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

buffalo

Eamonnator wrote: »

^^^^^^^
Any hint of an apology?

The first half was promising... "we were about to do everything right (apart from realising there was a big bad van coming), but my inexperienced student panicked and I avoided something worse happening".

I'd expect "very sorry that it happened, and I'll try make sure it doesn't happen again", but instead we get "cyclists should be banned from some roads because drivers". I assume the appropriately named Cars Hill will be the first on the list! :pac:

hesker

I know that road very well.

Complete fail on the instructor’s part. Failed to read the road ahead, failed to anticipate, failed to brake.

People treat that hill like it’s an airport runway. Rushing to beat the car beside them to the merge point at the top.

Smee_Again

I'd wonder if there was actually a learner in the car at the time.

Wildly Boaring

I'm going to say it.......
There is no way in hell you would catch me on a bike on Carrshill.

I appreciate we can cycle on any road we want.
I know the driver is wrong.
The instructor is completely wrong to blame the cyclist for being there.

But I fear for this man's safety doing this route daily.


EDIT
What some of ye may not make out here is that at this point on the road there are arrows in Lane 2 telling them to merge over into 1.
So not only is the van overtaking a learner that is overtaking a cyclist, he is doing it where he should be merging with the large 1 traffic.
It's also at the brow of a hill and forms the end of a climbing lane with constant traffic (no room) in the opposing direction.
No hard shoulder to speak of for a buffer.

Wildly Boaring

By the way the worst bit of his response is not the typical "roads are for cars bit"

But this bit......."assuming that i would ever allow to overtake a cyclist when it is not safe and without appropriate distance"

BUT YOU ****ING DID!!!!

That car should have been out into lane 2 when appropriate or slow to the cyclists speed behind the cyclist. Any other maneuver is unsafe

Wildly Boaring

Thought of this thread
THE SPACE WE HAVE GIVEN TO CARS

free image hosting

hesker

Wildly Boaring wrote: »

By the way the worst bit of his response is not the typical "roads are for cars bit"

But this bit......."assuming that i would ever allow to overtake a cyclist when it is not safe and without appropriate distance"

BUT YOU ****ING DID!!!!

That car should have been out into lane 2 when appropriate or slow to the cyclists speed behind the cyclist. Any other maneuver is unsafe

I wouldn’t cycle it either due to the lunatic driving. Used to regularly see a Garda car at that spot in the past but not so much recent years.

Agree learner should have been over in other lane or braked. However if he was in the other lane I wouldn’t be surprised to see the van undertake him with bad consequences

Stark

Wildly Boaring wrote: »

Thought of this thread
THE SPACE WE HAVE GIVEN TO CARS
...

This is also pretty great

https://twitter.com/Kjoen2u/status/1279324842593062912

CramCycle

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Cork Twitter user RightToBikeIt had this close pass from a driving school trainer recently...

https://twitter.com/righttobikeit/status/1394629072983035906

Apparently the RSA took an interest in the incident.

The driving school owner sent this response which leaves me feeling somewhat lost for words...

I could be wrong but the van driver was mid overtake of the car and done nothing wrong. The car was not attempting an overtake (unless I missed the indicator), if he was, he did not look rear ward and then the car speeds up to match.

- Dangerous overtaking
- Failure to leave appropriate distance between you and the vehicle in front
- Failure to yield
- Driving without reasonable consideration
- Driver found to be driving carelessly
- Dangerous overtaking of a cyclist

Poor learner (if he even exists) will have lost his license before he even gets it.

Seth Brundle

CramCycle wrote: »

I could be wrong but the van driver was mid overtake of the car and done nothing wrong. The car was not attempting an overtake (unless I missed the indicator), if he was, he did not look rear ward and then the car speeds up to match.

- Dangerous overtaking
- Failure to leave appropriate distance between you and the vehicle in front
- Failure to yield
- Driving without reasonable consideration
- Driver found to be driving carelessly
- Dangerous overtaking of a cyclist

Poor learner (if he even exists) will have lost his license before he even gets it.

The driving school instructor was absolutely and completely in the wrong. Even if a student was driving*, the instructor is in charge ultimately so they're still in the wrong.
The driving was apalling for someone whose role it is to educate others. They know this which is why they point the finger at everyone else on the road except themselves.
I sincerely hope that the RSA remove them from the list of ADIs.

* from other tweets, I think there might have only been one person in the car!

