Close Pass

doozerie · 04-06-2012 11:57pm

I have mixed feelings about videos of bike rides and incidents (or not) that arose during them. In the past I'd have seen wearing a camera on a bike as something I'd never do as it would have felt like I was being overly paranoid or simply "looking for trouble". My view changed significantly though after an altercation with a motorist where they drove their car at me twice. Their bumper snapped my "unbreakable" rear mudguard on the first surge, and hit my leg on the second surge - it didn't hit hard enough to leave a bruise but I reckon another 30mm of travel would have broken my leg. No-one has that level of control over a car that they could have deliberately stopped it at the point of contact with flesh and bone, particularly not an angry learner-driver teen, so I was extremely lucky. I called the gardai, who eventually arrived, showed them the snapped mudguard, the car in the bus lane was clear to see, and I explained what happened. The driver showed them the dent in his bonnet which I left with my fist following the flood of adrenalin which kicked in at having a car driven at me. An anonymous witness came forward to claim that I had attacked the car unprovoked, maybe I didn't like the colour or something. The outcome was that the gardai gave the driver the option of pressing charges of criminal damage against me, which he didn't take. Having a conviction on my record could have had a detrimental impact on my life, thankfully it didn't arise.

Anyway, that's a long winded explanation for why I now see a video camera as a useful tool in certain situations. Most people thankfully never end up in such a confrontation, but those that do might find that they face an uphill struggle in trying to argue their case in the absence of anything like an independent witness (hard to find, none of the many witnesses of my incident hung around bar the one who walked past me to speak to the driver and formally gave an account which painted me as the aggressor) or video footage. It's not as simple or grim as the motor car simply being treated as sacrosanct by society generally but I'm convinced that there really is a social bias against cyclists (and probably pedestrians and motorbikers too) when an incident involving a motor car occurs.

Getting away from the extreme cases though, I also think that there is a strong case to be made for good quality footage of genuinely inconsiderate and potentially dangerous behaviour by any road users being made widely available. I believe that promoting empathy amongst all road users may make the biggest impact in the efforts to reduce the dangers that people pose to one another. Seeing the potential risks of inconsiderate behaviour by others may make people re-assess their own actions in a new light and might encourage better and safer use of the roads. As one formal example of such an approach, I saw an ad on ITV for the first time tonight from the DOE which shows several near misses between pedestrians and drivers, the last incident being a fatal collision - the ad could be accused of being extreme and sensationalist, and I certainly flinched at the last incident, but on the other hand it might also linger in peoples' minds in a positive way and may make them better and safer pedestrians and/or drivers. Some of the previous DOE video campaigns also made for uncomfortable watching and could also be argued as either sensationalist or effective, or perhaps both. If done right they emphasise the importance of being careful and considerate, without suggesting that we should all just stay indoors in order to remain safe.

Jawgap · 05-06-2012 7:23am

BX 19 wrote: »

There is the nub of it. The Bus should have held off, gave way to traffic already there. I would have equally tried to hold my position, I don't like getting squashed.

I'd suggest that's the type of questionable decision that sets off a chain of events that ends with Dublin Fire Brigade having to use toothpicks to get the last bits you out of the tyres to send home.

In a situation like that, Road Traffic Law and the Rules of the Road are trumped by the laws of both physics and the jungle - the bus is bigger, faster and driven by someone who probably doesn't have a lot of time for hanging around - he wins every time! I'd have tootled along and made sure he was passed me well before the bridge.

BX 19 wrote: »

He saw a gap and went for it. See if you keep letting coaches, buses, HGVs and cars walk all over cyclists, your going to keep having the same problem over and over again.

As a cyclist I feel I don't get walked over by anyone???

As a husband and father I get walked over frequently, but as a cyclist?

Anyway, I think the OP's site is a good concept, poorly executed - if the tone of the language was lowered from 11 (hysterical) to about 6 (measured and moderate) it would be, in my opinion, more persuasive to all road users and planners, rather than just a certain class of a certain category of road users.

There again, if he did that he would be 'competing' with other sites / campaigns that have similar objectives but are better positioned.

monument · 05-06-2012 7:51am

Jawgap wrote: »

I'd suggest that's the type of questionable decision that sets off a chain of events that ends with Dublin Fire Brigade having to use toothpicks to get the last bits you out of the tyres to send home.

In a situation like that, Road Traffic Law and the Rules of the Road are trumped by the laws of both physics and the jungle - the bus is bigger, faster and driven by someone who probably doesn't have a lot of time for hanging around - he wins every time! I'd have tootled along and made sure he was passed me well before the bridge.

...

Anyway, I think the OP's site is a good concept, poorly executed - if the tone of the language was lowered from 11 (hysterical) to about 6 (measured and moderate) it would be, in my opinion, more persuasive to all road users and planners, rather than just a certain class of a certain category of road users.

Hmm...hysterical?

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Jawgap wrote: »

I'd have tootled along and made sure he was passed me well before the bridge.

Not saying he always makes the perfect moves (does anybody or did even he claim he did?). But he was very near to the bridge and going about 20km/h when the bus overtook -- the next thing that happened was both users correctly slowed down and then the cyclist moved off as it was clear the bus had given way.

