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

Yeah I sometimes walk the dog/kids passed the church and take a right up the hill there and on a weekend evening you want your wits about you at tea times.

kennethsmyth

Let me know if this should be with traffic watch or just count it as another driver not caring and have to get past as they are more important than safely passing.

Sorry about bad language but caught me on the hop, I normally keep an eye out in my mirror.

https://youtu.be/Tth0Y3Pr770

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tth0Y3Pr770

11LD1524 blue golf
Blue golf decides to pass me in a tight spot with oncoming traffic so has to squeeze ontop of me. I could of touched his car with my hand no problem but concentrated on keeping straight. They didn't seem to acknowledge me at all. I cycle at around 30kph so I don't use shared path/cycle lane as it stops/starts and people walk/run on it. This was on way out of balbriggan on daily cycle - let me know should I report it?

Seth Brundle

I'd report that!
It wouldn't surprise me if they deliberately were punishing you not being on the (crappy) cycle path.

micar

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I'd report that!
It wouldn't surprise me if they deliberately were punishing you not being on the (crappy) cycle path.

VW Golf.....not surprised..... driven by a lot of young lads.

ED E

kennethsmyth wrote: »

Let me know if this should be with traffic watch

Wouldnt be surprised if the Gardai ask you why you werent on the cycle lane and dismiss you. Try anyways but it seems like a few stations in that area are totally useless shower, even by AGS' woeful standards.

07Lapierre

kennethsmyth wrote: »

Let me know if this should be with traffic watch or just count it as another driver not caring and have to get past as they are more important than safely passing.

Sorry about bad language but caught me on the hop, I normally keep an eye out in my mirror.

11LD1524 blue golf
Blue golf decides to pass me in a tight spot with oncoming traffic so has to squeeze ontop of me. I could of touched his car with my hand no problem but concentrated on keeping straight. They didn't seem to acknowledge me at all. I cycle at around 30kph so I don't use shared path/cycle lane as it stops/starts and people walk/run on it. This was on way out of balbriggan on daily cycle - let me know should I report it?

A classic example of bad cycling infrastructure being worse than no cycling infrastructure!
If that cycle lane was just a regular pavement, I think any Guard would have to agree that the motorists was a muppet.

breezy1985

micar wrote: »

VW Golf.....not surprised..... driven by a lot of young lads.

And young lads just like cyclists should a be lumped in together and judged as one person

VonLuck

kennethsmyth wrote: »

Blue golf decides to pass me in a tight spot with oncoming traffic so has to squeeze ontop of me. I could of touched his car with my hand no problem but concentrated on keeping straight. They didn't seem to acknowledge me at all. I cycle at around 30kph so I don't use shared path/cycle lane as it stops/starts and people walk/run on it. This was on way out of balbriggan on daily cycle - let me know should I report it?

I'm always torn on these situations. Yes, the car was entirely in the wrong, but there also was a usable cycle lane beside you. I say 'usable' because I get that there are issues with it being a shared path/cycle lane in parts and you go at 30kmph, but there could be the argument to go slower.

Unfortunately it's a case of being damned if you do, damned if you don't. Why don't local authorities prevent these from being constructed? Do they not know of the issues associated with them?

buffalo

VonLuck wrote: »

I'm always torn on these situations. Yes, the car was entirely in the wrong, but there also was a usable cycle lane beside you. I say 'usable' because I get that there are issues with it being a shared path/cycle lane in parts and you go at 30kmph, but there could be the argument to go slower.

Unfortunately it's a case of being damned if you do, damned if you don't.

When explaining these sort of situations, I sometimes compare it to taking the motorway instead of the old N road that twists and turns and goes through every village and town. Sure the N road is 'usable', but why should somebody be damned for choosing the faster and safer* route?


*That's safer assuming nobody deliberately makes it otherwise, as above.

Seth Brundle

VonLuck wrote: »

I'm always torn on these situations. Yes, the car was entirely in the wrong, but there also was a usable cycle lane beside you. I say 'usable' because I get that there are issues with it being a shared path/cycle lane in parts and you go at 30kmph, but there could be the argument to go slower.

Unfortunately it's a case of being damned if you do, damned if you don't. Why don't local authorities prevent these from being constructed? Do they not know of the issues associated with them?

Regardless where a cyclist should be, there is no excuse for a dangerous overtake

breezy1985

VonLuck wrote: »

I'm always torn on these situations. Yes, the car was entirely in the wrong, but there also was a usable cycle lane beside you. I say 'usable' because I get that there are issues with it being a shared path/cycle lane in parts and you go at 30kmph, but there could be the argument to go slower.

Unfortunately it's a case of being damned if you do, damned if you don't. Why don't local authorities prevent these from being constructed? Do they not know of the issues associated with them?

Why should a cyclist who can safely travel at 30kph slow down. Do cyclists not have the right to commute to work a quickly as possible within the legal limits like a car can.

I often use the road in similar situations because of the many near crashes or abuse I get from idiot pedestrians who can't navigate a path that is colour coded for them

doughef

kennethsmyth wrote: »

Let me know if this should be with traffic watch or just count it as another driver not caring and have to get past as they are more important than safely passing.

