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

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.

Breezer

Seems to have been a late indicator but I’d personally have been moving out into the lane there.

On the other hand, I was using a bus/cycle lane this evening and a driver in a Micra overtook me in the driving lane on the right. I could just sense they were going to do something and sure enough the left indicator went on a couple of seconds later, approaching a turn off to the left. I pulled out into the driving lane behind as I reckon they wouldn’t see me.

It turns out they did (I think). But then they hadn’t a notion where I’d gone when I went behind them and just sat in the driving lane with the indicator on. I went around them.

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.

Late on the indicators for sure but still my self preservation instinct would not have allowed me to have ended up in the position that guy did. Car is 100% wrong but he had time to see that indicator as he was still behind. No point in being right and dead!!!

magicbastarder

it's simple as far as i'm concerned - going through a junction like that with the motorised traffic moving like that, you match the speed of the traffic, by slipping into their lane. safest way of doing it; and you make yourself more visible to oncoming traffic which is turning across your lane.

droidus

Deleted User wrote: »

Late on the indicators for sure but still my self preservation instinct would not have allowed me to have ended up in the position that guy did. Car is 100% wrong but he had time to see that indicator as he was still behind. No point in being right and dead!!!

Technically he'd be wrong and dead as the car was indicating before he was level.

buffalo

Deleted User wrote: »

Late on the indicators for sure but still my self preservation instinct would not have allowed me to have ended up in the position that guy did. Car is 100% wrong but he had time to see that indicator as he was still behind. No point in being right and dead!!!

How is the car (or even the driver) 100% wrong?

Achasanai

buffalo wrote: »

How is the car (or even the driver) 100% wrong?

Yeah, really confused on this one. If I'm in a car, and I'm turning left, I have right of way regardless of any cyclists continuing straight?

Pinch Flat

Achasanai wrote: »

Yeah, really confused on this one. If I'm in a car, and I'm turning left, I have right of way regardless of any cyclists continuing straight?

Depends where you are in a car. If you're behind the cyclist, you can't speed up and left hook regardless if you're signalling. If the car is ahead and signalling left, the cyclist hangs back and the car has right of way. Problem is if theres' 2 or 3 cars turning left, they will just continue regardless of where the cyclist is. This is where correct road positioning comes in as someone pointed out above - those painted lines are not a guarantee of being safe

buffalo

Here's the law: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112384088&postcount=272

I've stuck it in the legislation thread for posterity.

5uspect

Is this the first prosecution under the new law?

https://irishcycle.com/2020/01/28/dublin-driver-gets-points-for-sideswiping-cyclist/

Salary Negotiator

5uspect wrote: »

Is this the first prosecution under the new law?

https://irishcycle.com/2020/01/28/dublin-driver-gets-points-for-sideswiping-cyclist/

Incident took place in June, don't think the legislation was in effect then.

magicbastarder

buffalo wrote: »

Here's the law: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112384088&postcount=272

I've stuck it in the legislation thread for posterity.

unfortunately the presence of bike lanes confuses people as to whether the car has right of way or not, as the argument is they're changing lanes but the cyclist has priority in their own lane.
i can't see that as anything but moot, the fact that the car is indicating implies it's changing lanes, regardless of the presence of a cycle lane.

5uspect

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

Incident took place in June, don't think the legislation was in effect then.

At least the driver was sanctioned, but it’s a shame you have to pester the Gardaí to do anything.

I think I’ll have to start using a rear camera, I’ve had a few incidents of aggressive drivers behind me on Strawberry Beds.

Chips Lovell

Pinch Flat wrote: »

This is where correct road positioning comes in as someone pointed out above - those painted lines are not a guarantee of being safe

Yes. The best thing to do is take the lane and merge with other traffic when approaching and moving through a junction. Removes all ambiguity and cuts down on dangerous overtaking.

tnegun

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

Incident took place in June, don't think the legislation was in effect then.

I thought it was always the law, just clarified and the penalty changed?

Thinkingaboutit

Going from Thomas St to the Coombe yesterday a woman in a Micra drove very close, but there I should have, as I usually do, move to the centre of that part narrow road to the right of St Catherine's COI. You cannot give space for bad overtaking, even if it results in occasional menaces from the usual white vans.