I'm not seeing the big deal of what happened -- it's just a video highlighting a conflict.

Jawgap · 05-06-2012 9:27am

deadlyspot.com wrote: »

..........
Are you listening Gardai?

Are you listening RSA?

Are you listening government ministers / councilors?

If you didn't believe it before, do you believe it now?

......hysteria

Jawgap wrote: »

I'd suggest that's the type of questionable decision that sets off a chain of events that ends with Dublin Fire Brigade having to use toothpicks to get the last bits you out of the tyres to send home.

In a situation like that, Road Traffic Law and the Rules of the Road are trumped by the laws of both physics and the jungle - the bus is bigger, faster and driven by someone who probably doesn't have a lot of time for hanging around - he wins every time! I'd have tootled along and made sure he was passed me well before the bridge.

.........

......hyperbole

monument wrote: »

Hmm...hysterical?

Pot. Kettle. Black.

So, not really.

monument wrote: »

Not saying he always makes the perfect moves (does anybody or did even he claim he did?). But he was very near to the bridge and going about 20km/h when the bus overtook -- the next thing that happened was both users correctly slowed down and then the cyclist moved off as it was clear the bus had given way.

I'm not seeing the big deal of what happened -- it's just a video highlighting a conflict.

I'd say there's a certain lack of anticipation in the cycling demonstrated in that particular video. Why get into a situation where you are relying on the bus to give way in the first instance? It's clear from the off at the lights that the cyclist and the bus are both going in the same direction - let the bus get out ahead as early as possible, I'd say.

Anyway, we all have our views on the OP's site / campaign / initiative and clearly they don't all accord with one another. Personally, I think it's mis-directed and overdone, and as a consequence its limited appeal beyond cyclists will not help it be anything other than a marginal curiosity. But I remain to be proven wrong.

monument · 05-06-2012 9:55am

Jawgap wrote: »

......hysteria

...Anyway, we all have our views on the OP's site / campaign / initiative and clearly they don't all accord with one another. Personally, I think it's mis-directed and overdone, and as a consequence its limited appeal beyond cyclists will not help it be anything other than a marginal curiosity. But I remain to be proven wrong.

Not sure it is hysteria as the gardai and RSA etc are at least a bit blind of the problem of dangerous overtaking cyclists.

When some Dutch people had enough of car centric policies they called their campaign "Stop the Child Murder". Hysteria overload. But effective. So even if you still believe that he is engaging in hysteria, maybe his hysteria will be effective?

And the same thing goes for misdirection and overdone -- sometimes approaches that we do not agree with are useful and effective?

Jawgap · 05-06-2012 11:19am

monument wrote: »

Not sure it is hysteria as the gardai and RSA etc are at least a bit blind of the problem of dangerous overtaking cyclists.

When some Dutch people had enough of car centric policies they called their campaign "Stop the Child Murder". Hysteria overload. But effective. So even if you still believe that he is engaging in hysteria, maybe his hysteria will be effective?

And the same thing goes for misdirection and overdone -- sometimes approaches that we do not agree with are useful and effective?

Possibly - time will tell in this case, but I suspect the RSA, Guards and Local Authorities repond more readily to data. And to bring it back full circle - I think the material discourages people from taking up the activity and in the long term that's not good for the safety of cyclists.

My final point on the matter is borrowed from an article on the use of headcams on the BBC.....

"Nor are all cyclists convinced by the trend. Paul Kitson is a lawyer specialising in personal injury cases involving cyclists. He uses footage in cases but has yet to be convinced to wear a camera on his commute.

"A camera helmet can secure a case for you, but personally I think it's going a bit too far. I do own a cycle helmet camera but I use it for skiing."

Beasty · 05-06-2012 11:25am

Jawgap wrote: »

"A camera helmet can secure a case for you, but personally I think it's going a bit too far. I do own a cycle helmet camera but I use it for skiing."

Bet he sues the pants off anyone who cuts him up on the ski slopes ...:)

le petit braquet · 05-06-2012 11:34am

I'm not the greatest fan of the RSA but in fairness I heard of few "advisory" pieces to motorists on the radio yesterday to expect additional cyclists on the roads due to the good weather (short lived) and advising caution when overtaking. More like this please!

Jawgap · 05-06-2012 11:37am

Beasty wrote: »

Bet he sues the pants off anyone who cuts him up in the bar after on the ski slopes ...:)

FYP - probably goes there to pose and thinks a double-black is a large whiskey:) (someone will now post a link to Paul Kitson, part-time downhill racer)

doozerie · 05-06-2012 11:54am

Jawgap wrote:

I'd say there's a certain lack of anticipation in the cycling demonstrated in that particular video. Why get into a situation where you are relying on the bus to give way in the first instance? It's clear from the off at the lights that the cyclist and the bus are both going in the same direction - let the bus get out ahead as early as possible, I'd say.

If you are referring to the video of the stretch just past the IFSC then I know that stretch of road well as I cycle it each day. It's not clear to me what you are suggesting the cyclist should have done but your reference to it being "clear from the off at the lights that..." seems to suggest that you believe the cyclist should have held way back and waited for the cars and the bus to overtake him long before the bridge/pinch point. That, to me, is unrealistic and creates its own set of problems.

