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

07Lapierre

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

It’s possible that’s what the Garda thought, but that’s no reason to issue a fine. The only illegal manoeuvres caught on tape are motorists.

07Lapierre

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.

I don't think he goes out of his way to "generate" footage for his cameras, but he does seem to relish the confrontations. If he catches up with the driver at the next set of lights, he confronts them.

Ah I dunno, maybe I'm just immune to these close passes now, but I do enjoy cycling and I think if I was to start recording every single incident on film, I'd end up turning myself offcycling.

micar

07Lapierre wrote: »

If he catches up with the driver at the next set of lights, he confronts them.

Some motorists are completely oblivious to the dangers they put cyclists in..

They have no understanding of what 1m from their wing mirror actually is or the impact of not being fully aware of what's going on around them.

It's important to challenge those incidents in the hope their driving pattern changes.

07Lapierre

micar wrote: »

It's important to challenge those incidents in the hope their driving pattern changes.

Agree. But challenging a motorist at the next set of lights is not the way to do it. All that does is confirm to the motorist that cyclists are crazy,aggressive, non road tax paying muppets. We know that's wrong, but your not going to change their view by shouting at them.

IMO, By all means Record the incident. Then report it to the Gardai.

cnocbui

Wildly Boaring wrote: »

One way of looking at it.

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

Takes two to tango.

partyguinness wrote: »

It's called 'dominating the road'. It is a tactic and deemed a lot safer than hugging the footpath. It makes the car slow right and to think about it when passing you.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116382321&postcount=5283

I have encountered a cyclist dominating the road on an R road. When passing him, I couldn't provide a 1m gap because there was a stone wall to the right and the cyclist was almost cycling down the middle of the road and to the right of the center line of the lane.

Wildly Boaring

cnocbui wrote: »

Takes two to tango.

You often see cyclists 3 abreast and believe they should pay road tax?

07Lapierre

cnocbui wrote: »

I have encountered a cyclist dominating the road on an R road. When passing him, I couldn't provide a 1m.

Then you shouldn't have tried to overtake!
Cyclist, car, truck, van, pedestrian....it doesn't matter who or what you are overtaking...if it's not possible to overtake safely, you shouldn't overtake.

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

You're probably right that this kind of thinking was a major factor in the Garda action. I'm just pointing out that it has no basis in fact.

Seaswimmer

micar wrote: »

Some motorists are completely oblivious to the dangers they put cyclists in..

They have no understanding of what 1m from their wing mirror actually is or the impact of not being fully aware of what's going on around them.

It's important to challenge those incidents in the hope their driving pattern changes.

I'm with 07Lapierre here. When I went back cycle commuting in 2006 I spent the first year trying to "educate" motorists nicely when I felt they had put me in danger or done something which I felt was wrong. It turned into an incredibly frustrating experience which led to numerous shouting matches with me feeling stressed and angry afterwards. I doubt if I changed a single bit of driver behaviour. Now I enjoy my cycling, cycle defensively, acknowledge courtesies and rarely if ever have any motorist interactions.

hesker

Seaswimmer wrote: »

Now I enjoy my cycling, cycle defensively, acknowledge courtesies and rarely if ever have any motorist interactions.

I try to do the same now. I don’t have a camera and feel It’s just not worth engaging. But you have to admit this approach does nothing to reduce the number of incidents. One is not related to the other.

magicbastarder

cnocbui wrote: »

I have encountered a cyclist dominating the road on an R road. When passing him, I couldn't provide a 1m gap because there was a stone wall to the right and the cyclist was almost cycling down the middle of the road and to the right of the center line of the lane.

sounds like he or she was taking primary position, which cyclists are advised to do at times.

would you have been able to overtake the cyclist in this context, if the cyclist had been in secondary position, given him or her 1.5m clearance (the guidance is 1.5m above 50km/h), and *not* have to place your wheels into the oncoming lane?

that'd require a 4.5m wide lane, give or take, which is very wide.

if it was narrower than 4.5m, you'd have had to place your wheels into the oncoming lane, which you'd only do when there was no oncoming traffic (and quite visibly no oncoming traffic), so you'd have to wait for a safe overtaking spot anyway, surely? so if you have a safe overtaking manouevre it doesn't matter what position the cyclist takes in the lane, unless he or she is riding right in the centre of the road, really.

