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

magicbastarder

doughef wrote: »

Yes, but capturing it and posting it to social media platform without consent might be against the regulations?

under the law or under social media regulations? i can't see either having anything to say on the matter. if you take a video in a public place of an occurrence in a public place, it's legal to upload it to social media.
and regarding the car reg being visible. that's the point of a car reg, it legally must be visible.

doughef wrote: »

Also .. these drivers are being accused of acting illegally without their knowledge.
Surely that’s against the regulations/ law ?

if they're being incorrectly accused of acting illegally - for example, if the video had been edited to misrepresent the situation - then i suspect you could be right. however, if it's a straight unedited clip, it's a bit more straightforward.

doughef

magicbastarder wrote: »

under the law or under social media regulations? i can't see either having anything to say on the matter. if you take a video in a public place of an occurrence in a public place, it's legal to upload it to social media.
and regarding the car reg being visible. that's the point of a car reg, it legally must be visible.


if they're being incorrectly accused of acting illegally - for example, if the video had been edited to misrepresent the situation - then i suspect you could be right. however, if it's a straight unedited clip, it's a bit more straightforward.

Thanks for the genuine reply .

I do feel there is cause for concern if we can openly accuse people of acting illegally without their consent ?

Eg - I see a friend of mine accused (in the wrong) of driving illegally .
I report the post to him and he challenges boards.ie ?

magicbastarder

doughef wrote: »

I do feel there is cause for concern if we can openly accuse people of acting illegally without their consent ?

but we can do that anyway.
i could accuse you of being a criminal, without evidence, by posting that (just using plain text); but we don't remove the ability of users to post anything, based on them thus having that capability.

if there is a case where there's a genuine concern that someone has been accused of something in the wrong, that's dealt with as and when it happens.

doughef

magicbastarder wrote: »

but we can do that anyway.
i could accuse you of being a criminal, without evidence, by posting that (just using plain text); but we don't remove the ability of users to post anything, based on them thus having that capability.

if there is a case where there's a genuine concern that someone has been accused of something in the wrong, that's dealt with as and when it happens.

That makes sense

Thanks

Kaisr Sose

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)

For what it's worth, a motorist is obliged to overtake safely in all situations and avoid hazards or not create them by the own manner of driving. If its not safe, then the overtake is deemed wreckless, careless or dangerous. Respect all road users right to use the road in a safe manner, that's the spirit of the rules of the road.
That overtake was not safe and not a pleasant experience for the OP. Such behaviour by motorist who refuse to slow or pass at a safe distance is all too common. I doubt you care about that.

buffalo

Weepsie wrote: »

No. People are not identifiable by a car registration plate. Also, driving your car on a public road, you are allowed be filmed/photographed etc.

Youtube would have a hell of a time cleaning stuff up if it was remotely a problem.

What people think GDPR covers, and reality are often a mile apart.

youTube took a video of mine offline because it featured a registration plate and apparently the driver claimed this was PII. There was no appeals process.

CramCycle

MOD VOICE: There isn't an issue here in regards posting videos with number plates being visible. This said, in future, if you think there is an issue, report it, don't drag it up in thread. This is off topic and derailing the thread. If you wish to discus, it's via PM only, in thread will end up with a card or ban.

The J Stands for Jay

doughef wrote: »

You fly boys craic me up !!

Just obey the rules / be where your meant to be and all will be ok.
We can’t pick and chose which rules apply to us.

Stay safe

Yeah, they should be further to the right. Good call doughy.

Kaisr Sose

doughef wrote: »

I doubt you know what I care about ?
Cheers though

I am sorry, you post on a cycling forum that it was the cyclists own fault that someone close passed them, where its clear that it was anything but their fault.

You havent a clue. No doubt about that at all.

Cheers

magicbastarder

buffalo wrote: »

youTube took a video of mine offline because it featured a registration plate and apparently the driver claimed this was PII. There was no appeals process.

curious how the driver found it.

anyway, given the number of dashcam videos on youtube, they could have their hands full if people started doing this in any sort of numbers. how would they verify you *are* the owner of the car you claim is depicted?

buffalo

magicbastarder wrote: »

curious how the driver found it.

anyway, given the number of dashcam videos on youtube, they could have their hands full if people started doing this in any sort of numbers. how would they verify you *are* the owner of the car you claim is depicted?

