Had my first crash this morning

fletch

Coming up Camden Street, cycling parallel to a car (can't remember make/model), when all of a sudden the car decides to turn left down a small alley. I clip the front wing/bumper, bike flicks up into the air, somehow I manage to land on both tyres, bit of a wiggle and I stop, shaken, cut ankle but alive. I look behind and the lady has stopped, she asks if I'm okay, other than a cut ankle, I'm fine so I wave to say I'm okay and I'm on my way again. Gears are a bit of a mess but that should be easy to sort and the saddle isn't sitting right.
Big wake up call though!

kenmc

Wow, you were steeped.
Although the way I read it, you make it seem like your fault ("I clipped the front wing/bumper" rather than "she clipped me with...")
Anyway, there's a cycle land and/or bus lane there, so it sounds like she's totally at fault if she turned left into you. I still would have taken her details in case there's damage to the bike that you didn't see - e.g. if the rear hanger got bent or something and needs replacing.
Glad you're still upright though.

Lumen

Fletch, earlier.

seamus

fletch wrote: »

I look behind and the lady has stopped, she asks if I'm okay, other than a cut ankle, I'm fine so I wave to say I'm okay and I'm on my way again.

Urgh. Good to hear you're alright. It's hard to think straight when your mind suddenly went OHFÚCKOHFÚCKOHFÚCKOHFÚCKOHFÚCKOHFÚCKOHFÚCKOHFÚCK, but it's always good to get someone's details - she may have damaged your mech or your derailleur hanger. Not a ridiculously expensive fix (unless you're running XTR or Dura-Ace), but a cost nonetheless.

I'm always wary of cycling parallel to cars. I try to make a point or either getting in front of them (into the driver's vision) or dropping behind them (where I'm in control). Not always possible though.

At least you managed to learn a lesson without hitting the deck. I wish I could say the same

fletch

kenmc wrote: »

Wow, you were steeped.
Although the way I read it, you make it seem like your fault ("I clipped the front wing/bumper" rather than "she clipped me with...")
Anyway, there's a cycle land and/or bus lane there, so it sounds like she's totally at fault if she turned left into you. I still would have taken her details in case there's damage to the bike that you didn't see - e.g. if the rear hanger got bent or something and needs replacing.
Glad you're still upright though.

I was pretty lucky alright....I kinda put the blame 50:50 but yeh I suppose I was on the bicycle lane and she should have seen me from the lights at Cuffe Street junction. Hopefully nothing is damaged now. In hindsight, yeh I probably should have got her details but I was running on adrenaline after it and not really thinking.

cgf

Actually saw that from a bus. Usually cycle to work but we have a work gig tonite so on the bus this morning..

I didn't catch the lead up as I was dozing away but from what I saw ye were very lucky - some fairly decent bike handling skills to stay upright as she gave ye a fair old clip but in fairness to her she stopped dead upon impact otherwise you may not have been so lucky.

I saw her lower her window and check if you were all right but the bus pulled off then so didn't see whether ye came back waving your fists

Good to hear you are ok.

Edit: The car looked like a Primera - it was silver coloured and the start of the reg was 04 D 50 for definite - the remainder was something like 432 but not 100% on the trailing digits but was a 5 digit number. I would say it was somebody on their regular route to work so if you loiter around the vicinity any morning you should be able to catchup with her, if needs be.

kenmc

Don't see how the blame could be 50:50. If it was a dual carriageway and she turned left into a car on the inside lane it would be 100% her fault. Same thing here.

Caroline_ie

Sorry to hear - that's some bike handling skills you have to land on your wheels
Cup of tea and a piece of cake ill make you better

blorg

Drivers have to make sure the cycle track is clear before executing a left turn across it. If a driver suddenly pulls into your path in front of you and you do not stop immediately it will indeed be the cyclist making the impact with the object that is now suddenly in front of them... doesn't mean it is the cyclist's fault. Having said that it is prudent to expect this behaviour, I always try to wary of any car beside me coming up to a left junction and will slow and be ready to stop if necessary.

fletch

blorg wrote: »

Drivers have to make sure the cycle track is clear before executing a left turn across it. If a driver suddenly pulls into your path in front of a cyclist and they do not stop immediately it will indeed be the cyclist making the impact with the object that is now suddenly in front of them... doesn't mean it is the cyclist's fault. Having said that it is prudent to expect this behaviour, I always try to wary of any car beside me coming up to a left junction and will slow and be ready to stop if necessary.

