Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…959698100101…221

Comments

  • Options
    #2912
    cletus
    Registered Users Posts: 7,962 ✭✭✭cletus


    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.

    It mightn't be a motorway, but it's a regional road with a speed limit of (I assume) 80kph, not exactly urban driving.

    If your lane is ending abruptly, it's up to you to find a safe time and space to merge. If the traffic you merge into has to brake because of your merge. You've done it badly.

    Even if the driver had reacted well, brakes, and allowed the cyclist into the lane, the merge itself was still a poor one


  • Options
    #2913
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,094 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    lawrencesummers wrote: »
    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.

    If he'd put his hand out directly then he could have been hit by the car (although there would be separate issues regarding road positioning then) but also the car could have taken it as a sign of him about to pull out in front of the car, I'd have read it as an intention not to pull out before the car but behind them and either way the van should have anticipated the move and left a space regardless of any indication. If there was a pot hole in the road and the bike needed both hand to avoid it and so didn't signal at all then the van should still be expecting them to be merging into their lane at that point.

    Which takes priority for a cyclist? Holding onto the handlebars, or putting your arm out to indicate?


  • Options
    #2914
    tnegun
    Registered Users Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭tnegun


    cletus wrote: »
    It mightn't be a motorway, but it's a regional road with a speed limit of (I assume) 80kph, not exactly urban driving.

    If your lane is ending abruptly, it's up to you to find a safe time and space to merge. If the traffic you merge into has to brake because of your merge. You've done it badly.

    Even if the driver had reacted well, brakes, and allowed the cyclist into the lane, the merge itself was still a poor one


    Its an urban road with a 50 kph limit, he should never of left the lane and this is the reason I loath to do it as you simply can't rely on someone to let you back in before you hit trouble.

    IMO he was traveling at a decent pace when he merged, the van driver in a 50 kph zone should of read the road ahead and expected the bike to move back in (he stayed to the right of that lane to me indicating that I'm not staying here)eased off as opposed to accelerating and allowed him to do so.

    If he was in the lane the traffic would still have had to slow so having to slow because he merged is a mute point. If this was a 60 or 80 zone I might look at it differently but the van driver is overwhelmingly at fault here.


  • Options
    #2915
    cletus
    Registered Users Posts: 7,962 ✭✭✭cletus


    robinph wrote: »
    .either way the van should have anticipated the move and left a space regardless of any indication....

    This is the crux of the matter. The van driver is not obliged to allow the cyclist into the lane. The cyclist is obliged to merge safely and appropriately.

    If it was a car trying to merge, it's the same story. The van driver doesn't have to allow any vehicle to merge there.

    What happened after the merge is the fault of the driver


  • Options
    #2916
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,094 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    cletus wrote: »
    This is the crux of the matter. The van driver is not obliged to allow the cyclist into the lane. The cyclist is obliged to merge safely and appropriately.

    If it was a car trying to merge, it's the same story. The van driver doesn't have to allow any vehicle to merge there.

    What happened after the merge is the fault of the driver

    The van is obliged to not deliberately crash into the vehicle in front of them though. If they see another vehicle infront, travelling at a similar speed and the road narrowing then they are obliged to do everything possible not to crash into them and leave room for the vehicle infront, regardless of any paint on the road. The lane markings don't really matter. If the van couldn't anticipate that the road was narrowing and the vehicle in front would need to move over then they are at fault.

    If it was a car then the van would 100% of left the space as they would have feared more for their paintwork and bumper, as it was a cyclist they figured they could intimidate the more vulnerable road user.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2917
    Weepsie
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 20,327 Mod ✭✭✭✭Weepsie


    But the vehicle is not in front of them. It's ahead of them, in another lane. Nobody is saying the van driver isn't sh!tty, but rather that signalling intent to merge, does not give you the right of way to do so. It's in the RTA


  • Options
    #2918
    cletus
    Registered Users Posts: 7,962 ✭✭✭cletus


    I've said repeatedly, the driver's actions after the merge are wrong.

    But, and for the last time, the merge itself was poor. If the driver had slowed and allowed the cyclist in, it doesn't make the merge any better. The cyclist is still in the wrong, the driver just wouldn't have been an asshole.

    As Weepsie says above, if the cyclist was in the lane, then there's no issue. He was not, and changed lanes poorly


  • Options
    #2919
    lawrencesummers
    Registered Users Posts: 8,569 ✭✭✭lawrencesummers


    robinph wrote: »
    If he'd put his hand out directly then he could have been hit by the car (although there would be separate issues regarding road positioning then) but also the car could have taken it as a sign of him about to pull out in front of the car, I'd have read it as an intention not to pull out before the car but behind them and either way the van should have anticipated the move and left a space regardless of any indication. If there was a pot hole in the road and the bike needed both hand to avoid it and so didn't signal at all then the van should still be expecting them to be merging into their lane at that point.

    Which takes priority for a cyclist? Holding onto the handlebars, or putting your arm out to indicate?


    And here is a perfect example of people on this forum unable to accept criticism of a cyclist.

    Your creating hypothetical catastrophes to justify something that clearly isn’t in line with the requirements of a road user.

