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

Kaisr Sose

MojoMaker wrote: »

Interesting, I reckon it was the post-incident dialogue that secured the conviction, not necessarily the pass itself (we have seen much worse go unpunished).

I would second that. I would like to know how this went when you first reported it and then in the run up to court. Worse passes have not got to court. Prosecution of these seems very subjective, and how they are dealt with in court even more so.

AndrewJRenko

CramCycle wrote: »

Presuming he is moving towards Bray, does that path not go up to be separated from the road? Either way, I'd prefer him to the d1cks who run towards you on narrow paths. At least you can slow behind him and overtake when safe, d1ck in Clonskeagh who runs contraflow. You have to stop and he still comes at you and almost tuts at you for stopping even though he never breaks his line.

I'd bet a fiver he'd break his line if I came up against him.

Steoller wrote: »

My incident from last year has finally wound its way through the courts system, so I feel I should share the conclusion.

Convicted of careless driving and €200 fine.

Incident video below - Strong language warning.

CramCycle wrote: »

There is a level of stupidity there I cannot comprehend. Fair play to you for being so reasonable. I would have called him unpleasant things using unparliamentary language. He just couldn't get it. It was actually frightening to think he is allowed drive.

Fair play for taking it all the way through to conviction. On the question of 'unparliamentary language', did your own language come up for discussion at all?


Not criticising you in any way, but I'd have formal cautions from the Gardai about possible public order offences in similar cases when giving witness statements. Did this happen with you?

CramCycle

I said it to the Garda at the time, they just said it's not great but is irrelevant to the issue. I have had that warning, very much a PFO rather than something that would follow through to court IMO.

Pinch Flat

Steoller wrote: »

My incident from last year has finally wound its way through the courts system, so I feel I should share the conclusion.

Convicted of careless driving and €200 fine.

Incident video below - Strong language warning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYyhQSaBUQM

jaysus the sense of entitlement from that motorist and putting it back on the cyclist. Serves him right. Some utter dopes on the road.

Does his conviction have any impact on his insurance premium? Be nice to see a hike when he renews to remind him

Kaisr Sose

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Not criticising you in any way, but I'd have formal cautions from the Gardai about possible public order offences in similar cases when giving witness statements. Did this happen with you?

Good point. The drivers language is not great either. I think this is used by the Garda when they are looking for a reason not to take it further. It someone nearly takes you out and adrenaline is pulsing through veins, its very hard to engage Kings English.

Hurrache

Steoller, did you have to go to court or could the Garda follow through on the basis of your statement and footage?

RobbieMD

Hurrache wrote: »

Steoller, did you have to go to court or could the Garda follow through on the basis of your statement and footage?

I can’t speak for Steoller but can shed some light on how it works.

If the driver entered a not guilty plea, then Steoller would’ve been required to give evidence.

If he pleaded guilty, the Garda can give the facts of the case and no witnesses are examined. In that instance, 99 times out of a 100, video footage isn’t played for the court.

For the offences of Section 51a driving without reasonable consideration, 52 careless driving and 53 dangerous driving, the judge can vary the conviction up or down depending on the facts and circumstances. A garda could charge you with dangerous driving but the judge could convict you of careless driving. For Sec 51a these are FCPNs. If the notice isn’t paid, a summons is generated. In court the judge could convict of Sec 52 if he thought it was merited.

Summons applications take roughly 4-6 months before the court service allocate a date. Not every summons is served on the first application, and if the driver had a solicitor then I’m sure there would’ve been an adjournment(s) to allow the solicitor examine the states case.

Section 52 careless driving does not give a Garda a power of arrest and as such must proceed by way of summons.

magicbastarder

RobbieMD wrote: »

In that instance, 99 times out of a 100, video footage isn’t played for the court.