I didn't really know that, thats kinda why I didn't blame her 100%. Thanks for all the kind words. That's mad that you saw it cgf!

kenmc

Just thinking about it, if her front wing hit him, it means that he was at least level with her passenger window when she began to execute the maneouver.
Shocking lack of observation on her part.

Lumen

This is precisely why cycle lanes are a bad idea.

Cyclists are moved "out of harms way", which means drivers don't need to consciously overtake them, and therefore tend to ignore them and focus on the other cars.

It only takes a slip of concentration (e.g. not specifically looking out for a cyclist in your blind spot) and this happens.

seamus

kenmc wrote: »

Shocking lack of observation on her part.

Something I've always thought was lacking with most driving schools is that they teach what to do to pass your test, but they don't teach you *why* you do these things. You're told to look in your mirrors and your blindspot before turning, but you're not actually told why you're doing this. As we all know, it's very possible to look in all of your mirrors but not actually be consciously processing the data coming in through your eyes. A tester can check whether your head and your eyes are moving, but unfortunately they can't test whether you actually know why your head and eyes are moving

On the other hand if you do these actions thinking, "Ok, check for bikes and motorbikes", then you'll see them.

WicklowRacer

Camden Street/Wexford Street are a nightmare for cycling because of the parking either side, the tight cycle lanes and the numerous side turns.

Ignore the lanes here and ride in the traffic flow. Its safer.

fletch

WicklowRacer wrote: »

Camden Street/Wexford Street are a nightmare for cycling because of the parking either side, the tight cycle lanes and the numerous side turns.

Ignore the lanes here and ride in the traffic flow. Its safer.

Don't forget the shocking state of the road surface.

tomasrojo

Lumen wrote: »

This is precisely why cycle lanes are a bad idea.

I remember reading that in the Netherlands car are supposed to merge with the cycle lane if they intend to turn at a junction, rather than swing across the cycle lane. Generally, the cycle lanes there are sufficiently wide that they have to be treated as another lane.

I personally think even Dutch cycle lanes are a poor substitute for using the road, but at least you don't see nonsense like a cycle lane that is narrower than the width a bike's handlebars, or a cycle lane that takes part of a standard traffic lane, leaving the remainder more narrow than a car, encouraging hazardous overtaking.

DBCyc

That's terrible driving, glad to hear you're okay fletch.

fletch wrote: »

Don't forget the shocking state of the road surface.

Indeed, that's where I have had my only commuting spill to date (touch wood). It was coming down wexford street just outside whelans on a wet day, I swerved to avoid a crack in the road only to steer into another one as there was bus beside me and I couldn't go anywhere else. My foot then slipped off the wet pedal (I now use cleats!), I lost control of the handlebars and ended up in a mess on the kerb, thankfully not under the bus!

No real damage done other than grazing and severe bruising of the elbow, and a damaged ego! All the cool kids outside whelan's thought it was funny!

My lesson was to take it very handy down camden street / wexford street in future as the surface is terrible. Also I have had a few near misses around town when cars have tried to cut in front and turn left like happened to the OP and I would echo blorgs advice above and be wary of any car along side me on the approach to a junction.

stopped_clock

A similar thing happened to me a while back - ie crashed into a car turning left across me. I'm fairly sure I was in a cycle lane, but it's a while back so can't be sure. (Across the road from the British embassy FWIW, but can't remember if it was before or after they did up that road.)

What's the story legally if I'm cycling faster than the car in this situation? Am I partially liable because I'm 'overtaking on the left'? Or is it a straightforward case of the car always being wrong because they changed lanes without looking?

