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

tnegun

Was watching on the phone and thought you were outbound on the N4, there is a school time HGV ban on that road too I think but probably a bit early for it.

I was turning right from Kevin Street in to Patrick St this morning, safely in my car I hasten to add and stopped at the lights on the side street thingy, where you turn left to turn right.

Anyway, just me and a guy on a bike at the lights, so I pick up my phone to skip to the next track on the playlist, look up and the lights have turned green.

Fair enough, so off I go giving the cyclist in front of me plenty of time, next thing there is a screech of brakes and an Avensis has come up Patrick street and gone straight through a red light, narrowly avoiding the guy on the bike. Thankfully the cyclist braked in time, as did the Avensis, but it was one of those two seconds from disaster type things.

I have the reg of the car by the way.

CramCycle

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh give over. If people, rightly, call for separation of traffic, don't be surprised when others complain that the separate facilities are not used.
I used the cycle lane in Templeogue for years and saw so many people just use the road

The one in Templeogue is rubbish and brings you i not massive conflict with parked cars, pedestrians and is generally unsafe, taking the lane for the 20 seconds is the safe thing to do.

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you not meant to yield here?
You're the one merging with a lane

Honestly need to know this one

The CRV is literally crossing a lane divider in the video, no matter what you think the lines Seth crosses mean, they were passed theirs as the CRV mergede in on top of them, unless we are looking at very different videos.

average_runner wrote: »

Road markings break into separate white lines into the main road. Bus lane is merging ai give way to your right when merging to another road?

Nope, even if that were true (it isn't, but lets say it was), Seth had crossed that line into, and after this, the CRV starts merging across.

Deleted User wrote: »

This is it though, the CRV was not changing lanes. They were in a lane which splits, they did not cross over any lane markings.

Now all the above is my taking on the rules, honestly happy to get someone show me different.

They were not, they were crossing broken white lines, broken white lines that indicate a different lane, not a splitting lane.

blackwhite

Deleted User wrote: »

This is it though, the CRV was not changing lanes. They were in a lane which splits, they did not cross over any lane markings.


Now all the above is my taking on the rules, honestly happy to get someone show me different.

The lane doesn't split though - an exit lane branches off from it which requires you to indicate left before changing lane.

The ROTR (I know, I know - an interpretation of law, as opposed to the law itself) even use an illustration that bears a striking resemblance to the N4 junction to illustrate the rules on changing lanes. (see page 55 - https://www.rsa.ie/Documents/RotR%20BOOK%20for%20web%202019.pdf

Seth Brundle

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Tell me that you are reporting that truck, please!!

Reported in Lucan station this evening. The garda was great - reviewed the footage and took my statement and was going to contact the company in order to get the driver's statement before it goes further.

(I also asked him about the N4 bus lane that we were discussing and his view was that he would judge an incident with whatever evidence but any vehicle already there would be likely to have priority on the lane)

RobbieMD

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I will also ask the garda when I give them the DVD of this morning's cement truck incident.

Anyhow, I think we've gone off topic anyhow.

That’s a poorly designed ambiguous piece of road.

I imagine the Garda will either be reluctant to offer an opinion or will say something like you’ve both potentially committed an offence.

The earlier reference to M129 road marking was incorrect. That signals the commencement of a bus lane, in your instance the bus lane has finished. In theory, the car driver overtook you and endangered you, and/or you failed to yield right of way to the car. Reference Sections 19 and 22 of SI no 294/1964.

CramCycle

I thought today would be nicer with the severely reduced traffic. Car went to undertake me coming through the roundabout on the Bray side of Shankill. Heard the engine getting close, turned around and they were trying to squeeze through between me and the kerb. I let a roar, I swear they were asleep. Overall it was a nicer commute for me, but one car went through a red 6 seconds after it changed, with a parent and pram starting to walk out. Another at the pedestrian crossing between Whites cross and Stillorgan, caught up and they were on their phone, probably never even seen the light, there was an elderly person crossing at the time.

Last night a guy in a BMW SUV drifted into the bus lane, busy on his phone, my roar gave him a fright but him nearly hitting me gave me more of one.

AndrewJRenko

Aegir wrote: »

I was turning right from Kevin Street in to Patrick St this morning, safely in my car I hasten to add and stopped at the lights on the side street thingy, where you turn left to turn right.

Anyway, just me and a guy on a bike at the lights, so I pick up my phone to skip to the next track on the playlist, look up and the lights have turned green.