Sorry about bad language but caught me on the hop, I normally keep an eye out in my mirror.

https://youtu.be/Tth0Y3Pr770

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tth0Y3Pr770

11LD1524 blue golf
Blue golf decides to pass me in a tight spot with oncoming traffic so has to squeeze ontop of me. I could of touched his car with my hand no problem but concentrated on keeping straight. They didn't seem to acknowledge me at all. I cycle at around 30kph so I don't use shared path/cycle lane as it stops/starts and people walk/run on it. This was on way out of balbriggan on daily cycle - let me know should I report it?

100% your fault. Cycle lane was there but you chose to ignore it

a_squirrelman

doughef wrote: »

100% your fault. Cycle lane was there but you chose to ignore it

It's his fault that that car drove within a whisker of him? Hmmm.

doughef

a_squirrelman wrote: »

It's his fault that that car drove within a whisker of him? Hmmm.

No - he shouldn’t of been there . There is literally a cycle lane on that road

breezy1985

a_squirrelman wrote: »

It's his fault that that car drove within a whisker of him? Hmmm.

Don't bother. This mad gas edgelord was around a few months back trying all this nonsense on this thread. I wouldn't take anything he says seriously

doughef

breezy1985 wrote: »

Don't bother. This mad gas edgelord was around a few months back trying all this nonsense on this thread. I wouldn't take anything he says seriously

I’m quite genuine. Just because you don’t like the truth.

Simple fact is the guy chose to ignore the cycle land and place himself in harms way.

(Waits for ban)

magicbastarder

doughef wrote: »

(Waits for ban)

you're entitled to your opinion.

anyway, there are certain cycle paths i refuse to use, safe in the knowledge that if i were to have an issue while not using one, the reaction of the gardai would be to refuse to deal with it.

Seth Brundle

doughef wrote: »

I’m quite genuine. Just because you don’t like the truth.

Simple fact is the guy chose to ignore the cycle land and place himself in harms way.

(Waits for ban)

It would help your argument if you actually knew the law rather than trotting out tired old nonsense :rolleyes:

Hurrache

doughef wrote: »

No - he shouldn’t of been there . There is literally a cycle lane on that road

Have you a driving licence? You shouldn't if you do.

07Lapierre

doughef wrote: »

100% Not your fault. Cycle lane path was there but you chose to ignore to use the other cycle lane

FYP

AndrewJRenko

doughef wrote: »

100% your fault. Cycle lane was there but you chose to ignore it

The M1 motorway is there, but the driver chose to ignore it. 100% the driver's fault.

doughef wrote: »

No - he shouldn’t of been there . There is literally a cycle lane on that road

Try reading up on the laws around cycle lanes and have another go.

07Lapierre

doughef wrote: »

(Waits for ban)

Ban from Boards.ie or Ban from driving? (or both)

CramCycle

doughef wrote: »

100% your fault. Cycle lane was there but you chose to ignore it

100%, I once seen a jogger in the bike lane rather than on the footpath so I skimmed him and effectively knocked him over because of this infraction. A lot of people seem to forget on this forum that any perceived sleight or perceived breach of the rules can be met with what can only be described as vigilante style justice. Also that, said justice can have consequences far more severe than the initial perceived crime would have ever possibly caused (and by that I mean none). Just ignore the other posters doughef, completely the cyclists fault and completely justified.

Weepsie

I kick the wing mirrors off any private vehicle in bus lanes during operational hours. It's their own fault given they're not supposed to be there :rolleyes:

breezy1985

Weepsie wrote: »

I kick the wing mirrors off any private vehicle in bus lanes during operational hours. It's their own fault given they're not supposed to be there :rolleyes:

I do kinda wish the buses would do this as they pass

AndrewJRenko

doughef wrote: »

.

(Waits for ban)

Are you waiting to be banned a second time from the thread?

a_squirrelman

doughef wrote: »

No - he shouldn’t of been there . There is literally a cycle lane on that road

So because you think he shouldn't have been there then it's his fault the driver did that?



He's perfectly entitled to be on the road, even though there is a cycle path. But you know that already.

a_squirrelman

breezy1985 wrote: »

Don't bother. This mad gas edgelord was around a few months back trying all this nonsense on this thread. I wouldn't take anything he says seriously

Yeah I replied again before seeing all your replies.

The J Stands for Jay

doughef wrote: »

No - he shouldn’t of been there . There is literally a cycle lane on that road

Should we take the same attitude to leaner drivers? There's perfectly good empty industrial estates to practice in.

MojoMaker

Nobody should be cycling at 30kph in an off-road cycle track shared with pedestrians (even if pedestrians aren't visibly present). If you're travelling at that speed the road is the correct place for you.

Raised cycle tracks on pavements are for slow moving bicycle traffic, conscious of the omnipresent bidirectional pedestrians, joggers, e-scooters, other bicycles, and dog walkers - before we even get to discuss suitability of surface and presence of manmade hazards. On the road, traffic is going in one direction and in a wider space, and bicycles are protected in the road traffic laws as a legitimate form of traffic.

I've had debates with motorists on a regular enough basis on the designation of mandatory cycle lanes. Without fail the belief of every motorist has been that "mandatory cycle track" meant mandatory for cyclists to use when present. All are usually quite surprised to understand that "mandatory" in this usage means "mandatory for vehicular traffic to stay out of". [Contra-flow & pedestrianised locations noted].

Tbh, I think Leo set the tone for this confusion when he was transport minister - the message was never tightened up enough to enlighten drivers and to protect cyclists.