardless of the rights or wrongs of either party.

[url]

https://twitter.com/SeanReaODubhasa/status/1221447222581235713?s=19[/url]

kenmm

The car does have mirrors, and they do need to be used.

I am also presuming the cyclist has eyes and they too need to be used.



I actually got properly knocked down about 500m before there as a cab driver suddenly hit the brakes and turned left last minute to catch a rat run. Proper over the bonnet job - not a hint of indicator - I call that one there luck indeed!

droidus

Hurrache wrote: »

This tweet descended into all sorts of madness based on a similar incident, Joanna Donnelly getting involved too, but I wouldn’t agree with her. IMO the cyclist was pretty dumb to do what he did, regardless of the rights or wrongs of either party.

[url]

https://twitter.com/SeanReaODubhasa/status/1221447222581235713?s=19[/url]

The amount of people on that thread who think the cycle lane is a seperate lane which automatically gives them right of way is very worrying.

Hurrache

droidus wrote: »

The amount of people on that thread who think the cycle lane is a seperate lane which automatically gives them right of way is very worrying.

Yeah, either completely oblivious to, or just not acknowledging, the cyclists poor road sense in that situation.

micar

droidus wrote: »

The amount of people on that thread who think the cycle lane is a seperate lane which automatically gives them right of way is very worrying.

Hurrache wrote: »

Yeah, either completely oblivious to, or just not acknowledging, the cyclists poor road sense in that situation.

Totally agree....i would have across moved across to the centre and depending on traffic would have moved further out to overtake

droidus

It seems it was a late indicator TBF, and the car should have let him go - I would have been annoyed if it was me - but still, way too much faith placed in the magic paint.