    Which takes priority, following the rules of the road or not following them because of some if my aunt had balls argument.


  • Options
    #2920
    lawrencesummers
    Registered Users Posts: 8,569 ✭✭✭lawrencesummers


    robinph wrote: »
    The van is obliged to not deliberately crash into the vehicle in front of them though. If they see another vehicle infront, travelling at a similar speed and the road narrowing then they are obliged to do everything possible not to crash into them and leave room for the vehicle infront, regardless of any paint on the road. The lane markings don't really matter. If the van couldn't anticipate that the road was narrowing and the vehicle in front would need to move over then they are at fault.

    If it was a car then the van would 100% of left the space as they would have feared more for their paintwork and bumper, as it was a cyclist they figured they could intimidate the more vulnerable road user.


    Lane marking don’t matter.

    Sure.


  • Options
    #2921
    Weepsie
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 20,327 Mod ✭✭✭✭Weepsie


    lawrence, there's absolutely no defending the driving either which you don't seem to be concerned with. This isn't a cyclist siege mentality. The quality of the driving is absolutely ****e, and the drivers awareness is poor at best, but from a purely legal point of view the cyclist, and I'm going by what they've said on twitter, seems to think a signal is enough to go ahead and merge.

    The driver deserves a serious talking to as well in this situation



    That's my poster hat on. This is my Mod Hat on, and again for your benefit.

    You have shown a history of coming on and going on about cyclists not showing responsibility, or wanting to blame this, that etc. You have rarely ever actually tried to engage in any proper discussion, so if you are going to post, first thing you can do is stop this nonsense "ah you can't criticise cyclists here", because you can. You can't come in bullheaded, with your mind made up though and not offer any reasonable debate though


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2922
    cletus
    Registered Users Posts: 7,962 ✭✭✭cletus


    tnegun wrote: »
    If he was in the lane the traffic would still have had to slow so having to slow because he merged is a mute[sic] point. If this was a 60 or 80 zone I might look at it differently but the van driver is overwhelmingly at fault here.

    It's absolutely not a moot point regarding whether he was in the lane or not. There are very definite rules of the road regarding traffic in your lane, or traffic merging with your lane. Those rules are completely different.

    The cyclist having to slow down in order to re-merge with the lane is of no legal consequence to any traffic in the other lane. It is up to the cyclist to merge safely and appropriately.

    This does not excuse the actions of the driver subsequent to the merge, but in this specific incidence, the cyclist is not blameless


  • Options
    #2923
    Weepsie
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 20,327 Mod ✭✭✭✭Weepsie


    lawrencesummers wrote: »
    Which takes priority, following the rules of the road or not following them because of some if my aunt had balls argument.

    Oh and on this, rules of the road are not statue. Plenty of times I've witnessed road users have to break them because someone has put them at risk, or poor road design, etc etc.


  • Options
    #2924
    cletus
    Registered Users Posts: 7,962 ✭✭✭cletus


    Weepsie wrote: »
    Oh and on this, rules of the road are not statue. Plenty of times I've witnessed road users have to break them because someone has put them at risk, or poor road design, etc etc.

    True, but they are a practical application of the laws on the statute book


  • Options
    #2925
    lawrencesummers
    Registered Users Posts: 8,569 ✭✭✭lawrencesummers


    Weepsie wrote: »
    Oh and on this, rules of the road are not statue. Plenty of times I've witnessed road users have to break them because someone has put them at risk, or poor road design, etc etc.



    Another ridiculous argument.

    Because you witnessed something somewhere else by someone doing something else it justifies not following rules of the road.


  • Options
    #2926
    lawrencesummers
    Registered Users Posts: 8,569 ✭✭✭lawrencesummers


    Weepsie wrote: »
    lawrence, there's absolutely no defending the driving either which you don't seem to be concerned with. This isn't a cyclist siege mentality. The quality of the driving is absolutely ****e, and the drivers awareness is poor at best, but from a purely legal point of view the cyclist, and I'm going by what they've said on twitter, seems to think a signal is enough to go ahead and merge.

    The driver deserves a serious talking to as well in this situation



    That's my poster hat on. This is my Mod Hat on, and again for your benefit.

    You have shown a history of coming on and going on about cyclists not showing responsibility, or wanting to blame this, that etc. You have rarely ever actually tried to engage in any proper discussion, so if you are going to post, first thing you can do is stop this nonsense "ah you can't criticise cyclists here", because you can. You can't come in bullheaded, with your mind made up though and not offer any reasonable debate though



    I didn’t defend the driving.

    If you took the time to read my post instead of jumping to attack my opinion of the cyclist not indicating correctly you might have noticed what I said.

    Il help you:
    “ 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”


  • Options
    #2927
    tnegun
    Registered Users Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭tnegun


    cletus wrote: »
    This is the crux of the matter. The van driver is not obliged to allow the cyclist into the lane. The cyclist is obliged to merge safely and appropriately.

    If it was a car trying to merge, it's the same story. The van driver doesn't have to allow any vehicle to merge there.

    What happened after the merge is the fault of the driver






    Given the conditions and his speed I think it was safe and an appropriate merge it goes both ways for merging this is in the ROTR



    "It is important to understand that the right of way is not an absolute right of way. You must proceed with caution, having regard for other road users."