Hurrache

07Lapierre wrote: »

He certainly seems to experience far more close passes/incidents per day then anyone else I know.

He seems to, but it's not due to his cycling style in fairness. Some people can be a bit provocative no matter what transport they're using, but the many incidents are simply a reflection of appalling driving and dropping his usage of cameras won't improve it.

I wouldn't drop the use of a camera, I have one case in the courts for dangerous/careless driving (probably will be reduced to careless). If anyone is a dangerous dick they need to be hauled up for it. I don't go around shouting at people, but I wouldn't be a stranger in using non parliamentary language when I deem it required.

People do it in cars all the time, probably generally for innocuous incidents. Only reason people don't get their knickers in a twist is because you don't hear them from within their vehicles.

AndrewJRenko

Seaswimmer wrote: »

I'm with 07Lapierre here. When I went back cycle commuting in 2006 I spent the first year trying to "educate" motorists nicely when I felt they had put me in danger or done something which I felt was wrong. It turned into an incredibly frustrating experience which led to numerous shouting matches with me feeling stressed and angry afterwards. I doubt if I changed a single bit of driver behaviour. Now I enjoy my cycling, cycle defensively, acknowledge courtesies and rarely if ever have any motorist interactions.

That's your choice. For me, it is absolutely cathartic to engage, even more so to make Garda reports with video evidence.

Seaswimmer

hesker wrote: »

I try to do the same now. I don’t have a camera and feel It’s just not worth engaging. But you have to admit this approach does nothing to reduce the number of incidents. One is not related to the other.

Absolutely. I guess we all handle things in our own way. If it helps Andy to engage and pursue it then great. He may change a motorists behaviour. For me I dont think motorists are deliberately out to get me. Certainly if I felt there was a deliberate attempt to harm me then I would surely try and do something about it but I believe the vast majority of motorists are the same as the vast majority of cyclists.
We all suffer from laziness, incompetence and poor behaviour on the roads now and again regardless of our mode of transport. But 99% of the time it is not an issue..

robinph

The best thing to improve road safety for those not driving cars would be to require everyone to pass a test for a motorbike licence before they could gain a car licence, or get some exemption from that if you can show years of riding bicycles on roads. Car drivers will remain oblivious to other road users for as long as they don't think of themselves in the same vulnerable position.

In the absence of anything like that ever being brought in before anyone can gain a car licence the only other form of re-education available is to capture videos of the incidents and show car drivers what they are doing to put others at risk... And hope that it make some tiny difference.

The J Stands for Jay

cnocbui wrote: »

Takes two to tango.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116382321&postcount=5283

I have encountered a cyclist dominating the road on an R road. When passing him, I couldn't provide a 1m gap because there was a stone wall to the right and the cyclist was almost cycling down the middle of the road and to the right of the center line of the lane.

Replace cyclist with car, and you've got dangerous driving there. Why did you think to overtake in an unsuitable location?

FinnC

Seaswimmer wrote: »

I'm with 07Lapierre here. When I went back cycle commuting in 2006 I spent the first year trying to "educate" motorists nicely when I felt they had put me in danger or done something which I felt was wrong. It turned into an incredibly frustrating experience which led to numerous shouting matches with me feeling stressed and angry afterwards. I doubt if I changed a single bit of driver behaviour. Now I enjoy my cycling, cycle defensively, acknowledge courtesies and rarely if ever have any motorist interactions.