Salary Negotiator

tnegun wrote: »

I thought it was always the law, just clarified and the penalty changed?

I might have got this arseways and we could be talking about different offences.

I assumed the post referred to the dangerously overtaking a cyclist legislation which came in in November.

CramCycle

Co worker came in this morning shaking. Going through a junction the light went to Amber when they were half way through. As if a gun was put to the head of the oncoming motorist, they gunned it through (from behind the line) and swung right, straight at my friend. Thankfully their brakes were in good order (and my co worker swerved) as a crowd of pedestrians let out a scream. Said driver proceeded to lay on the horn and start shouting that they came out of nowhere. They have decent lights, Hi Vis, all the bells and whistles, straight line junction (although it is an elongated junction). They are thinking of packing in the bike altogether. Apparently the pedestrians came over to check were they OK, one commenting they were lucky to still be here. When they described it to me, all they could ask was what more were they meant to do.

tnegun

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

I might have got this arseways and we could be talking about different offences.

I assumed the post referred to the dangerously overtaking a cyclist legislation which came in in November.

Me too for some reason I thought the law always existed it was just clarified and the penalty added. A quick google suggests the law for dangerous overtaking existed but a separate offense was added for over taking cyclists.

Effects

magicbastarder wrote: »

i can't see that as anything but moot, the fact that the car is indicating implies it's changing lanes, regardless of the presence of a cycle lane.

Can you change lane if the other lane is occupied though, even if you indicate?
Should you wait until the lane is clear/safe to move into it?

Ray Palmer

This morning on my usual cycle. Big box for cyclists by the lights. I am first there and stop in the box and as I know the cars tend to pull into the box I position myself to prevent this. No difference as a car pulls up incredibly close to me and in the box. I signal the driver to look down. He rolls down the window to tell me that he is doing this as it is safer for me!!!! I explain it isn't and he doesn't get to decide how the road works.
Lights go green and as there are the usual cars stuck in the yellow box I can go forward but he is blocked. Think that is it until as I am cycling along he serves his car at me and beeps his horn. Way too close again. Proceeds up to be stuck at the next set of lights. When I then tap his window to ask him what he is playing at he turns complete coward apologising profusely. Held my temper but very close to really bringing down hell on him.

Acquiescence

Acquiescence wrote: »

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.

Jinxed myself. Had somebody pull across the bus lane in slow moving traffic into the row of shops as I was doing 40kph+ managed to swerve up onto the footpath. Closest I've come to coming off. If I hadn't seen her indicate last second I was across the bonnet.

eclipsechaser

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.

It's because car horns are typically used aggressively so most people think bike riders are being equivalently aggressive using their bell.

Kaisr Sose

5uspect wrote: »

At least the driver was sanctioned, but it’s a shame you have to pester the Gardaí to do anything.

I think I’ll have to start using a rear camera, I’ve had a few incidents of aggressive drivers behind me on Strawberry Beds.

Agree. It's a shame you have to pester to get meaningful action for things like this.

I am in the process of pestering for a similar type incident that left me on the ground, vehicle then stopped, and drove off. Two things stand out:
Garda tells me "the driver is actually a nice guy"
And no prosecution was recommend as it was deemed to be a 50/50 thing.
The driver has lied in their account and the Garda bought it. I have rear video showing the vehicle contacting me and I am told its not conclusive.
Pestering is a waste of my time but you have to make the Garda account for the decisions and be consistent in their actions.

AndrewJRenko

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Agree. It's a shame you have to pester to get meaningful action for things like this.

I am in the process of pestering for a similar type incident that left me on the ground, vehicle then stopped, and drove off. Two things stand out:
Garda tells me "the driver is actually a nice guy"
And no prosecution was recommend as it was deemed to be a 50/50 thing.
The driver has lied in their account and the Garda bought it. I have rear video showing the vehicle contacting me and I am told its not conclusive.
Pestering is a waste of my time but you have to make the Garda account for the decisions and be consistent in their actions.

Verging on unbelievable that you have video showing the vehicle hitting you, and that's still not enough. They really make it very hard for cyclists.