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

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.

axer

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?

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.

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/

buffalo

tnegun wrote: »

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/

The cycle manual is (unfortunately) not the law.

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.

Breezer

Ray Palmer wrote: »

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.

My understanding is that a cycle “lane” is not a lane. It’s a cycle “track” and different laws apply. A cyclist can pass a vehicle on the inside, but not if it’s indicating to turn left. In that case, the driver of the left turning vehicle has right of way provided he/she has given clear signal of their intention.

The solid line indicates a stupidly named “mandatory cycle track” i.e. you can’t drive or park a vehicle in it during its hours of operation.

I’m open to correction on this, but that is what I’ve picked up from the various unclear sources I’ve read.

It’s a load of rubbish and is yet another reason we need proper segregated cycling infrastructure.

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

5uspect

Saw this on Twitter.

https://twitter.com/anneramsey740/status/1221883295320985603?s=21

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..)

tuxy

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.

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

MojoMaker

John Hutton wrote: »

e "...as per the rules of the road you can't drive in the middle of the lane"

wtf is this BS now

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.

Duckjob

MojoMaker wrote: »

wtf is this BS now

Actual facts/rules/laws don't matter with these idiots. They just make up their own sh1t to suit their angry primitive little minds.

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.

magicbastarder

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

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

It's official: The fancier the car, the more likely the driver's a jerk
https://www.inquirer.com/philly/news/pennsylvania/Rich-peo.html