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

That's called undertaking not overtaking and is illegal in Ireland as he would be using the same lane not just going slightly faster than someone in a different lane

How is it safer for a cyclist to be in front of a car rather than behind it when both are travelling in the same direction?

That doesn't make any sense.

If the bike is behind the car, there is no need for them to be seen.

Yep, I could have stayed behind, but I didn't. Both options were available to me, and I made a choice. There was no right/wrong decision there.

Again, this post seems to be suggesting that, by filtering to the front, I somehow antagonized the driver and had a hand in the close passes. Even if a driver is antagonized, that in no way excuses how the passed me.

Cycling is in a very sorry state if people are genuinely taking the stance that 'the driver was annoyed, so the cyclist deserved it'.

No

Not saying you deserved it.

Or that annoyed drivers have carte blanche.

I'd just not have bothered creating another overtake requirement

Awful, particularly as they have security guy on that specific gate out of the park, who should be managing things.

If I had a good video showing a truck pulling out in front of a cyclist, it might help to shame then into action. I can't see them taking any serious action based on an email complaint. Maybe one of the local Green councillors might help.

More reckless driving on my commute this morning.

First a Dairygold lorry honks, and narrowly overtakes me against an oncoming vehicle. Followed in quick succession by a van squeezing by me.

That's brilliant to hear, weird that she wouldn't accept liability for not checking 'the other lane', ie the cyclist's one, was clear.

On the plus side i'm seeing more and more drivers check to the left of standing traffic before proceeding with their turn right.

Must be a compatible mount you can order a few from AliExpress?

If I don't have my bike cam I feel extraordinarily vulnerable for some reason. Have used footage twice to prove motorists were lying.

How old is the camera? I got a few under warranty from them and am on my second camera and my 3rd or 4th mount now they only last about 7-8k km. It's a known issue with them so don't take any crap from them about you over-tightening them and ask for a warranty or goodwill replacement.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - "1.5 metres" is not written anywhere in our law. The legislation requires the motorist not to endanger you, and you haven't proven that he did. Furthermore, there was a cycle lane just beside you!

1.5m distance and cycle lane aside, keeping a safe distance from the curb would put them at the very least on the line of that cycle lane. It being a narrow enough road would make me move out a bit more to make it clear you're not squeezing past.

Even if you did use the cycle lane it's smart to stay out because there's a second car obstructing the lane that you have to pass. Going in again just forces you to stop because cars will squeeze past.

But this thread is about cyclists having near misses with cars, so the oncoming traffic is not relevant. Also, it's clear that if you had been in the cycle lane he would not have had to overtake into oncoming traffic. It's not clear at all to me from the video that he inconvenienced or endangered you. The reason I made reference to 1.5m is that there is a widespread misconception that it is the law of the land (largely through the actions of the Road Safety Authority and various cycling lobby groups trying to construe it as such). The government in fact considered specifically legislating for 1.5m, but decided it was unfeasible given how narrow many of our roads are. As such, the only rules that drivers must observe are in passing cyclists are:

1. the driver must not force the cyclist to reduce speed or take evasive action;
2. the driver must not make physical contact with the cyclist/bike frame.

You can certainly argue that the close pass "endangered you", but the driver would undoubtedly argue (and An Gárda Síochána generally tend to agree with this argument) that as they did not force you to reduce your speed or take evasive action (to avoid a collison), and they did not make contact with you/your bike frame you were not actually in danger. The burden of proof is on you to prove that you were in danger and unfortunately you have not done so. Again, An Gárda Síochána assess "endangering cyclists" based on the following objective metrics:

1. whether the cyclist reduced speed/took evasive action
2. whether or not the actions of the driver resulted in a collision (however minor).

Close passes that do not feature the above hallmarks remain legal. 1.5m is still an unenforceable "guideline" because the legislature considers it (for now at least) to be unrealistic. Should this change? The government certainly does not think so (despite a Green Party TD being minister for transport). I would also argue (as An Garda Síochána and even the Road Safety Authority has in the past) that if you are not comfortable having close encounters with drivers you can always choose routes with protected cycle lanes, and use cycle lanes (whether or not they are protected) where they are available.