Stark

Driving instructor completely in the wrong there. I've been in that situation driving before coming up on a cyclist. For sure, the courteous thing for the van driver to do would be to observe ahead, hold back and allow space for the person coming up behind the cyclist to overtake easily. But given most drivers won't extend that courtesy, it's the responsibility of the instructor to make sure he or his student slows well down as soon as they see the cyclist ahead to either give themselves extra time to find a gap to overtake or slow down to the cyclist's speed if necessary until it was safe to do so. From the video above it looks like he put his put to the floor pretty much. Even if he had slowed a little, the van driver would have passed him quickly and he'd be able to overtake safely. Pig ignorant driving overall.

buffalo

Late yesterday morning, Leixlip village, waiting to cross the road at the pedestrian lights at Aldi. Lights go red for road traffic, driver coming down the hill from my right comes to a stop at the line.

I'm about to step out into the road, carrying my son, when I catch some movement out of the corner of my eye. Some eejit of a road cyclist coming down the hill is coming through on the inside of the car. There's not much room, so he has to do a little shimmy to get his handlebars around the wing mirror. He doesn't let that deter him though, and barrels through the red light without hesitation.

As I then take one step out, he's followed by a small group in a mishmash of lycra who come to what I would describe as a sheepish stop. I have a feeling my death stares while standing in the road may have reinforced the red light.

In hindsight, I should have said it to them at the time, but on the off chance any of you are on the forum, tell your mate/yourself to cop on. I get it, it's a lovely hill for descending and a shame to have to come to a full stop at the bottom, but that's no excuse to be an arsehole.

5uspect

I’m not a Lycra clad weekend racer. I commute to work on my bike and I, like the majority of people I encounter along my route, stop at lights and respect the rules of the road. The folks who tend to post here would be of a similar mindset.

This behaviour is of course unacceptable. Sometimes I’ll call out a cyclist for running a red light, I usually pass them out later anyway because I’m on an ebike these days. They just don’t care. The same applies to cyclists without lights in the depths of winter.

The problem is an attitude of impatience, aggression and selfishness on our roads. It doesn’t matter if you’re on a bike, driving a car or a truck. People drive too fast. People don’t stop at red lights. People park their cars up on footpaths, they’ll just be a minute don’t you know?

Why is this? Because people are universally selfish jerks. It’s human nature. There’s been a climate of zero enforcement of any kind of road traffic laws in Ireland and this has festered to the degree where there is no fear whatsoever for the consequences of our actions on the road. Kill someone with your car and you’ll get off scot free.
Bring the Gardai 4K60 360 degree footage of appalling driving and they’ll threaten you and fob you off. The Gardai have a lot to answer for here, they’ve utterly abandoned their duties.

I feel that things are about to boil over. We’ve seen two children killed in as many weeks. My work meant that I was frequently travelling during the lockdowns and the empty roads were treated as racetracks by motorists. Those returning to the roads are angrier and more impatient. More people are out walking than ever still they’re in greater danger than ever. What will it take for action to be taken?

Idleater

5uspect wrote: »

Those returning to the roads are angrier and more impatient. More people are out walking than ever still they’re in greater danger than ever.

Interestingly, no near miss so technically off topic but there is a new (maybe a year - i don't actually remember) 30kmph speed limit in Lucan village. One of the perimeter signs was added to the top of the hill (as opposed to near the school a bit further down where it has been 30 for a number of years). The signs at the school have the "your speed" displays too where my record :rolleyes: is seeing 71.
Anyway today while driving down I was passed by 2 cars who had to stop after 100m tops, i was not on the bike so was on the brakes in the car 30kmph on all displays. I can only pressure I'm the subject of a "forced me to overtake" near miss thread somewhere.

5uspect

I live in Lucan and we do the school run in a cargo bike. Don’t start me on idiots overtaking as we approach red lights.

tnegun

Narrow country road with 2 of the kids today, my 10 year old was 50m ahead and I had the 7 year old beside me. Lovely pleasant cycle and every car we met we either pulled in or the slowed to a crawl and we passed each other but not this pr1ck in an Audi. I got video but image stabilization on the camera has slowed it right down. I reckon he was doing 70kph but it felt faster any way he barely moved and I had to get out of his way. Judge for yourselves https://streamable.com/v52v3w

Oberkon

tnegun wrote: »

Narrow country road with 2 of the kids today, my 10 year old was 50m ahead and I had the 7 year old beside me. Lovely pleasant cycle and every car we met we either pulled in or the slowed to a crawl and we passed each other but not this pr1ck in an Audi. I got video but image stabilization on the camera has slowed it right down. I reckon he was doing 70kph but it felt faster any way he barely moved and I had to get out of his way. Judge for yourselves https://streamable.com/v52v3w

That’s disgusting but sadly all too common , I've had more close passes and prick behaviour with Audi drivers than any other make. It’s a running joke in our house except there’s nothing funny about it ..

Steoller

had a near miss from the other side yesterday - was at traffic lights - T-junction, with options of left or right, first car in the queue. The lights go green, and I give it a 2-count for any RLJs. All clear so I pull off, going left, glance at the left wing mirror, then back to the the road and had to slam on as a kid - I'd say 13 or 14, comes barrelling through the red from my right on his bike. It was pouring rain, and he had his hood up, so maybe he didn't see the lights.