Yeah agree 100%. I’d very rarely have any issues with motorists either.
Of course there are bad motorists out there that need to change their behaviour, and plenty of bad cyclists who need to change their behaviour also tbf,but I’m like you I just enjoy myself and not get stressed. If you’re getting stressed while cycling I don’t see the point in doing it.

cletus

robinph wrote: »

The best thing to improve road safety for those not driving cars would be to require everyone to pass a test for a motorbike licence before they could gain a car licence, or get some exemption from that if you can show years of riding bicycles on roads. Car drivers will remain oblivious to other road users for as long as they don't think of themselves in the same vulnerable position.

In the absence of anything like that ever being brought in before anyone can gain a car licence the only other form of re-education available is to capture videos of the incidents and show car drivers what they are doing to put others at risk... And hope that it make some tiny difference.

Putting everyone that drives a car through the pointless beuracracy of obtaining a separate licence that they don't want or won't use doesn't seem to me to be the most sensible idea, quite apart from the fact that it makes the assumption that every car driver is poor/unaware/whatever. It's also dangerously close to calls for cyclists to have to do some sort of licence/test.

Perhaps a long term (multiple year/ongoing) media campaign in the same vein as the drink driving and speeding campaigns, along with enforcement and improved infrastructure would seem like a better option

Steoller

cletus wrote: »

Putting everyone that drives a car through the pointless beuracracy of obtaining a separate licence that they don't want or won't use doesn't seem to me to be the most sensible idea, quite apart from the fact that it makes the assumption that every car driver is poor/unaware/whatever. It's also dangerously close to calls for cyclists to have to do some sort of licence/test.

Perhaps a long term (multiple year/ongoing) media campaign in the same vein as the drink driving and speeding campaigns, along with enforcement and improved infrastructure would seem like a better option

I'm going to have to take issue with your assertion there. Even with the current licensing regulations, too many people who are dangerously unqualified to drive are being certified to get behind the wheel. Asking for those regulations to be beefed up, is not equivalent to asking for an unnecessary license on a mode of transport that is no more dangerous than walking.

07Lapierre

Hurrache wrote: »

He seems to, but it's not due to his cycling style in fairness. Some people can be a bit provocative no matter what transport they're using, but the many incidents are simply a reflection of appalling driving and dropping his usage of cameras won't improve it.

I wouldn't drop the use of a camera, I have one case in the courts for dangerous/careless driving (probably will be reduced to careless). If anyone is a dangerous dick they need to be hauled up for it. I don't go around shouting at people, but I wouldn't be a stranger in using non parliamentary language when I deem it required.

People do it in cars all the time, probably generally for innocuous incidents. Only reason people don't get their knickers in a twist is because you don't hear them from within their vehicles.

Fair enough. Using a camera to capture incidents is fine. Submitting a report to the gardai and using the footage as evidence is the way to do it.

I just feel righttobike really, REALLY relishes the confrontation and he does seem to go out of his way to confront the drivers at every opportunity.

Not having a camera wont make his daily cycling safer, but ive viewed a lot of his footage on Twitter and a lot of the roads he cycles on look very cyclist unfriendly. I often wonder if their are safer routes he could use, but he chooses these routes as they offer more opportunities for "Good footage".

buffalo

07Lapierre wrote: »

Not having a camera wont make his daily cycling safer, but ive viewed a lot of his footage on Twitter and a lot of the roads he cycles on look very cyclist unfriendly. I often wonder if their are safer routes he could use, but he chooses these routes as they offer more opportunities for "Good footage".

I would say they are the most direct routes, and his cycling them is an effort to assert a cyclist's right to be on the road and take the most direct route, even if it's not the most safe or pleasant.

Steoller

07Lapierre wrote: »

Fair enough. Using a camera to capture incidents is fine. Submitting a report to the gardai and using the footage as evidence is the way to do it.

I just feel righttobike really, REALLY relishes the confrontation and he does seem to go out of his way to confront the drivers at every opportunity.

Not having a camera wont make his daily cycling safer, but ive viewed a lot of his footage on Twitter and a lot of the roads he cycles on look very cyclist unfriendly. I often wonder if their are safer routes he could use, but he chooses these routes as they offer more opportunities for "Good footage".