I find that the vast majority of motorists on that stretch of road act reasonably and safely, in that they keep to the right and leave space on the left for cyclists. More importantly though, they either don't overtake in a situation where they are likely to immediately have to pull across in front of the cyclist, and they don't pull alongside and remain alongside a cyclist where it is clear that they create a potential collision by doing so. The bus in that video clip did the latter, it didn't overtake (it never cleared the cyclist and never really had time or space to do so given the relative speeds) it drove abreast of the cyclist on a narrowing road. It was up to either the cyclist or the bus driver to stop to avoid a collision, and in this instance the bus driver stopped - the cyclist was entitled to expect that the bus driver would stop given that he/she carried out the silly non-overtaking manoeuvre, but obviously any cyclist in that situation should be prepared for the worst and in that video clip it seemed to me that the cyclist was prepared as he had slowed enough to allow himself to stop if necessary.

In general, both as a cyclist and as a car driver, I expect other road users to follow the rules of the road. So, for example, while travelling along a road, I expect the car(s) waiting at junctions with side roads to yield to me rather than just pull out. I'm always prepared for them to pull out, of course - I see enough demonstrations of a complete lack of any consideration or common sense to remind me that some people are incapable of or unwilling to acknowledge the existence of others - but I don't simply hit the brakes at each such junction and wait for cars to pull out ahead of me. To do so would make me a significant source of danger on the roads myself. We all assume others will do "the right thing" on the roads to some extent or other and our own behaviour is based on this assumption and when it boils down to it that's the entire basis of road usage. You remain safe by being prepared to deal with bad situations as they arise, as distinct from those people that simply haul on the brakes at the first hint of possible risk - those latter people sometimes pose as much risk on the roads as those who simply ignore the common set of rules in the first place.

doozerie · 05-06-2012 12:04pm

le petit braquet wrote:

I'm not the greatest fan of the RSA but in fairness I heard of few "advisory" pieces to motorists on the radio yesterday to expect additional cyclists on the roads due to the good weather (short lived) and advising caution when overtaking. More like this please!

I heard some of those too, and was impressed until the spokeperson for An Garda finished off his appeal with something like "and cyclists, ensure you are seen, wear hi-viz equipment" or words to that effect. They repeated this section of his statement during subsequent news reports on RTE Radio 1. 'Tis a bloody mantra at this stage, they just parrot the call for hi-viz at every opportunity. If my frequent sightings of bent and mangled hi-viz road signs and road furniture are anything to go by, the anti-collision properties of hi-viz are grossly exaggerated.

...sorry, hi-viz rant over, regular ranting may now resume

CramCycle · 05-06-2012 12:05pm

I am very confused, can't see the video in work but if its a pinch point and you know its approaching, just indicate into the lane and hold it till you have passed it? Delays those behind you by less than a minute if its quiet or by no time at all if its busy and they are caught in traffic.

If someone is beside you, slow and pull in behind them, if they are behind you, indicate and if its clear they are letting you go, pull out, if they are dicks, let them pass and pull in behind them?

I'll look at it when I'm home but I don't get the issue if the video is as described.

doozerie · 05-06-2012 12:57pm

CramCycle wrote:

I am very confused, can't see the video in work but if its a pinch point and you know its approaching, just indicate into the lane and hold it till you have passed it?

This *should* be an option but this is a particular stretch along Custom House Quay where two lanes of traffic are squeezed into a single lane to pass through an old narrow bridge. The cycle lane simply stops abruptly, throws its hands up in the air, shrugs, and says "feck it, yer on yer own, just remember you can't sue me 'cos I'm not here, right" in that helpful way that many of them do. Even the very odd time that I drive along there in the car it can be a dodgy game of push and shove to create space for yourself in the merged lane. On a bike I've never tried to merge because peoples' patience along there seems as short as their sight and my view is that merging there is more dangerous than remaining to the left.

CramCycle · 05-06-2012 1:18pm

doozerie wrote: »

This *should* be an option but this is a particular stretch along Custom House Quay where two lanes of traffic are squeezed into a single lane to pass through an old narrow bridge. The cycle lane simply stops abruptly, throws its hands up in the air, shrugs, and says "feck it, yer on yer own, just remember you can't sue me 'cos I'm not here, right" in that helpful way that many of them do. Even the very odd time that I drive along there in the car it can be a dodgy game of push and shove to create space for yourself in the merged lane. On a bike I've never tried to merge because peoples' patience along there seems as short as their sight and my view is that merging there is more dangerous than remaining to the left.

I know where you are on about, beside the Sameul Beckett bridge?
As best I can remember you have two choices, dismount and walk the pedestrian line which is horrifically narrow or two, and this depends on traffic, if its rush hour, traffic always gets caught by a traffic light there so merge when traffic is stalled if possible, personally I'd do it even if its moving but there sounded like concern about drivers attitudes in the area, if its not rush hour, keep an eye out over your shoulder, well before the bridge, to get on to the road. Its no different than a car merging, most times there should be no problem. On occasion you won't be let out but the same could happen in any vehicle.