Frightened the life out of me, I was shaking the whole way home. lucky i was just taking off and going slow.

Chips Lovell

Mod Note

Troll banned

VonLuck

I didn't want to start a whole new thread, but I feel this is fits in with near misses.

Can anyone tell me what the road traffic laws are with respect to cycle lanes? Particularly where you have solid lines and dashed lines and what they mean with respect to what cars can do.

Instinctively it seems to me that if there's a dashed line, vehicles are free to cross over. I find they're generally on narrow streets without the space for a proper bike lane.

Also what's permitted for temporary loading/unloading by trucks or cars? I recall reading somewhere that trucks are allowed something like 15 minutes to do deliveries, but is this supposed to just be in the vehicle lane?

Seth Brundle

Cars cannot cross the solid white lines - these indicate a "mandatory cycle lane" which mean it is mandatory for cars not to enter (stupid naming!).
As for dashed markings, these really mean nothing.

Seth Brundle

The only cycle lanes that are mandatory for cyclists to use are Contra Flow Cycle Lanes
Article 14 of the Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2012

Don't currently have the other legislation details at hand.

elchupanebrey

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Cars cannot cross the solid white lines - these indicate a "mandatory cycle lane" which mean it is mandatory for cars not to enter (stupid naming!).
As for dashed markings, these really mean nothing.

A lot of the "cycle lanes" around where I live have a solid line and also have cars parked blocking them and half the footpath. I remember getting beeped by a guy in a truck one day and him pointing at me to get into the cycle lane. He just drove off when I pointed out the 3 or 4 cars parked in the lane 100m ahead:rolleyes:

Seth Brundle

elchupanebrey wrote: »

A lot of the "cycle lanes" around where I live have a solid line and also have cars parked blocking them and half the footpath. I remember getting beeped by a guy in a truck one day and him pointing at me to get into the cycle lane. He just drove off when I pointed out the 3 or 4 cars parked in the lane 100m ahead:rolleyes:

Not really surprising in my opinion. The vast majority of drivers have no understanding of the laws when it comes to cycling whether it is helmets and high-viz, cycle lanes or even dangerous overtakes.

Breezer

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Not really surprising in my opinion. The vast majority of drivers have no understanding of the laws when it comes to cycling whether it is helmets and high-viz, cycle lanes or even dangerous overtakes.

The particular scenario described would benefit more from an understanding of the laws of physics, which in the eyes of some drivers are trumped by the law of the jungle.

VonLuck

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Cars cannot cross the solid white lines - these indicate a "mandatory cycle lane" which mean it is mandatory for cars not to enter (stupid naming!).
As for dashed markings, these really mean nothing.

So I guess I have no right (from a legal sense) to be annoyed if a car is driving or parked in a cycle lane with dashed markings?

magicbastarder

it depends; some of the dashed cycle lanes actually share space with car lanes, so a car could not physically drive in the car lane without occupying the cycle lane too.
but in general, i think they should only cross into the cycle lane when they're actually *crossing* the cycle lane.

Seth Brundle

VonLuck wrote: »

So I guess I have no right (from a legal sense) to be annoyed if a car is driving or parked in a cycle lane with dashed markings?

Unless there are signs indicating that the driver should not be doing that, I'd say you've nothing to be annoyed about.
In many cases, it's drivers just being lazy. In others, it's poor road design and/or road limitations.

buffalo

VonLuck wrote: »

So I guess I have no right (from a legal sense) to be annoyed if a car is driving or parked in a cycle lane with dashed markings?

I went looking for the SI last night but couldn't find it. Driving in non-mandatory track is definitely allowed. As for parking, the ROTR says:

No driver may park a vehicle in a mandatory cycle track.

A driver may park in a non-mandatory cycle track for up to 30 minutes, but only
if they are loading or unloading their vehicle and there is no alternative parking
available. Remember the basic duty of care and do not obstruct a cycle track.

If a driver parks their vehicle in a cycle track that operates for only some of the
day (shown on an information plate under the cycle track sign), they must move
the vehicle by the time the next operating period starts.

If there is no information plate, it means the cycle track operates all the time
and no parking is allowed.

I'm not sure how you reconcile "park in a non-mandatory cycle track" with "do not obstruct a cycle track", but anyway.

VonLuck

buffalo wrote: »

I went looking for the SI last night but couldn't find it. Driving in non-mandatory track is definitely allowed. As for parking, the ROTR says:

I'm not sure how you reconcile "park in a non-mandatory cycle track" with "do not obstruct a cycle track", but anyway.

So you can park in a non-mandatory cycle track, but maintain a duty of care and do not obstruct a cycle track. Also if there is no information plate you cannot park at all.

Clear as mud.