Please keep your phone out of reach when you're driving. It is illegal to pick up your phone, even when stopped at lights.

5uspect

Left home early today to enjoy the nice weather and hopefully the quieter roads. All was well until Lucan

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

Followed shortly by:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHr9sfJ-mNo

De Bhál

5uspect wrote: »

Left home early today to enjoy the nice weather and hopefully the quieter roads. All was well until Lucan

that first guy had a ladder on the top of his hatchback which might mean he was off to save someone from a fire or get a cat down from a tree...you know, important stuff.

5uspect

De Bhál wrote: »

that first guy had a ladder on the top of his hatchback which might mean he was off to save someone from a fire or get a cat down from a tree...you know, important stuff.

He probably forgot his red flag for the ladder in his hurry.

Dr_Colossus

06:30 this morning on Eden quay, always take the lane there before Liberty Hall to stop motorists side swiping you from both sides. Black A6 driver seems to take offense as tailgating behind despite lights ahead being red. As there was the obligatory bus parked in the cycle lane opposite Custom House I stayed in lane and continued when the lights turned green when Audi man decided to close pass despite an overtaking lane available. Lights ahead before IFSC red again so I pull up beside him to inspect his paper work and discover he's a very naughty boy with motor tax expired since Jan. Yet another moron drawing attention to themselves whilst driving illegally so noted the reg for the Traffic Watch call I have yet to make.

John_Rambo

There's a serious sense of panic around supermarkets since the C-19 outbreak.

I've taken to the bikes with my 8 year old boy for spins and various "messages" (how Irish) and shopping with him staying outside the shops, away from contact.

After being scared ****less when we were blown off the road by a 60+ year old woman for cycling two abreast (my front wheel overlapping his back one) he insisted on cycling on the path with me on the road.

He's been roared at on two occasions by "brave" middle aged male pedestrians both of who not so bravely slinked off to A - a church and B - a busy shop when confronted by me. On both occasions he was over 20 metres away from them.

VonLuck

Duckjob wrote: »

Anyone in this age of ultra-congestion who insists on driving into city centres with an empty armchair beside them and/or an empty sofa behind them has no business getting frustrated with anyone except themselves and others that also insist on doing the same.

That "us versus them" mentality never helps the situation. Only leads to aggravating people. Car drivers are completely entitled to drive into the city centre if they want to. If they want to sit in traffic, that's their choice and problem!

I know plenty of people who need to drive to work because they need to, not by choice. Largely due to having to hop from meeting to meeting outside of the city.

My point is that when there is infrastructure put specifically in place for cyclists, and then it doesn't get used, of course it's going to be frustrating for a driver. The specific area I'm talking about is more than adequate for cyclists to use. Sure, there are junctions where the cyclist has to yield to traffic, but this is a minor inconvenience for an ultimately safer journey. The problem is that a lot of cyclists don't want to stop at any junction, hence the danger!

kenmm

VonLuck wrote: »

That "us versus them" mentality never helps the situation

This is prevalent and it winds me up all the time.
I get shout at by a driver because of some imagined cycling infraction or whatever - but I drive too and I am single so when I need to drive I am generally alone in the car (sounds really sad lol)..

But you dont know me - I cycle nearly everywhere, but to anyone passing when I do drive, I'm just another single seat driver...

But in general it happens all the time (Taxi drivers are XXX, Busses always..) - no - (unts are (unts no matter how they transport themselves..

AndrewJRenko

VonLuck wrote: »

My point is that when there is infrastructure put specifically in place for cyclists, and then it doesn't get used, of course it's going to be frustrating for a driver. The specific area I'm talking about is more than adequate for cyclists to use. Sure, there are junctions where the cyclist has to yield to traffic, but this is a minor inconvenience for an ultimately safer journey. The problem is that a lot of cyclists don't want to stop at any junction, hence the danger!

Same for motorways, right? Cyclists should be getting frustrated at any motorists on roads around the M50, the M1, the M11 because they're not using the infrastructure put specifically in place for motorists?

VonLuck

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Same for motorways, right? Cyclists should be getting frustrated at any motorists on roads around the M50, the M1, the M11 because they're not using the infrastructure put specifically in place for motorists?

I'm not sure what your point is here. Do you mean motorists using roads that aren't motorways? If so, that's an illogical argument. You can't take the M50 to every destination you need to go to!

AndrewJRenko

VonLuck wrote: »

I'm not sure what your point is here. Do you mean motorists using roads that aren't motorways? If so, that's an illogical argument. You can't take the M50 to every destination you need to go to!