Worse case scenario you get delayed as much as anyone at the junction or am I thinking of the wrong place?

doozerie · 05-06-2012 2:04pm

@CramCycle, No, it's further back (west-wards) than the Samuel Beckett bridge. I referred to it as a bridge but visually it is more like a big mass of old ironmongery slapped onto the road, just after the AIB Trade Centre/Famine memorial. Here it is in Streetview, in case you can view that in work. It's a horrible stretch of road, and not at all suited to being the thoroughfare that it has become.

enas · 05-06-2012 2:08pm

I can surely understand why deadlyspot.com has left the discussion, if he did so. The kind of hostility shown by Jawgap can really undermine one's morale. In fact, the main reason I wouldn't do the same thing myself - posting incidents on YouTube - is precisely this kind of reactions. As much as I could understand hostility from motorists, coming from fellow cyclists, that is really depressing.

Although I have to admit they're proven right on one point. It is useless to post those videos. As much evident as you show, some will still doubt your innocence and will resort to shameless victim blaming. Their mind is impenetrable to me.

Jawgap · 05-06-2012 3:11pm

Hostile, moi? If anything myself and @monument (ably assited by @doozerie) were knocking the issues back and forth.

If there can't be a bit of rough and tumble in an internet discussion forum what hope is there for the world. I presumed the videos were posted to be discussed rather than be accepted at face value.

I don't believe I was hostile - in fact I was quite careful to play the ball, not the person - if I missed and clipped an ankle I apologise.

....not sure about this whole 'fellow cyclists' thing - just because you've a bike under your backside you're part of some wider group to which you owe allegiance and the obligation to adopt shared values?

Maybe 'fellow road user' would be a better concept to promote?

enas · 05-06-2012 3:26pm

Jawgap wrote: »

I don't believe I was hostile - in fact I was quite careful to play the ball, not the person -

as in:

Jawgap wrote: »

My opinion, the rider in the video is being pushy and self-righteous.

Jawgap wrote: »

....not sure about this whole 'fellow cyclists' thing - just because you've a bike under your backside you're part of some wider group to which you owe allegiance and the obligation to adopt shared values?

Nope. But because you're a regular cyclist, it makes it harder to understand why you deny that the problems shown by deadlyspot.com are problems that many of us do encounter (at a different rate, but that can be explained in many easy ways, and is the topic for another discussion). I can't understand how you can be implying that the cyclist is somehow causing himself those incidents, and their alleged high number.

Jawgap · 05-06-2012 3:45pm

That's a fair point, but a legitimate one and the quote was borrowed from an online publication - I thought the video illustrated the point the publication was trying to make in terms of what not to do in terms of general attitude and demeanour.

btw - I'm not sure how calling someone "pushy and self-righteous" is the conclusive example of me being hostile!

I don't deny that the problems are problems - what I think is that they are not significant problems. I also think that a lot of the situations highlighted are readily avoidable or easily navigated by patience, a bit of road sense and moderation of any sense of entitlement.

Whatever the RSA or Rules of the Road say, in the ecology of traffic cyclists are towards the bottom of the food chain - that's wrong, but it's the way it is. Cycling assertively is fine, but not in every circumstance and sometimes its best just to avoid rather than assert.

Finally (this must be my third 'finally' in this thread) infra-structure improvements won't make things a whole lot safer - most incidents are down to behaviour and the only way to change that is better, tougher and more frequent enforcement of the existing laws for all road users.

I'd be all for that - when drivers' licences are on the line they tend to buck up their ideas a lot quicker. Likewise, fixed penalty notices for mis-behaving non-licensed road users would quickly correct the worst excesses. All of which could be done tomorrow, if the political will existed - let's see someone agitate for that! (I'm not volunteering, my camera is definitely for non-commuting spins)

Dermot Illogical · 05-06-2012 3:51pm

enas wrote: »

I can't understand how you can be implying that the cyclist is somehow causing himself those incidents, and their alleged high number.

I thought it was me who came closest to that in this thread?
If a cyclist ends up on their arse 8 times courtesy of their interaction with motorised traffic, they really need to think hard about why.

Beasty · 05-06-2012 3:56pm

Compared to the grief a lot of members of this forum gave magnatom when he posted videos of his exploits in Glasgow (I'm not suggesting the OP here is in the same league as that guy, but there appear to be similarities in approach), Jawgap has been relatively constrained in his comments, which have been generally constructive, even if contrary to a lot of the comments posted. We would not have a discussion forum if we were to expect posters to go along with the majority view on things;)

I would add that I tend more towards Jawgap's position on some of these matters, although clearly a lot of ground has been covered and I would not say I completely agree with anyone's comments.

Lumen · 05-06-2012 4:26pm

This phenomenon does not require lack of skill; it can be explained by randomness and survivor bias.

You take a population of cyclists, some of those will have close calls. Some of those will buy cameras to record their journeys. The ones that stop having close calls will not upload the videos to Youtube (and will presumably give up recording altogether) leaving only the really unlucky ones.

Some people think the videos discourage cycling, some people think they are educational, most people don't really care.

I can only write from experience, and my experience of cycling around Dublin for the past few years is that the rate of life-threatening incidents is close to zero, and those that do occur are usually preventable with either a bit more patience on my part or everyone else learning to drive/cycle/walk properly.