Indeed, I asked the same question, but there was no meaningful engagement from the faceless bureaucratic automatons.

edit: I also asked why the reg was considered PII, but also no answer to that.

kennethsmyth

doughef wrote: »

I firmly believe there’s an issue here .

Fines for breach of GDPR are astronomical

Doug if this car was owned by a friend of yours you’d be better off telling them to drive with more care for others. By the way I was part of my companies team on GDPR when it was introduced so I’m aware of what can be decimated publicly. If you or your friend feels that I am accusing them incorrectly get an injunction on the video and sue me, the video speaks for itself.

I have also just seen your earlier post which states I ignored the cycle lane and put myself in harms way,

I did not ignore the cycle lane, I choose not to use it, I was fully observant if it and was completely within my rights to use the road instead.

I also did not put myself in harms way, the driver of the car did. You are victim blaming (not a word I use lightly as I believe there is too much pc these days stiffing debate).

I had intended on letting this one go as there will always be other even worse incidents but you can tell your friend to thank you for getting their dangerous driving reported.

kennethsmyth

buffalo wrote: »

Indeed, I asked the same question, but there was no meaningful engagement from the faceless bureaucratic automatons.

edit: I also asked why the reg was considered PII, but also no answer to that.

Post the video again with reg in title

VonLuck

kennethsmyth wrote: »

There is also a risk on cycle path, going on and off or someone/something stepping onto it. At some point of mitigation of risk it becomes that you are not actually living and have zero experiences due to reducing risk. Cycling on road is normal, drivers need to expect cyclists and so long as the cyclists are not taking the mick then there should be no frustration between either party.

All I'm saying is that if you want to avoid (serious) risks, cycle slowly on a dedicated cycle lane if there's one provided. Everyone is free to do what they want if they're in the bounds of the law.

Eamonnator wrote: »

Are you seriously using a fictional character to back up an argument?

There is an awful undertone of negativity/aggression on this thread whenever someone disagrees with the general opinion. It's not conducive to good discussion.

07Lapierre

VonLuck wrote: »

All I'm saying is that if you want to avoid (serious) risks, cycle slowly on a dedicated cycle lane if there's one provided. Everyone is free to do what they want if they're in the bounds of the law.


.

In the video posted earlier, what law did the cyclist break?

kennethsmyth

VonLuck wrote: »

All I'm saying is that if you want to avoid (serious) risks, cycle slowly on a dedicated cycle lane if there's one provided. Everyone is free to do what they want if they're in the bounds of the law.



There is an awful undertone of negativity/aggression on this thread whenever someone disagrees with the general opinion. It's not conducive to good discussion.

When I cycle in Dublin (prior march 2020 ) I use any dedicated cycle lane or path, shared ones are asking for trouble and not suitable for a pedelac or faster moving bicycle. This one is shared and asking for trouble including little scr**ts pushing you off.

breezy1985

VonLuck wrote: »

All I'm saying is that if you want to avoid (serious) risks, cycle slowly on a dedicated cycle lane if there's one provided. Everyone is free to do what they want if they're in the bounds of the law.

There is an awful undertone of negativity/aggression on this thread whenever someone disagrees with the general opinion. It's not conducive to good discussion.

Would you also then recommend that all cars travel at 30kph at all times even in 60 zones and motorways because statistically it is safer. Would you double your commute time to avoid law breaking cars ?

The J Stands for Jay

- Video posted showing poor, dangerous driving which causes a high risk of serious injury/death to a cyclist correctly using the road in accordance with road traffic acts and SIs.

- Posters react and tell cyclist to wear hivis and cycle in the broken glass and potholes.

- Cyclists react with negativity.

-

VonLuck wrote: »

.
There is an awful undertone of negativity/aggression on this thread whenever someone disagrees with the general opinion. It's not conducive to good discussion.

CramCycle

MOD VOICE: doughef is on a holiday, do not respond to doughefs posts while they are not here as it is unfair. I will be combing through the thread later to tidy it up.

VonLuck

07Lapierre wrote: »

In the video posted earlier, what law did the cyclist break?

