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

cletus

Again, I don't see any actual evidence that the van was speeding up.

He may have moved lanes to allow the car past, but he still had to re-merge with his lane. in which case my previous post on merging still stands.

If he wasn't merging, why signal?

I've seen a number of his videos, and he has had some really bad close calls, there's no doubt. I just think, on this one, he is not blameless

buffalo

cletus wrote: »

Again, I don't see any actual evidence that the van was speeding up.

You can gauge it from the relative speeds.

Do you not agree that he's completed his merge before the van driver starts his overtake?

cletus

buffalo wrote: »

You can gauge it from the relative speeds.

Do you not agree that he's completed his merge before the van driver starts his overtake?

I don't see the speeding up.

I agree he was back in the lane, but a merge is not the same as a safe merge. Looking at it, his merge could've caused the van driver to slow down. In fairness, this is what the van driver should have done, and his driving was shîtty.

However, if your merging causes another vehicle to have to react by slowing down (as opposed to him allowing you into the lane as a courtesy) then you are merging wrong.

I'm not absolving the driver of blame here, his reaction once the cyclist was in the lane was wrong, but the cyclist is not blameless here

a_squirrelman

buffalo wrote: »

You can gauge it from the relative speeds.

Do you not agree that he's completed his merge before the van driver starts his overtake?

You're correct, that should be when the van slowed but he only slowed and moved in on top of the cyclist when faced with an approaching car.

a_squirrelman

I think the lesson here is just don't be nice and move in to let someone pas.

Paul Kiernan

buffalo wrote: »

You can gauge it from the relative speeds.

Do you not agree that he's completed his merge before the van driver starts his overtake?

Looking at it again I can certainly see your point. He let the beemer pass and then moved out behind it. 99 times in a 100 the following vehicle, seeing it all playing out, would just slow down and stay back.

My main argument here is that the road layout should not put the cyclist in this position in the first place!

hesker

a_squirrelman wrote: »

I think the lesson here is just don't be nice and move in to let someone pas.

That’s a personal choice. You can move over but you need to realise you have changed your situation and merge back safely, conceding priority if necessary.

Seaswimmer

Not quite a near miss but a relatively close pass today. Fortunately car was going really slow and I was going slower as its a steep climb.

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.2630872,-6.1130723,3a,75y,298.14h,88.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sX-BijA_EsUdH9JpWjpKebg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Had a good laugh about it after as it was my uncle and aunt out for a seaside drive within their 5k. They didn't recognise me but I sure recognised their car and their reg..

Beware of elderly men in Renault Scenics in the Killiney area!!

hesker

Paul Kiernan wrote: »

My main argument here is that the road layout should not put the cyclist in this position in the first place!

The road layout didn’t put the cyclist in that position. The cyclist put himself in that position.

What would you change in the road layout.

breezy1985

hesker wrote: »

That’s a personal choice. You can move over but you need to realise you have changed your situation and merge back safely, conceding priority if necessary.

He did move back safely. No one except the completely biased would say that wasnt a perfectly normal lane change. Loads of room for a bike or car or whatever to change lane and you would see similar every day without incident

robinph

hesker wrote: »

The road layout didn’t put the cyclist in that position. The cyclist put himself in that position.

What would you change in the road layout.

End the right hand lane rather than the left hand one and make the vehicles from that lane merge into the left.

Edit: not as many instances of it in Ireland as the UK, but motorways with changes from 2/3/4/5 lanes it will be the right hand lane which is removed when the number of lanes are reduced. Depending on the junctions and such like extra lanes such as on going up hill may be added to either the left or right, but the left lane is never the one removed.

cletus

robinph wrote: »

End the right hand lane rather than the left hand one and make the vehicles from that lane merge into the left.