For the offences of Section 51a driving without reasonable consideration, 52 careless driving and 53 dangerous driving, the judge can vary the conviction up or down depending on the facts and circumstances.

in what circumstances (other than the judge actually watching the video evidence) might lead a judge to levy a punishment different to what the DPP is applying for?

RobbieMD

magicbastarder wrote: »

in what circumstances (other than the judge actually watching the video evidence) might lead a judge to levy a punishment different to what the DPP is applying for?

In my experience, judges will generally agree with the charge levied by the state. If it’s reduced then generally it’s from dangerous driving down to careless driving. Dangerous driving is supposed to carry a disqualification. If the accused has a solicitor make a case that he/she requires the licence to work for example, then judges generally will reduce it down.

Sometimes the prosecution might be weak and the judge may not feel the charge is substantiated enough and reduce it. Some judges will ask about the volume of other road users present during an allegation of dangerous driving, and if it’s late at night on a motorway, they may reduce it down.

It’s not a common thing in my experience to see a judge increase the charge up in severity though. There are some common practices the Gardai use that have no basis in law, a common one being a person driving twice the speed limit is generally arrested for dangerous driving, but you could be doing 100 in a 60 and it would only lead to a speeding fine.

Generally the DPP won’t be directing for careless driving or dangerous driving type offences. There are instances, dangerous driving causing serious bodily harm or death that require a DPP direction, but most are directed by the Superintendent of the district.

Steoller

micar wrote: »

Can you explain the court process?

How did he plead?

Why did it take 12 months to get the conviction,?

Did he show any remorse?

Was he apologetic?

What was his reaction to seeing the footage of the pass?

Did he only realise after seeing the footage how little space he gave?

Dr_Colossus wrote: »

+1, also interested as you've never know when one of us would have to go through similar proceedings.
<snip>
Does the prosecution make much if any difference to insurance renewal quotes or was their points charged to his license also.

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

I would second that. I would like to know how this went when you first reported it and then in the run up to court.

Hurrache wrote: »

Steoller, did you have to go to court or could the Garda follow through on the basis of your statement and footage?

I'm sorry to say that my presence was not required at court, so I do not know how they pleaded, or whether my footage was used. RobbieMD seems well versed in the procedure, so I would suspect he pleaded guilty and I wasn't required.

As for why it took 12 months, it took six months of showing up at the Garda station once a month, (and a direct appeal to the Superintendent at a public meeting), to get the Garda working the issue to take my statement. That was the end of September. Then the initial hearing was early January, and the final hearing was end of February.

If he had not come back to have a go at me after the pass, I probably would have let it go earlier.
But because he did that, I would have happily gone to court if needed.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Fair play for taking it all the way through to conviction. On the question of 'unparliamentary language', did your own language come up for discussion at all?

They made no mention of it. Maybe because he was the one who came after me, and started the argument, I could be forgiven for being a bit impolite?

magicbastarder

Steoller wrote: »

As for why it took 12 months, it took six months of showing up at the Garda station once a month, (and a direct appeal to the Superintendent at a public meeting), to get the Garda working the issue to take my statement.

fair play.

Kaisr Sose

Steoller wrote: »

As for why it took 12 months, it took six months of showing up at the Garda station once a month, (and a direct appeal to the Superintendent at a public meeting), to get the Garda working the issue to take my statement. That was the end of September. Then the initial hearing was early January, and the final hearing was end of February.

Yes, fair play.
I am the process of appealing a decision not to prosecute. They (AGS) don't give much in terms of detail in the decision.

Dr_Colossus

Steoller wrote: »

As for why it took 12 months, it took six months of showing up at the Garda station once a month, (and a direct appeal to the Superintendent at a public meeting), to get the Garda working the issue to take my statement. That was the end of September. Then the initial hearing was early January, and the final hearing was end of February.

Jees, what a system, in order to get any sort of justice you have to hound others for months on end to do their job and take a reportable instance seriously. Fair play for sticking with it as most wouldn't given those obstacles.