Hermy · 05-06-2012 4:38pm

AltAccount wrote: »

Publishing all these "near misses by crazy drivers" just reinforces the common perception that cycling is dangerous and may turn people off the idea of cycling.

I think rather than reinforce the common perception that cycling is dangerous publishing these videos actually highlights the source of the danger.

Dermot Illogical · 05-06-2012 4:41pm

Lumen wrote: »

This phenomenon does not require lack of skill; it can be explained by randomness and survivor bias.

You take a population of cyclists, some of those will have close calls. Some of those will buy cameras to record their journeys. The ones that stop having close calls will not upload the videos to Youtube (and will presumably give up recording altogether) leaving only the really unlucky ones.

Some people think the videos discourage cycling, some people think they are educational, most people don't really care.

I can only write from experience, and my experience of cycling around Dublin for the past few years is that the rate of life-threatening incidents is close to zero, and those that do occur are usually preventable with either a bit more patience on my part or everyone else learning to drive/cycle/walk properly.

I can highly recommend reading that in a Baz Luhrmann accent.

rich.d.berry · 05-06-2012 4:44pm

Jawgap wrote: »

My final point on the matter is borrowed from an article on the use of headcams on the BBC.....

"Nor are all cyclists convinced by the trend. Paul Kitson is a lawyer specialising in personal injury cases involving cyclists. He uses footage in cases but has yet to be convinced to wear a camera on his commute.

"A camera helmet can secure a case for you, but personally I think it's going a bit too far. I do own a cycle helmet camera but I use it for skiing."

It seems that the author was selective about the message conveyed in the article you quote from. This video shows an interview with Paul Kitson (starts @ 2:55) where he is extremely supportive of cyclists having video evidence and states "There have been many cases that I've dealt with where a camera helmet would have been extremely useful.". In fact, there is nothing that he says that has any negative connotations about cyclists wearing video cameras.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=af4n6wZCgs0

Mycroft H · 05-06-2012 5:04pm

droidus wrote: »

Nah, cyclists with cameras are simply looking for trouble, just like drivers with dashcams and women who carry rape alarms.

My dad got deliberately reversed into by a car in front of him in a housing estate before Christmas. It was a scam to get insurance money. The case dragged out for ages until we got CCTV from a house that proved the car having reversed into my dad. We only then got payout from their insurers. That took 3 months.

If there was a dash cam in the car, it could have been sorted in a week. I now use one for that reason. I'm not looking for trouble, I've better things to be worrying about during my day to day business. But its there if I ever need it.

CramCycle · 05-06-2012 5:22pm

BX 19 wrote: »

If there was a dash cam in the car, it could have been sorted in a week. I now use one for that reason. I'm not looking for trouble, I've better things to be worrying about during my day to day business. But its there if I ever need it.

Oddly enough, I usually have a video camera recording in the car for any trouble but would only video scenery and descents on my bike if I had a camera.

My main reason is that the few times I drive, I don't want the guy who rear ends me to get punished because some Kamikaze driver on the M50 decided to test my breaking power by not indicating, not looking and then swerving over regardless.

nomdeboardie · 05-06-2012 5:38pm

doozerie wrote: »

... The cycle lane simply stops abruptly, throws its hands up in the air, shrugs, and says "feck it, yer on yer own, just remember you can't sue me 'cos I'm not here, right" in that helpful way that many of them do. ...

:pac::pac::pac:
[I'm not familiar enough with this piece of road to comment, but this is a lovely description of disappearing cycle lanes]

droidus · 05-06-2012 8:29pm

BX 19 wrote: »

My dad got deliberately reversed into by a car in front of him in a housing estate before Christmas. It was a scam to get insurance money. The case dragged out for ages until we got CCTV from a house that proved the car having reversed into my dad. We only then got payout from their insurers. That took 3 months.

If there was a dash cam in the car, it could have been sorted in a week. I now use one for that reason. I'm not looking for trouble, I've better things to be worrying about during my day to day business. But its there if I ever need it.

Yep, of course. Id just like to point out that I was being sarcastic in that last post and parodying the whole blame the victim nonsense that gets trotted out everytime anyone on the roads with a camera is the victim of dangerous driving.

I thought my comment was outrageous enough for this to be obvious, but I may not have been clear enough (or there may be some malfunctioning sarcasm detectors around here), either way, apologies.

deadlyspot.com · 05-06-2012 9:59pm

Well, to some we are going to have agree to disagree. There is plenty to be learnt from making a video of road usage. There is no perfect road user, but there are plenty of examples of poor road use.

Back to the original question about close passes. Simply, what should be done about it?

galwaycyclist · 05-06-2012 10:21pm

deadlyspot.com wrote: »

Back to the original question about close passes. Simply, what should be done about it?

At a political level, Cyclist.ie are looking for a mandatory minimum passing distance for motorists passing cyclists such as is found in the French traffic regulations. This is not going to happen unless enough people contact their politicians to insist that it be done. So join your local cycle campaign or cyclist.ie directly and start campaigning.