Is that based on knowing the the road? I don't personally know the road he was on, so I don't know whether your suggestion would help improve the road there.

tnegun

It makes a bit more sense now seeing the original video, so do I understand it correctly both times he reported a driver for a dangerous pass and the guard agreed and prosecuted the driver but followed up with a fine for the cyclist for the lane changes! FFS the one with the van he's not far off the speed of the traffic and if you were in a car with the lane ending you would do the exact same and merge into that gap with the second he appears to move around on a poor road surface nothing more.

robinph

cletus wrote: »

Is that based on knowing the the road? I don't personally know the road he was on, so I don't know whether your suggestion would help improve the road there.

Don't know the road, and there may be issues with merging right into left and visibility for right hand drive vehicles, but roads should always be designed with priority given to the more vulnerable and usually slower vehicles.

cletus

breezy1985 wrote: »

He did move back safely. No one except the completely biased would say that wasnt a perfectly normal lane change. Loads of room for a bike or car or whatever to change lane and you would see similar every day without incident

I don't see myself as being biased in this instance (although maybe that's part of my bias...), and I think you'd be hard pressed to go through my posts on this forum and find any inherent biases towards (or would that be against) cyclists.

I've already said I wouldn't have merged there on a bike, and from the video footage, probably wouldn't have done it in a car either

cletus

robinph wrote: »

Don't know the road, and there may be issues with merging right into left and visibility for right hand drive vehicles, but roads should always be designed with priority given to the more vulnerable and usually slower vehicles.

The reason I asked is because I don't know why its a merging lane. It could literally be that, a lane leading off a junction, allowing traffic to get up to speed before merging.

robinph

cletus wrote: »

The reason I asked is because I don't know why its a merging lane. It could literally be that, a lane leading off a junction, allowing traffic to get up to speed before merging.

True, but the road markings didn't seem to be for a junction merging lane and it would be a bit of a long one for anywhere other than a motorway for how long they were cycling along it. None of that would help the van drivers case, and I don't see how it would effect the cyclist case either.

cletus

robinph wrote: »

True, but the road markings didn't seem to be for a junction merging lane and it would be a bit of a long one for anywhere other than a motorway for how long they were cycling along it. None of that would help the van drivers case, and I don't see how it would effect the cyclist case either.

No, you're right. I was just following the conversation regarding changing the layout of the road, and musing on some of the replies

breezy1985

cletus wrote: »

I don't see myself as being biased in this instance (although maybe that's part of my bias...), and I think you'd be hard pressed to go through my posts on this forum and find any inherent biases towards (or would that be against) cyclists.

I've already said I wouldn't have merged there on a bike, and from the video footage, probably wouldn't have done it in a car either

You're be waiting an awful long time on a city road to change lane if that's too short a distance

cletus

breezy1985 wrote: »

You're be waiting an awful long time on a city road to change lane if that's too short a distance

Grand, you may or may not be be right. I'm basing it off the space there seems to be in a video clip, which can be misleading. It was my inital reaction that it was tight, and I haven't changed from that in subsequent viewings.

I suppose, just to point out, I don't think the merging lane needed to be longer, just that at the speed the van was travelling, and the distance between it and the car in front, I'd be inclined to let the van bass before merging, even if that requires me to slow down until the van is gone by

I still don't see any bias in my posts

TheChizler

The location is here if it helps anyone.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.8260084,-8.3963311

cletus

So it's after a junction, and there's a relatively long lane to allow the left turning traffic from that junction to get up to speed and merge. It wouldn't make sense to alter that to have the traffic already on the road merge with traffic joining the road

It's a regional road, so I assume the speed limit is 80kph. Not exactly the same as merging in that gap on a city road

hesker

cletus wrote: »

The reason I asked is because I don't know why its a merging lane. It could literally be that, a lane leading off a junction, allowing traffic to get up to speed before merging.

It's a newly built filter lane to service access/egress from a new estate.

It's this road here R611 soutbound, just after the entrance to Janeville.


Like you I don't think I'm biased either. I've had this done to me when signalling to move over to take a right turn off a road. Sh**ty behaviour by the driver but I can't disagree with the Garda position on it. You don't have absolute right of way and putting your hand out doesn't give you any rights.

https://goo.gl/maps/hXTJtgmQdGLQxjL2A

robinph

hesker wrote: »

You don't have absolute right of way and putting your hand out doesn't give you any rights.