Goes to show if you want to kill anyone in this country do it in a car and most likely you will be spared jail as in this case from last year where an uninsured driver fatally hit a pedestrian, leaving him at the side of the road while he went home and buried the car in a field using a digger. That case took nearly 2 1/2 years to get a verdict in court:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/man-21-who-buried-car-on-family-farm-after-fatal-hit-and-run-avoids-jail-1.3968778

Dr_Colossus

Dr_Colossus wrote: »

Jees, what a system, in order to get any sort of justice you have to hound others for months on end to do their job and take a reportable instance seriously. Fair play for sticking with it as most wouldn't given those obstacles.

Goes to show if you want to kill anyone in this country do it in a car and most likely you will be spared jail as in this case from last year where an uninsured driver fatally hit a pedestrian, leaving him at the side of the road while he went home and buried the car in a field using a digger. That case took nearly 2 1/2 years to get a verdict in court:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/man-21-who-buried-car-on-family-farm-after-fatal-hit-and-run-avoids-jail-1.3968778

Christ, I'd not read about that one. Even the custodial sentence had been suspended it would have been shockingly short. Real slap in the face to the victims family.

Thinkingaboutit

Close to the junction of Bridgefoot St, a bit past 4pm, there was an all too common thing - a menace pass by a taxi driver. I delayed him so he could join a queue of cars a feet on. The wide angle Go Pro shot probably exaggerates the distance the little, but it seemed close to me. You hear some school children react to the closeness of the pass.

1.43 mark, I was aware of him getting very close so I manoeuvred the bike leftwards. Between taxi drivers and histrionic unmarked white van drivers, it's hard to pick a more noxious category of road users.

Idioteque

MojoMaker wrote: »

Working class Passat driver.

Say no more.

Your Comment.

Say no more.

Idioteque

Steoller wrote: »

My incident from last year has finally wound its way through the courts system, so I feel I should share the conclusion.

Fair play for seeing it through. I wonder what his plan was if you said you did give him the finger.

Enduro

CramCycle wrote: »

Either way, I'd prefer him to the d1cks who run towards you on narrow paths. At least you can slow behind him and overtake when safe, d1ck in Clonskeagh who runs contraflow. You have to stop and he still comes at you and almost tuts at you for stopping even though he never breaks his line.

As for why the cars do that, it is simple association, they can see themselves in a runner. A cyclist, for many, I can never understand why, they just think as sub human, it is very weird.

Is that "path" a cycle path or a footpath? I'm not so sure that the self-entitled drivers are any more empathetic to runners, from my own experience.

Thinkingaboutit

Idioteque wrote: »

Your Comment.

Say no more.

Yeah, the aggressive, self righteous dope transcends all classes of motorist. Slowing them down temporarily gives them a right to menace a cyclist. Enough aggressive 121 and 192 drivers like that.

Steoller

Dr_Colossus wrote: »

Jees, what a system, in order to get any sort of justice you have to hound others for months on end to do their job and take a reportable instance seriously. Fair play for sticking with it as most wouldn't given those obstacles.

I should mention for fairness that the second incident I reported was dealt with within the week. The consistency isn't great, but it shows it can be a priority when it needs to be, and in small under-resourced stations like our local one we don't know what other issues they have to deal with on their shift.

That said, they did lose the first copy of the videos about a month after I gave the statement, and I had to resubmit them.

Seth Brundle

Professional drivers :rolleyes:
N4 eastbound approaching J4 - a Dublin Bus passed me just before these two and he had no difficulty waiting for a safe point before making his manouvre.

(again, I got a wee scare when bus #1 went past and said something NSFW)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LCPwvwVW7E

tnegun

Sorry for the FB link we can only dream about such consequences https://www.facebook.com/groups/ukdashcamfootage/permalink/1072316383145750/

I get so many close passes a day at that speed I don't even notice anymore.