At a personal level... Well having watched some of your videos I would feel that you could do more to impose your presence on following motorists. This is about more than just road positioning it is also about communicating your awareness of them and the traffic situation to them. The basic way of communicating this the "shoulder check" where you check over your right or left shoulder to establish what is happening behind you. This may be just a quick glance or a proper turn and stare. You don't just look but also try to make eye contact with following drivers. In city traffic, you should be throwing out one ofthese every 30 seconds or so and always before any position change or manouevre.

It would be interesting to see if you found a change in driver behaviour if you did this more often.

droidus · 05-06-2012 10:29pm

I was driving around Northern Spain last week and they had tons of 'cyclists about' signs, as well as several large 1.5m safe overtaking diagrams.

Obviously, this isnt Spain, but Im sure a bit of signage might help in some areas at least.

deadlyspot.com · 05-06-2012 10:32pm

galwaycyclist wrote: »

At a political level, Cyclist.ie are looking for a mandatory minimum passing distance for motorists passing cyclists such as is found in the French traffic regulations. This is not going to happen unless enough people contact their politicians to insist that it be done. So join your local cycle campaign or cyclist.ie directly and start campaigning.

At a personal level... Well having watched some of your videos I would feel that you could do more to impose your presence on following motorists. This is about more than just road positioning it is also about communicating your awareness of them and the traffic situation to them. The basic way of communicating this the "shoulder check" where you check over your right or left shoulder to establish what is happening behind you. This may be just a quick glance or a proper turn and stare. You don't just look but also try to make eye contact with following drivers. In city traffic, you should be throwing out one ofthese every 30 seconds or so and always before any position change or manouevre.

It would be interesting to see if you found a change in driver behaviour if you did this more often.

Well, that's interesting that you say that. I've been in many different road positions when these have happened. Doesn't explain a lot of the close passes that I have gotten from a lot of drivers. I do fully expect to be given space on the road. I think there needs to be more done that just that.

Mycroft H · 06-06-2012 12:12am

Very interesting blog piece, one to which a lot of us can relate.

Early in the process of becoming a cyclist I suffered the worst ‘accident’ I have yet had on a bicycle. I was travelling to Staines one morning along a cyclepath. The cyclepath took me onto a roundabout for a right turn towards Staines. A motorist, who did not expect me or see me, came from my left broadside into me. My precious first roadbike was folded in half under her wheels while I got a sharp smack to the hip from her front and a second sharp smack to my shoulder from her windscreen before being thrown forward onto the tarmac as she finally braked.

It was entirely her fault not giving me priority on that roundabout. However the accident would not have occurred had I not been so fearful of traffic. When I cover the same route now I am not on the cycletrack emerging from a little used road onto the roundabout, I am on the main road, dominating my lane where I cannot fail to be seen. I read John Franklin’s excellent book ‘Cyclecraft’, trained to Bikeability 3 and became a fully converted vehicular cyclist. I have had a couple of minor collisions with careless motorists since but they have been anticipated and controlled, and have left me with no significant injury. The three occasions I have needed medical treatment since the Staines crash have all followed from my sliding to the ground in icy or greasy conditions when I have been pushing the boundaries.

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.ie/2012/02/my-personal-journey-with-bicycle.html

Alanstrainor · 06-06-2012 12:22am

Lumen wrote: »

This phenomenon does not require lack of skill; it can be explained by randomness and survivor bias.

You take a population of cyclists, some of those will have close calls. Some of those will buy cameras to record their journeys. The ones that stop having close calls will not upload the videos to Youtube (and will presumably give up recording altogether) leaving only the really unlucky ones.

Some people think the videos discourage cycling, some people think they are educational, most people don't really care.

I can only write from experience, and my experience of cycling around Dublin for the past few years is that the rate of life-threatening incidents is close to zero, and those that do occur are usually preventable with either a bit more patience on my part or everyone else learning to drive/cycle/walk properly.

And as a cyclist with a helmet cam, I can honestly say that in the last 2 years my rate of life threatening incidents is practically 0 also. I quite like the idea of having a cam all the same though.

AltAccount · 06-06-2012 9:09am

deadlyspot.com wrote: »

Well, that's interesting that you say that. I've been in many different road positions when these have happened. Doesn't explain a lot of the close passes that I have gotten from a lot of drivers. I do fully expect to be given space on the road. I think there needs to be more done that just that.

But do you take any of his points on board with regard to improving observation and increasing "connection" with other vehicle drivers?

monument · 06-06-2012 11:13am

Looking a lot like blaming the victim yet again... One poster is surly enough to talk about eye contact? In the context of major driver error does eye contact really need a follow up question?

Eye contact I agree can make a difference, but you can't always make eye contact with everybody behind you and even when you can it may or may not be effective.

More to the point: Should the focus not be on targeting the driver misbehaviour here?

Jawgap · 06-06-2012 11:44am

galwaycyclist wrote: »

At a political level, Cyclist.ie are looking for a mandatory minimum passing distance for motorists passing cyclists such as is found in the French traffic regulations. .......

Is the issue not that we need another law, rather we need better enforcement of existing laws?

There's already a dangerous overtaking offence on the books (S10 of SI No. 182 of 1997 -ROAD TRAFFIC (TRAFFIC AND PARKING) REGULATIONS, 1997) and a Guard can issue a Fixed Penalty Notice for it.