  • Options
    #2928
    cletus
    Registered Users Posts: 7,962 ✭✭✭cletus


    Look, this is going round in circles. I can't honestly look at that video and say the cyclists actions are good, or that the merge was appropriate or safe. I don't think any opinion here will change my mind.

    Equally, there are posters here who see no issue whatsoever with the cyclists actions, who won't have their mind changed by anything I say, so I'm out.


  • Options
    #2929
    Weepsie
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 20,327 Mod ✭✭✭✭Weepsie


    lawrencesummers wrote: »
    Another ridiculous argument.

    Because you witnessed something somewhere else by someone doing something else it justifies not following rules of the road.

    I think you've missed the point here.
    lawrencesummers wrote: »
    I didn’t defend the driving.

    If you took the time to read my post instead of jumping to attack my opinion of the cyclist not indicating correctly you might have noticed what I said.

    Il help you:
    “ 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”

    And fair enough you didn't. But you're attacking posters not posts and decrying that they as cyclists can't take criticism of another cyclist. You've started quite a lot of your posts with this preamble. You're going in with your own bias, and if you keep doing so, it will be treated with the "oh I cycle myself" respect it deserves.


  • Options
    #2930
    Weepsie
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 20,327 Mod ✭✭✭✭Weepsie


    cletus wrote: »
    Look, this is going round in circles. I can't honestly look at that video and say the cyclists actions are good, or that the merge was appropriate or safe. I don't think any opinion here will change my mind.

    Equally, there are posters here who see no issue whatsoever with the cyclists actions, who won't have their mind changed by anything I say, so I'm out.

    Yeah, I think we can draw a line under this one now as we have people on both sides and a few in the middle.


  • Options
    #2931
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,242 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    Righttobike really needs to dump the cameras and just enjoy his cycling. He certainly seems to experience far more close passes/incidents per day then anyone else I know.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2932
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,939 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    Righttobike really needs to dump the cameras and just enjoy his cycling. He certainly seems to experience far more close passes/incidents per day then anyone else I know.

    How will dumping his cameras help?


  • Options
    #2933
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,242 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    How will dumping his cameras help?

    If it's not on camera, it didn't happen! ;)


  • Options
    #2934
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    Righttobike really needs to dump the cameras and just enjoy his cycling. He certainly seems to experience far more close passes/incidents per day then anyone else I know.

    I suspect this is a factor in the Garda going hard on him/her. YouTube and twitter has many videos posted by camera toting cyclists going out of their way to get material for their next Outrage video. Ordinary cyclysts going about their daily commute or pleasure cycle don't see nearly as many incidents as these drama queens.


  • Options
    #2935
    Wildly Boaring
    Registered Users Posts: 3,645 ✭✭✭Wildly Boaring


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    going out of their way to get material for their next Outrage video.

    One way of looking at it.

    Perhaps if vehicles gave him the requisite gap on overtaking it'd be better


  • Options
    #2936
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,939 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I suspect this is a factor in the Garda going hard on him/her. YouTube and twitter has many videos posted by camera toting cyclists going out of their way to get material for their next Outrage video. Ordinary cyclysts going about their daily commute or pleasure cycle don't see nearly as many incidents as these drama queens.

    What exactly did he do that was 'going out of his way to get material' in this case?


  • Options
    #2937
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,786 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    lawrencesummers wrote: »
    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.
    lawrencesummers wrote: »
    And here is a perfect example of people on this forum unable to accept criticism of a cyclist.

    MOD VOICE: I'm just going to nip this in the bud as it comes up every few weeks. This forum more than any other I have seen holds cyclists to a higher standard and often puts.regular posters to rights when they make errors, myself included. Focus on the discussion, if you go down this road again, you'll find yourself banned as it's lazy trolling rather than discussion.


  • Options
    #2938
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    What exactly did he do that was 'going out of his way to get material' in this case?

    In this case? Or in all the other cases he posts on twitter? Perhaps the Garda is trying to discourage such activity by issuing a small fine to say 'keep out of trouble'.
    Regardless, if the fines are unjustified he can contest them.


  • Options
    #2939
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,939 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Deleted User wrote: »
    In this case? Or in all the other cases he posts on twitter?

    Either - take your pick. Please show any video where he 'went out of his way' to cause an incident.


  • Options
    #2940
    lawrencesummers
    Registered Users Posts: 8,569 ✭✭✭lawrencesummers


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    Righttobike really needs to dump the cameras and just enjoy his cycling. He certainly seems to experience far more close passes/incidents per day then anyone else I know.



    His montage of the numerous incidents approaching a roundabout is pretty frightening. The fact that so many cars / vans are doing the exact same incorrect thing would suggest the junction/ road layout / signage itself needs adjusting because it not fit for the purpose of the many road users who use it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2941
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Either - take your pick. Please show any video where he 'went out of his way' to cause an incident.

    Look, I'm just raising the possibility that it could well be a factor in the Garda's thinking. If you're looking for one of your never ending boards arguments you aint getting it here Andy.


Advertisement