None. Where did I say the cyclist broke any laws? In fact I specifically said that you're allowed to do what you want as long as you don't break any laws!

kennethsmyth wrote: »

When I cycle in Dublin (prior march 2020 ) I use any dedicated cycle lane or path, shared ones are asking for trouble and not suitable for a pedelac or faster moving bicycle. This one is shared and asking for trouble including little scr**ts pushing you off.

Not criticising you at all, or anyone for that matter. Everyone's situation is different. All I was trying to say is that it is generally safer to use dedicated lanes, even if shared, but you may have to compromise on speed as a result.

breezy1985 wrote: »

Would you also then recommend that all cars travel at 30kph at all times even in 60 zones and motorways because statistically it is safer. Would you double your commute time to avoid law breaking cars ?

Hard to even retort to that because it's not comparable at all. Slower speeds on motorways can be more dangerous and you would need everyone to buy-in for it to really be safer.

I don't know if you're aware of this, but some people value safety over speed when on a bicycle. Up to you which one you prioritise and it doesn't really bother me which one you choose.

McGaggs wrote: »

- Video posted showing poor, dangerous driving which causes a high risk of serious injury/death to a cyclist correctly using the road in accordance with road traffic acts and SIs.

- Posters react and tell cyclist to wear hivis and cycle in the broken glass and potholes.

- Cyclists react with negativity.

-

I never said anything about Hi-Vis jackets or cycling in broken glass or potholes

The J Stands for Jay

VonLuck wrote: »

I never said anything about Hi-Vis jackets or cycling in broken glass or potholes

You're just in the negative vibes bit.

buffalo

VonLuck wrote: »

All I was trying to say is that it is generally safer to use dedicated lanes, even if shared, but you may have to compromise on speed as a result.

I'm not sure that's true when it comes to the Irish experience.

We have so few fully dedicated lanes that you usually end up being put back on the road at junctions. Junctions are the most likely place for a cyclists to be in a collision IIRC.

When you stay on the road, you can take the lane and position to prevent a left hook from all but the most determined/****ty drivers. When you're off-road, you're out of sight, out of mind for a lot of drivers. Often you'll be put back on the road on the inside of left-turning traffic, which of course is a dangerous place to be at the best of times, but probably far worse when a driver hasn't seen you ahead of them on the road at any point.

magicbastarder

the problem in ireland is that generally those dedicated lanes are put in precisely where it's easy to (i.e. where there's space anyway); they attempt to fix problems where they don't really exist, and don't address problems where they do exist.
and because they usually make no attempt to re-engineer how junctions are designed, which is where the vast majorit of risk exposure happens, they actually often make things worse.

cf. the famous cycle path where the N11 meets foster's avenue. or further on, at donnybrook bus station.

VonLuck

buffalo wrote: »

I'm not sure that's true when it comes to the Irish experience.

We have so few fully dedicated lanes that you usually end up being put back on the road at junctions. Junctions are the most likely place for a cyclists to be in a collision IIRC.

When you stay on the road, you can take the lane and position to prevent a left hook from all but the most determined/****ty drivers. When you're off-road, you're out of sight, out of mind for a lot of drivers. Often you'll be put back on the road on the inside of left-turning traffic, which of course is a dangerous place to be at the best of times, but probably far worse when a driver hasn't seen you ahead of them on the road at any point.

I know what you mean, but I still think they're much safer for say your very casual cyclist. Say for instance a family out for a Sunday bike ride. Those lanes are perfect for them. Segregated from road traffic, slow speeds, potential to cycle side by side without being harassed by ignorant drivers. At junctions it's effectively treated as though you're a pedestrian - stop, wait, look left and right, cross. Agree that it would be a major inconvenience for your 30kmph cyclist though.

MojoMaker

Now you're getting it VonLuck. So if you were to guess, which one of those is the OP?

breezy1985

VonLuck wrote: »

.



Hard to even retort to that because it's not comparable at all. Slower speeds on motorways can be more dangerous and you would need everyone to buy-in for it to really be safer.

I don't know if you're aware of this, but some people value safety over speed when on a bicycle. Up to you which one you prioritise and it doesn't really bother me which one you choose.