In 2011, according to the RSA's stats, 533 drivers were issued penalty points fo "Offences Related to Overtaking" in Dublin (compared to 104699 who were done for speeding . The figures for other counties are available.

You can also be done for dangerous driving, driving without reasonable consideration, or careless driving, depending on the manoeuver.

A mandatory minimum distance won't make the Guards do more enforcement, if anything it might be a redundant piece of legislation as you could see Guards not wanting to issue a fixed penalty for it for fear they would end up having to spend a court session arguing with some defence solicitor over whether a car was one or two metres from a cylcist.

Saying that, it would send a message and having done a small bit of cycling in France I was quite impressed one day when a Gendarme pulled a driver for passing too close to the group I was in.

Dublin Cyclying Campaign have some information on what do to if your overtaken in a dangerous manner

AltAccount · 06-06-2012 12:15pm

monument wrote: »

Looking a lot like blaming the victim yet again... One poster is surly enough to talk about eye contact? In the context of major driver error does eye contact really need a follow up question?

Eye contact I agree can make a difference, but you can't always make eye contact with everybody behind you and even when you can it may or may not be effective.

More to the point: Should the focus not be on targeting the driver misbehaviour here?

I'm not meaning to blame the victim, and I'm not talking about any specific incident, more addressing the fact that the OP seems to have more "close shaves" than the average cyclist (in my experience).

I'm wondering if there are any factors that can change to make the OP more safe in their riding.

I think we should focus on everyone's behaviour. Drivers should not be let away with poor driving, cyclists and all other road users have a duty to keep themselves safe.

droidus · 06-06-2012 12:36pm

AltAccount wrote: »

I'm not meaning to blame the victim, and I'm not talking about any specific incident, more addressing the fact that the OP seems to have more "close shaves" than the average cyclist (in my experience).

The only relevant words there are the last three.

On my commute there is a stretch of road where I get a close pass at least once a week, sometimes more. I get a dangerously close pass once every couple of months. The other 90% of my commute is fine.

This leads me to believe that, depending on route and time of commute, it is entirely possible for a cyclist to have a 'close shave' a few times a week that has nothing whatsoever to do with their behaviour, and I would venture the opinion that continually suggesting that the victim of dangerous driving must somehow be at fault (whilst providing no evidence to back this claim up) is a somewhat bizarre stance to take.

enas · 06-06-2012 12:44pm

droidus wrote: »

This leads me to believe that, depending on route and time of commute, it is entirely possible for a cyclist to have a 'close shave' a few times a week that has nothing whatsoever to do with their behaviour, and I would venture the opinion that continually suggesting that the victim of dangerous driving must somehow be at fault (whilst providing no evidence to back this claim up) is a somewhat bizarre stance to take.

Exactly.

That's getting really annoying. There can be so many different reasons why the rate at which we each experience incidents can vary from one to another that speculations about the OP's responsibility in those incidents are nothing but victim blaming, or if you prefer, a reversal of responsibilities. If you suspect the OP might bear some responsibility for his alleged high number of incidents (with which I disagree, most of his videos highlight something other than incidents), then go ahead, watch them, and tell us what was wrong and what could have been done better. Who knows, you might end up actually having a point and educate the OP, and all of us at the same time. But those groundless speculations are really getting on my nerves.

AltAccount · 06-06-2012 12:47pm

droidus wrote: »

The only relevant words there are the last three.

That's why I included them

Although, within that experience, I'd count thousands of miles on my bike, conversations with mates who have done many more miles than me, my observation of other vehicles overtaking other cyclists while I'm driving (or a passenger in a car), my reading of the responses here etc. etc.

droidus wrote: »

On my commute there is a stretch of road where I get a close pass at least once a week, sometimes more. I get a dangerously close pass once every couple of months. The other 90% of my commute is fine.

And that speaks to my question - can you do anything to actively reduce the number of dangerous passes at that one particular section, or is it solely the responsibility of the other vehicle drivers to avoid you?

droidus wrote: »

This leads me to believe that, depending on route and time of commute, it is entirely possible for a cyclist to have a 'close shave' a few times a week that has nothing whatsoever to do with their behaviour, and I would venture the opinion that continually suggesting that the victim of dangerous driving must somehow be at fault (whilst providing no evidence to back this claim up) is a somewhat bizarre stance to take.

I'm not suggesting that the victim of dangerous driving may be at fault. I'm suggesting that people who know they're getting to a difficult position have a responsibility to do everything in their power to avoid the conflict, even if they're in the right.

If you are the victim of dangerous driving, you're the victim.
If you are entering into a potentially dangerous situation and you take no action to prevent the danger (provided it's within your power to do so), you have a certain amount of culpability in the outcome.
If you are repeatedly finding yourself in potentially dangerous situations, you need to look at yourself and your riding/driving.

I apply the same logic to my driving too - if I have a "close one", then I'll shrug it off and chalk it down to one of those things that just happens sometimes.
If I find myself having a few "close ones" within a short period (even if none of them are primarily my fault), it's very much a red flag to me that I may need to adjust my driving or to work more on my observation and anticipation.

All my €0.02 obviously...

enas · 06-06-2012 12:48pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Is the issue not that we need another law, rather we need better enforcement of existing laws?