At the time I considered myself at least partially responsible (not necessarily legally) because I'd ended up in the driver's blind spot. Lesson learnt etc, but I do think that on-road cycle lanes encourage cyclists to undertake in slow-but-moving traffic when they otherwise would not.

stopped_clock

Oh and remember you can check car make and model against reg on www.cartell.ie.

Is it ok to post reg nos in the forum?

seamus

stopped_clock wrote: »

What's the story legally if I'm cycling faster than the car in this situation? Am I partially liable because I'm 'overtaking on the left'? Or is it a straightforward case of the car always being wrong because they changed lanes without looking?

If it's a mandatory cycle lane, then you would not be permitted to leave the cycle lane except to overtake a hazard, therefore you would not be liable for overtaking on the left.

If it's a non-mandatory lane then you should always overtake on the right except in the usual threee circumstances.

Of course, you should always overtake on the right in all circumstances, but the people who make the law never consider the possibility that bikes can go faster than 5mph.

petethedrummer

fletch wrote: »

In hindsight, yeh I probably should have got her details but I was running on adrenaline after it and not really thinking.

You'll remember next time. Snap the number plate with your camera phone. I did an advanced driving a few years ago and the intructor said always to have a disposable camera in the glove box, so you can take a few snaps if you get into a crash. Will help to prevent false claims and the photos refresh your memory.

Lumen

Overtaking regs are usually bollixed by traffic i.e. the "don't undertake" rule for cars doesn't apply if you're in slow moving traffic and your lane happens to be going faster than the one on the right. This creates a grey area in terms of what constitutes slow moving traffic.

When in doubt, take the lane.

kenmc

Lumen wrote: »

Overtaking regs are usually bollixed by traffic i.e. the "don't undertake" rule for cars traffic (not just cars; also trucks, busses etc) doesn't apply if you're in slow moving traffic and your lane happens to be going faster than the one on the right. This creates a grey area in terms of what constitutes slow moving traffic.

When in doubt, take the lane.

So that'd be pretty much all bike lanes in the city then you're allowed to undertake cos you're pretty much always faster than the cars.

markpb

seamus wrote: »

I'm always wary of cycling parallel to cars. I try to make a point or either getting in front of them (into the driver's vision) or dropping behind them (where I'm in control). Not always possible though.

I learned from experience always to watch the front wheel when I'm parallel to a car - it's the first indication that they're about to do something stupid.

kenmc

markpb wrote: »

I learned from experience always to watch the front wheel when I'm parallel to a car - it's the first indication that they're about to do something stupid.

Yeah that and the little tiny indicator which is usually on the left wing above the wheel - although that of course is never a reliable indicator (yeah, pun!) of an impending turn, the wheels are.

Lumen

kenmc wrote: »

So that'd be pretty much all bike lanes in the city then you're allowed to undertake cos you're pretty much always faster than the cars.

I guess so. I'm usually too busy cutting up buses and bunnyhopping over the footpads to notice where the cycle lanes are.

lukester

Bummer about the crash, had similar happen to me good few years ago on Camden St. I was lucky, realised what she was about to do and stopped sharpish. Still got clipped by her wing mirror. Made me much more cautious in that scenario, obviously.

petethedrummer wrote: »

I did an advanced driving a few years ago and the intructor said always to have a disposable camera in the glove box

Disposable camera? Das ist zooooo noughties, ja?

markpb

kenmc wrote: »

Yeah that and the little tiny indicator which is usually on the left wing above the wheel - although that of course is never a reliable indicator (yeah, pun!) of an impending turn, the wheels are.

Indicators... pah! I can't fathom why you'd want to look at them

Incidentally, is now a good time to look for support for my new mandatory car modification that disables the steering wheel while the indicators are off. No indicators, no turning. It also cures the muppetry thing of indicating left and turning right but unfortunately can't stop someone indicating without turning.

kenmc

Lumen wrote: »

I guess so. I'm usually too busy cutting up buses and bunnyhopping over the footpads to notice where the cycle lanes are.