It is comparable. You are saying cyclists who can very safely and legally travel on a road at 30kph should move to the path because of dangerous drivers. You then say they should go at a significantly reduced speed in case pedestrians do the wrong thing and walk on the cycle lane.

The cyclists must suffer despite being the only of the 3 groups in the scenario following the rules.

I know someone is gonna come on with "blaa blaa strawman blaa blaa" because it's everyones favorite word now but complaining about a cyclist who was doing nothing wrong and telling him to change his behavior because the motorist broke the law is the same as when people blame the size of the girls skirt and not the rapist

breezy1985

VonLuck wrote: »

. Agree that it would be a major inconvenience for your 30kmph cyclist though.

Funny enough you didn't agree with that earlier

07Lapierre

VonLuck wrote: »

None. Where did I say the cyclist broke any laws? In fact I specifically said that you're allowed to do what you want as long as you don't break any laws!

Yet your only criticism was of the cyclist not choosing to use a cycle lane?

VonLuck

MojoMaker wrote: »

Now you're getting it VonLuck. So if you were to guess, which one of those is the OP?

Thanks for the patronising comment. All of my points to date are still valid, regardless of your attempts to belittle them by immature statements.

breezy1985 wrote: »

It is comparable. You are saying cyclists who can very safely and legally travel on a road at 30kph should move to the path because of dangerous drivers. You then say they should go at a significantly reduced speed in case pedestrians do the wrong thing and walk on the cycle lane.

The cyclists must suffer despite being the only of the 3 groups in the scenario following the rules.

I know someone is gonna come on with "blaa blaa strawman blaa blaa" because it's everyones favorite word now but complaining about a cyclist who was doing nothing wrong and telling him to change his behavior because the motorist broke the law is the same as when people blame the size of the girls skirt and not the rapist

You are just hearing what you want to hear. Very common theme here it seems.

You're blatantly lying by saying that I said "cyclists who can very safely and legally travel on a road at 30kph should move to the path because of dangerous drivers". Please point out when I said that.

I never told anyone to change their behaviour. Once again I'll say that everyone is free to do what they want as long as it's within the bounds of the law.

You're getting into dangerous territory with the rapist argument, but I will give you this example. If you were cycling and saw a car weaving erratically in front of you, would you cycle up alongside it? It's unlikely. You'd assess the risk and make a decision based on that assessment. Some people might just go for it though. The same with using a cycle lane or staying on the road. You assess the risk. It's not as severe as a weaving car, but still you're making a decision based on what you're comfortable with when cycling.

breezy1985 wrote: »

Funny enough you didn't agree with that earlier

Please point out where I disagreed with that.

07Lapierre wrote: »

Yet your only criticism was of the cyclist not choosing to use a cycle lane?

Where did I criticise someone not choosing to use a cycle lane?



Honestly people, you need to relax and take a breather. For some reason you're determined to believe that I'm out to get you.

breezy1985

VonLuck wrote: »

Thanks for the patronising comment. All of my points to date are still valid, regardless of your attempts to belittle them by immature statements.



You are just hearing what you want to hear. Very common theme here it seems.

You're blatantly lying by saying that I said "cyclists who can very safely and legally travel on a road at 30kph should move to the path because of dangerous drivers". Please point out when I said that.

I never told anyone to change their behaviour. Once again I'll say that everyone is free to do what they want as long as it's within the bounds of the law.

You're getting into dangerous territory with the rapist argument, but I will give you this example. If you were cycling and saw a car weaving erratically in front of you, would you cycle up alongside it? It's unlikely. You'd assess the risk and make a decision based on that assessment. Some people might just go for it though. The same with using a cycle lane or staying on the road. You assess the risk. It's not as severe as a weaving car, but still you're making a decision based on what you're comfortable with when cycling.



Please point out where I disagreed with that.



Where did I criticise someone not choosing to use a cycle lane?



Honestly people, you need to relax and take a breather. For some reason you're determined to believe that I'm out to get you.

Seems like a lot of us have misunderstood your "kind helpful advice"

A car weaving in front of you is very different to one coming up behind you. No one has ever advocated passing a dangerous car ahead and is very different to "assessing a risk" you can't see