The cyclist doesn't need any additional rights over the one that says don't other vehicles don't have any right to kill them. OK so that isn't actually written down anywhere, but it doesn't need to be. Being in a motorised vehicle does not give you any right of way over the cyclist, and if they are in front of the car/ van the priority is to the cyclist.

The only road where a car/ van/ etc has a legitimate claim to say "but I didn't expect that to happen" as a defense for hitting a cyclist would be on a motorway where the cyclist has no right to be. All other roads if the motorised vehicle didn't leave enough room for the cyclists in front of them then the motorist is doing it wrong.

cletus

robinph wrote: »

The cyclist doesn't need any additional rights over the one that says don't other vehicles don't have any right to kill them. OK so that isn't actually written down anywhere, but it doesn't need to be. Being in a motorised vehicle does not give you any right of way over the cyclist, and if they are in front of the car/ van the priority is to the cyclist.

The only road where a car/ van/ etc has a legitimate claim to say "but I didn't expect that to happen" as a defense for hitting a cyclist would be on a motorway where the cyclist has no right to be. All other roads if the motorised vehicle didn't leave enough room for the cyclists in front of them then the motorist is doing it wrong.

That's true, and nobody, I don't think, is arguing that the driver was in the right. My issue, and I think others here are the same, was with the merging manoeuvre made by the cyclist.

robinph

cletus wrote: »

That's true, and nobody, I don't think, is arguing that the driver was in the right. My issue, and I think others here are the same, was with the merging manoeuvre made by the cyclist.

The indicated, they waited for the first vehicle to pass, they moved into the gap following that vehicle.

Next vehicle tried to run them off the road.

Don't see what the cyclist did wrong.

cletus

robinph wrote: »

The indicated, they waited for the first vehicle to pass, they moved into the gap following that vehicle.

Next vehicle tried to run them off the road.

Don't see what the cyclist did wrong.

In my opinion, he merged poorly. He indicated and merged, which, if the driver had responded correctly, would have caused the van to slow down. That's poor merging. You are not entitled to join a lane just because you want to. It's up to you to ensure it is safe to do so.

Just to be clear, the driver's reaction subsequent to the merge was wrong, and very poor driving, but the initial merge was poor.

In other words, the cyclist is not blameless in what was all round, a ****ty road interaction

tnegun

This is why we need the merge like a zip principal to be applied here, it's common sense to allow someone ahead of you to merge if their lane is ending abruptly. We're not talking about someone cutting in ahead on a motorway here but a bike in an urban setting as can be seen with this driver allowances need to be made and enforced by law as common sense doesn't prevail.

lawrencesummers

cletus wrote: »

In my opinion, he merged poorly. He indicated and merged, which, if the driver had responded correctly, would have caused the van to slow down. That's poor merging. You are not entitled to join a lane just because you want to. It's up to you to ensure it is safe to do so.

Just to be clear, the driver's reaction subsequent to the merge was wrong, and very poor driving, but the initial merge was poor.

In other words, the cyclist is not blameless in what was all round, a ****ty road interaction

A lot of posters here can’t accept any criticism of cyclists. I think your correct, no road user has a right to just join another lane of traffic, but every road user should be considerate and allow people to merge, every road user should be extra considerate to the more vulnerable road users.

As far as I’m concerned the cyclist didn’t make any signal to move, what he did amounted to pointing at the ground when the standard for signalling is far different. His hand movement is easy to understand for fellow cyclists but it’s not the correct signal and it’s a bit rich complaining about other road users when your own behaviour isn’t correct.

hesker

tnegun wrote: »

This is why we need the merge like a zip principal to be applied here, it's common sense to allow someone ahead of you to merge if their lane is ending abruptly. We're not talking about someone cutting in ahead on a motorway here but a bike in an urban setting as can be seen with this driver allowances need to be made and enforced by law as common sense doesn't prevail.

Yes, the driver acted very badly here and he got fined. Maybe he should have received a harsher treatment but that’s another debate.