I agree, but I wouldn't go so far as to say he chooses his routes for max confrontation, from what i've heard from other Cork cyclists it is a bit wild there. I can't fault his roadcraft on the bike, and I agree with his opinion of the driving he encounters. I personally would not engage to the level he does - but that's personal taste. He's in the right almost every time I've seen him put up a clip.

cletus

Steoller wrote: »

I'm going to have to take issue with your assertion there. Even with the current licensing regulations, too many people who are dangerously unqualified to drive are being certified to get behind the wheel. Asking for those regulations to be beefed up, is not equivalent to asking for an unnecessary license on a mode of transport that is no more dangerous than walking.

On what basis is your assertion about dangerously unqualified drivers being licenced made?

robinph

cletus wrote: »

On what basis is your assertion about dangerously unqualified drivers being licenced made?

Car drivers claiming that cyclists put them at risk and are a danger on the road would be a good indicator that they need more awareness on the road and of other road users.

Hurrache

cletus wrote: »

On what basis is your assertion about dangerously unqualified drivers being licenced made?

Can't speak for that poster, but eyes often help me make that assertion.

cletus

This feels very like a discussion we had here before about roads being more dangerous. Without rehashing it all again, the empirical data doesn't support this.

07Lapierre

cletus wrote: »

This feel very like a discussion we had here before about roads being more dangerous. Without rehashing it all again, the empirical data doesn't support this.

That’s also a good point. IMO Our roads are not THAT dangerous. But then again, how do you judge a safe road? I cycle along roads which I feel are safe, but others who are not as experienced/confident on a bike as I am think the roads I cycle on are lethal!

If you take the footage that started this discussion, would everyone be happy to send a 12yearold child cycling on that road?

Edit: I had a discussion online about a certain road and how safe it was and I was told it’s perfectly safe as “there’s no record of any fatalities on that road”
This is true, but is that the best way to determine if a road is safe?

cletus

07Lapierre wrote: »

That’s also a good point. IMO Our roads are not THAT dangerous. But then again, how do you judge a safe road? I cycle along roads which I feel are safe, but others who are not as experienced/confident on a bike as I am think the roads I cycle on are lethal!

If you take the footage that started this discussion, would everyone be happy to send a 12yearold child cycling on that road?

Edit: I had a discussion online about a certain road and how safe it was and I was told it’s perfectly safe as “there’s no record of any fatalities on that road”
This is true, but is that the best way to determine if a road is safe?

At any point in time, given a set of circumstances any road or section of road can be lethal, insofar as somebody could die on it. You can't base any macro understanding of anything at all, not just road safety, on anecdotes, one off incidences, personal histories, or anything else that's not aggregated data that has been collected and compiled, preferably over a number of years, so that there are sets of data to compare with. Otherwise it's the old "my grandmother smoked till she was 93, and she never got cancer" routine.

My initial question here was mostly rhetorical, because I don't believe the poster I asked it of actually has any data to back up the assertion that there are large numbers of dangerously unqualified drivers are being given licences

cletus

robinph wrote: »

Car drivers claiming that cyclists put them at risk and are a danger on the road would be a good indicator that they need more awareness on the road and of other road users.

That is not the same as, quote "...too many people who are dangerously unqualified to drive are being certified to get behind the wheel"end quite

hesker

07Lapierre wrote: »

That’s also a good point. IMO Our roads are not THAT dangerous. But then again, how do you judge a safe road? I cycle along roads which I feel are safe, but others who are not as experienced/confident on a bike as I am think the roads I cycle on are lethal!

If you take the footage that started this discussion, would everyone be happy to send a 12yearold child cycling on that road?

Edit: I had a discussion online about a certain road and how safe it was and I was told it’s perfectly safe as “there’s no record of any fatalities on that road”
This is true, but is that the best way to determine if a road is safe?

I know the road in question extremely well. It’s not particularly dangerous. It depends on the 12 year old and their level of road craft.
That particular merge point would be seen the length and breadth of the country