But they should use motorways over local roads every chance they get, to avoid causing frustration to other road users, right?


Did the thought strike you that perhaps cycle lanes don't always go where cyclists want to go? Like the one along Wyckham Way in Dundrum, that goes down below the road to the river, then back up to street level, then just stops - with no dished kerb or route back into traffic for the cyclist;


https://goo.gl/maps/ZiM8L3a9Zx9bmDXH7


Why would I take such a cycle lane to avoid 'frustration' to others? Do you choose your car route based on minimising frustration to other people?

VonLuck

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

But they should use motorways over local roads every chance they get, to avoid causing frustration to other road users, right?


Did the thought strike you that perhaps cycle lanes don't always go where cyclists want to go? Like the one along Wyckham Way in Dundrum, that goes down below the road to the river, then back up to street level, then just stops - with no dished kerb or route back into traffic for the cyclist;


https://goo.gl/maps/ZiM8L3a9Zx9bmDXH7


Why would I take such a cycle lane to avoid 'frustration' to others? Do you choose your car route based on minimising frustration to other people?

Well that's just a terrible design, or more like no design. But the comparison there would be telling a motorist to use a cul-de-sac instead of the M50!

But I was specifically referring to a perfectly good segregated cycle lane between the KCR and Templeogue Road:

https://goo.gl/maps/4qFsdo5ioR55DyHQ6

kenmm

VonLuck wrote: »

Well that's just a terrible design, or more like no design. But the comparison there would be telling a motorist to use a cul-de-sac instead of the M50!

But I was specifically referring to a perfectly good segregated cycle lane between the KCR and Templeogue Road:

https://goo.gl/maps/4qFsdo5ioR55DyHQ6

Like here:

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.2997476,-6.3095866,3a,75y,140.3h,80.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfhSXMov0CJic-ENO3nXzLQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

'perfectly good' - might seem that way, try using them!

Issues:
-Every junction has priority.
-Shared with pedestrians (so instead of cycling at normal speed have to slow down to < 20)
-Too narrow
-Poorly maintained

buffalo

VonLuck wrote: »

Well that's just a terrible design, or more like no design. But the comparison there would be telling a motorist to use a cul-de-sac instead of the M50!

But I was specifically referring to a perfectly good segregated cycle lane between the KCR and Templeogue Road:

https://goo.gl/maps/4qFsdo5ioR55DyHQ6

Why does anyone who doesn't regularly use them always describe cycle tracks as 'perfectly' good?

As well as ceding priority at every junction so you have to turn your head 180 degrees like an owl to check for turning traffic, that one also requires you to cross two lanes of traffic if turning right at the end.

https://goo.gl/maps/DMRwAVoZtLjR1kct6

If on the road, you just keep right.

CramCycle

VonLuck wrote: »

Well that's just a terrible design, or more like no design. But the comparison there would be telling a motorist to use a cul-de-sac instead of the M50!

But I was specifically referring to a perfectly good segregated cycle lane between the KCR and Templeogue Road:

https://goo.gl/maps/4qFsdo5ioR55DyHQ6

That lane is awful, a waste of time and money, anyone woh has ridden it will understand why it is not used.

tnegun

@vonluck not having a go but here's a few examples of why I typically stay out of what looks like a perfectly good cycle lane to most

Left hook
https://streamable.com/bplto


Shared lane is just dangerous
https://streamable.com/06g39


What right of way its a bike
https://streamable.com/edpjn

Cycle lane has been dug up and filled with leaves!! I didn't know this until I cycled into it and nearly ended up on the road!
https://streamable.com/tt1yk

I've loads of examples and some of these lanes are only months old showing no lessons are learned or thought given to their implementation in 2019/2020

Seth Brundle

VonLuck wrote: »

But I was specifically referring to a perfectly good segregated cycle lane between the KCR and Templeogue Road:

https://goo.gl/maps/4qFsdo5ioR55DyHQ6

How did you conclude that it is "perfectly good"?
How many times have you cycled it and how did you find it compared to cycling on the road?

VonLuck

Seth Brundle wrote: »

How did you conclude that it is "perfectly good"?
How many times have you cycled it and how did you find it compared to cycling on the road?

A good few times in fact!

Cycling on the road is better from a speed perspective, that's a given. The segregated lane may be a bit of a pain with junctions, but is infinitely safer than being on that road. If you cycle on the road you have to rely on cars to behave in a safe and responsible manner, which you and I both know is not often the case.