Seth Brundle

"Content not found" for that tnegun

tnegun

Damn works for me maybe you have to be a member of the UK Dash cam FB group I've attached a screenshot will see can I do better from the laptop later

f1000

End of O'Connell St. earlier (half 4 and very bright out) about to cross South side towards D'Olier St. after the lights went green onto O'Connell bridge, an Eircoach cut me off to pull onto the bridge behind the no.4 bus.

Had to jump off onto the path while grabbing my bike to avoid being squashed.

Was going to keep going keep going but said, **** that!

Went back, waited until the driver assisted people from the bus and then told the driver to be more aware and to let the driver know that was a dangerous manoeuvre and had put me in a dangerous situation.

The driver got very defensive became a very aggro, telling me that it was illegal for me not to have high-vis and no lights in broad daylight and it was my fault to put myself in that situation.

MojoMaker

You are sh***ing me, illegal not to have hi-vis on? On what planet is this muppet consuming and believing this BS???

You have got to take it further, and point out specifically the belief of this driver to the management team so they can educate the rest of the fleet. You need to do this for all of us.

Kaisr Sose

f1000 wrote: »

End of O'Connell St. earlier (half 4 and very bright out) about to cross South side towards D'Olier St. after the lights went green onto O'Connell bridge, an Eircoach cut me off to pull onto the bridge behind the no.4 bus.

Had to jump off onto the path while grabbing my bike to avoid being squashed.

Was going to keep going keep going but said, **** that!

Went back, waited until the driver assisted people from the bus and then told the driver to be more aware and to let the driver know that was a dangerous manoeuvre and had put me in a dangerous situation.

The driver got very defensive became a very aggro, telling me that it was illegal for me not to have high-vis and no lights in broad daylight and it was my fault to put myself in that situation.

Just report him to his employer. Its an act of kindness to do so as it will prevent him seriously injuring or killing someone.

A lot of aircoach drivers (and other private coach /shuttle drivers) need a good lesson in road safety and etiquette towards other road users.

AndrewJRenko

MojoMaker wrote: »

You are sh***ing me, illegal not to have hi-vis on? On what planet is this muppet consuming and believing this BS???

I've gotten this more than once. I think the constant hammering by the RSA, Gardai and others have created the expectation that hi-vis and helmets are a legal requirement.

Try asking the driver about the missing hi-vis stripes on their car if it comes up again.

RobertFoster

Nearly had a head on collision with another cyclist on the Clontarf track today. Just before the causeway heading into town, a couple of lads heading towards Howth in single file on what looked to be fat bikes. The second man decided to pull out from behind the first and into my path when we were nearly on top of each other.

I let a roar and braked and he pulled in behind his friend again. I thought no harm no foul, these things can happen, but then he irked me by shouting "wrong side!" and pointing to the pedestrian side of the white line

An understandable mistake I suppose if he was new to the path. Just goes to show how inconsistent cycling infrastructure is here. Whatever about changes from one council area to the next, you can be on the same track and the layout can change a few times in a short stretch.

kenmm

RobertFoster wrote: »

Nearly had a head on collision with another cyclist on the Clontarf track today. Just before the causeway heading into town, a couple of lads heading towards Howth in single file on what looked to be fat bikes. The second man decided to pull out from behind the first and into my path when we were nearly on top of each other.

I let a roar and braked and he pulled in behind his friend again. I thought no harm no foul, these things can happen, but then he irked me by shouting "wrong side!" and pointing to the pedestrian side of the white line

An understandable mistake I suppose if he was new to the path. Just goes to show how inconsistent cycling infrastructure is here. Whatever about changes from one council area to the next, you can be on the same track and the layout can change a few times in a short stretch.

I've been both in this scenario - I am not sure where exactly on the track that is, but I have came up the wrong side and also had others nearly head-on me.

Is that where the track seems to split really narrow, where two way cycle path is squeezed into one lane, right after having a proper two way track?