The fact that a law in itself is clearly not sufficient to deal with the issue doesn't mean that the idea has to be dismissed. There's surely many things to do to improve conditions. Concentrating on each individually and dismiss it on the basis that it won't be sufficient in itself is not a very constructive attitude, and generally leads to doing absolutely nothing. Now, if you're happy with the status quo, that's probably fine for you.

droidus · 06-06-2012 12:50pm

enas wrote: »

Exactly.

That's getting really annoying. There can be so many different reasons why the rate at which we each experience incidents can vary from one to another that speculations about the OP's responsibility in those incidents are nothing but victim blaming, or if you prefer, a reversal of responsibilities. If you suspect the OP might bear some responsibility for his alleged high number of incidents (with which I disagree, most of his videos highlight something other than incidents), then go ahead, watch them, and tell us what was wrong and what could have been done better. Who knows, you might end up actually having a point and educate the OP, and all of us at the same time. But those groundless speculations are really getting on my nerves.

Yes, me too. You see this all the time on traffic cam vids on youtube, and even with videos of police brutality... the victim's behaviour is scrutinised to a microscopic extent in an attempt to find some flaw to justify their treatment at the hands of the perpetrator.

I had a quick flick through some of the vids, and TBH I couldn't see anything radically wrong with the way deadlyspot was cycling. Plenty of over the shoulder glances, decent road positioning, all seemed OK to me, certainly nothing blatantly wrong (not that its relevant of course).

droidus · 06-06-2012 12:55pm

AltAccount wrote: »

And that speaks to my question - can you do anything to actively reduce the number of dangerous passes at that one particular section, or is it solely the responsibility of the other vehicle drivers to avoid you?

Its the phibsbro>finglas section of the N2, Ive gone into it in depth in other threads. The only solution (it seems) is to avoid the route.

And to add - yes it is the sole responsibility of a driver not to endanger another road user or pedestrian when they are behaving in a predictable, legal and safe manner on the roads, and even if/when they are not.

Beasty · 06-06-2012 1:00pm

In my experience of cycling these roads over the last 5 years or so, with a total of around 30,000km, I have only been passed "dangerously" closely only once - the motor vehicle itself was not an issue, but the driver totally misjudged the length of his trailer and missed my foot by a matter of inches.

Now I've already acknowledged that a lot of my riding is on country roads, and I do no cycling in the city centre, but actually when I think about it this makes the vehicles that are overtaking me typically much faster than in the city centre

Having a statutory minimum passing distance is difficult to enforce, but also I'm not sure it actually achieves much. Yes if someone is passing at 100kph I would hope for 1.5m clearance, but if they are only passing at 40kph I really don't mind if they are a bit closer. It's the turbulance at high speed that requires the largest passing distance, particularly with larger vehicles. As Jawgap has mentioned, there are already dangerous driving laws that can be applied for vehicles passing too closely

AltAccount · 06-06-2012 1:01pm

droidus wrote: »

And to add - yes it is the sole responsibility of a driver not to endanger another road user or pedestrian when they are behaving in a predictable, legal and safe manner on the roads, and even if/when they are not.

Well, it may be the sole "legal" responsibility for a driver not to endanger me when I'm cycling predictably, but that's cold comfort if I find myself waking up in a hospital/ambulance.

I will forever consider myself responsible for doing everything I can to keep myself safe.
I consider all other road users to be unpredictable morons, and I will not cede an ounce of responsibility for my safety onto another road user.

When I am in an incident that is someone else's fault. I'll have no issue with bollocking them out of it/suing them/pressing for their prosecution.

droidus · 06-06-2012 1:04pm

Beasty wrote: »

Now I've already acknowledged that a lot of my riding is on country roads, and I do no cycling in the city centre, but actually when I think about it this makes the vehicles that are overtaking me typically much faster than in the city centre

Well, I think this is key, and Id like to ask AltAccount if his 'thousands of miles' ar done on city centre roads during rush hour.

I can identify the exact choke points on my commute where I am most likely to have someone pass too close, and even with this knowledge it is impossible to avoid completely bar dismounting or riding on the pavement.

AltAccount · 06-06-2012 1:05pm

Beasty wrote: »

Having a statutory minimum passing distance is difficult to enforce, but also I'm not sure it actually achieves much. Yes if someone is passing at 100kph I would hope for 1.5m clearance, but if they are only passing at 40kph I really don't mind if they are a bit closer. It's the turbulance at high speed that requires the largest passing distance, particularly with larger vehicles. As Jawgap has mentioned, there are already dangerous driving laws that can be applied for vehicles passing too closely

It was always my understanding that the 1.5m overtaking law protected the cyclist by making a driver overtake by a greater distance than the average cyclist can wobble/fall/swerve.

I.E. if there is an instance of a car impacting a cyclist, you can pretty much presume the driver is automatically at fault, unless the cyclist threw themselves in front of the car.

It's a way of giving cyclists primacy on the roads I think.

droidus · 06-06-2012 1:06pm

AltAccount wrote: »

I consider all other road users to be unpredictable morons, and I will not cede an ounce of responsibility for my safety onto another road user.

You cede it every time you cross the road, get on your bike on in the car. You can do everything perfectly and still get knocked down or crashed into.

Close Pass

Comments