At least on a segregated lane you are in control of your own safety. As long as you're responsible you'll be fine. It may be an inconvenience, sure, but I'd rather arrive alive and take longer than to risk it with cars overtaking me on a narrow stretch of road.

MojoMaker

From his car it looks "perfectly good".

buffalo

VonLuck wrote: »

A good few times in fact!

Cycling on the road is better from a speed perspective, that's a given. The segregated lane may be a bit of a pain with junctions, but is infinitely safer than being on that road. If you cycle on the road you have to rely on cars to behave in a safe and responsible manner, which you and I both know is not often the case.

At least on a segregated lane you are in control of your own safety. As long as you're responsible you'll be fine. It may be an inconvenience, sure, but I'd rather arrive alive and take longer than to risk it with cars overtaking me on a narrow stretch of road.

If speed's not an issue, why don't you walk? And how can you call something that you admit is a pain in several places and inconvenient, "perfectly good"?

RobertFoster

VonLuck wrote: »

A good few times in fact!

Cycling on the road is better from a speed perspective, that's a given. The segregated lane may be a bit of a pain with junctions, but is infinitely safer than being on that road. If you cycle on the road you have to rely on cars to behave in a safe and responsible manner, which you and I both know is not often the case.

At least on a segregated lane you are in control of your own safety. As long as you're responsible you'll be fine. It may be an inconvenience, sure, but I'd rather arrive alive and take longer than to risk it with cars overtaking me on a narrow stretch of road.

You've even less chance of a car driver behaving in safe and reasonable manner if you're segregated everywhere but at junctions. Generally the driver is looking for traffic in the driving lane they're in or about to cross. Very little consideration is given to someone on the path, be it cyclist or pedestrian.

Seth Brundle

VonLuck wrote: »

Cycling on the road is better from a speed perspective, that's a given. The segregated lane may be a bit of a pain with junctions, but is infinitely safer than being on that road. If you cycle on the road you have to rely on cars to behave in a safe and responsible manner, which you and I both know is not often the case.

So cycling on the road is faster.
Cycling on the road is dangerous because many drivers (not cars!) do not drive safely. Thia could be remedied through proper enforcement.
So both of the above points have nothing to do with making a cycle path "perfectly good".

VonLuck wrote: »

At least on a segregated lane you are in control of your own safety. As long as you're responsible you'll be fine.

You have no control over someone who decides to suddenly turn left into their driveway.
You have no control over a driver who decides to drive on a cycle path (see the recent tragic death on S2S).
I agree that segregation is good but again this does not make this particular track "perfectly good".

VonLuck wrote: »

It may be an inconvenience, sure, but I'd rather arrive alive and take longer than to risk it with cars overtaking me on a narrow stretch of road.

So again another negative which you believe makes the track "perfectly good".
I'm really not understanding your logic VonLuck.

VonLuck

MojoMaker wrote: »

From his car it looks "perfectly good".

Again, this "us versus them" mentality. I'm a cyclist!

buffalo wrote: »

If speed's not an issue, why don't you walk? And how can you call something that you admit is a pain in several places and inconvenient, "perfectly good"?

That's just a silly argument. You can't expect to have it all. In an ideal world, yes, but the reality is that compromises have to be made somewhere to ensure the safety of the cyclist. How would you redesign that particular stretch of road for the good of everyone?

Seth Brundle wrote: »

So cycling on the road is faster.
Cycling on the road is dangerous because many drivers (not cars!) do not drive safely. Thia could be remedied through proper enforcement.
So both of the above points have nothing to do with making a cycle path "perfectly good".

No, that's entirely untrue. Even if you had the best enforcement in the world you would still have unpredictable "drivers". Accidents happen, people drive tired, people get distracted. Always assume you're invisible when you cycle as you can't predict what someone else will do.

Seth Brundle wrote: »

You have no control over someone who decides to suddenly turn left into their driveway.

This is the same situation if you're on the road. You can still be side swiped by a car turning into their driveway.

Seth Brundle wrote: »

You have no control over a driver who decides to drive on a cycle path (see the recent tragic death on S2S).

Again, you can still encounter idiots if you're cycling on the road. Someone who runs someone down on a cycle path is just a danger to everyone, no matter where they are.

Seth Brundle wrote: »

So again another negative which you believe makes the track "perfectly good".
I'm really not understanding your logic VonLuck.

As I say above, you can't expect to have it all. How would you redesign that particular stretch of road for the good of everyone? What arrangement would make it perfectly good in your eyes?