Oh I know, we should all get one of those laser cycle lane generator thingys, and then the world is our cycle-lane.
(Danny Macaskill would especially benefit from that, what with the danger of some muppet turning left across a tree. )

kenmc

markpb wrote: »

Indicators... pah! I can't fathom why you'd want to look at them

But but but they're so pretty, blinking away to their own little euro-beat, it's really hypnotic.

Besides - they're useful. If you can see one blinking, then you're definitely going to have to take evasive action. Whereas if it's not blinking, you're only almost definitely going to have to take evasive action.

tomasrojo

seamus wrote: »

If it's a mandatory cycle lane, then you would not be permitted to leave the cycle lane except to overtake a hazard, therefore you would not be liable for overtaking on the left.

I think that it's legally very grey. As you all know, about 70% of cyclists killed in Dublin are killed by left-turning large vehicles at junctions. Very many of these have been in cycle lanes at the time. I haven't heard of any case where blame has attached to the large-vehicle driver for cutting across an adjacent "lane". I think that until a case is tried it is legally unclear whether a "cycle track" (to use the legal term) is a real traffic lane, or whether a cyclist using one at a junction is illegally passing on the inside. Of course, if he leaves the lane, the cyclist is disobeying the 1998 regulation that compels him to use cycle tracks where they are provided.

It would seem perverse that they have passed contradictory laws in this fashion, but I suspect that that is exactly what they have done.

Hopefully the mandatory requirement will go shortly, and, less likely, these suicide lanes at junctions will be removed.

tomasrojo

In fact, here's a case where the defence explicitly invoked the law that forbids passing on the inside in the case of a cyclist killed at a junction by a truck.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/victim-may-have-tried-to-overtake-truck-61246.html

Not sure whether there was a cycle lane at the junction though.

blorg

seamus wrote: »

If it's a mandatory cycle lane, then you would not be permitted to leave the cycle lane except to overtake a hazard, therefore you would not be liable for overtaking on the left.

If it's a non-mandatory lane then you should always overtake on the right except in the usual threee circumstances.

Of course, you should always overtake on the right in all circumstances, but the people who make the law never consider the possibility that bikes can go faster than 5mph.

I don't think this is the legal situation at all. Mandatory cycle lane you cannot leave to overtake but this does not mean you can undertake traffic to your right, you also have the option of slowing so you do not undertake!

The legal exception regarding undertaking is that it is only allowed when traffic in both lanes are moving slowly (in the UK, "moving in queues"):

You may overtake on the left when:
- You want to go straight ahead when the driver in front of you has moved out and signalled that they intend to turn right.
- You have signalled that you intend to turn left.
- Traffic in both lanes is moving slowly and traffic in the left-hand lane is moving more quickly than the traffic in the right-hand lane.

A non-mandatory lane you can only leave to overtake something in the lane, you cannot leave it to overtake something in the lane to your right (and according to my reading you cannot undertake it unless it is "moving slowly.")

As for the general non-legal question of whether cyclists should always overtake on the right, I have been driven into while overtaking on the right as the driver expected all cyclists to overtake on the left. I expect this is a common enough presumption.

seamus

Actually you're probably both right. If the law were to be applied rigourously, you're probably required to wait in the mandatory cycle lane behind the vehicle, unless it's moving slowly in traffic.

kenmc

blorg wrote: »

The legal exception regarding undertaking is that it is only allowed when traffic in both lanes are moving slowly (in the UK, "moving in queues"):

So, legally speaking, when a cyclist comes upon a line of traffic in front of them, stopped at lights, they should wait behind the lastmost vehicle in that queue? But where - in the cycle lane, or in the main traffic lane? Because if you stop in the cycle lane, then the next car will pull up alongside you, and you will never be able to move again because you will be undertaking all the cars who subsequently join the tailback.

I think the only workable solution is for us all to get back into our cars - it's drier and warmer in there anyway, and you can get away with not paying attention to mirrors or amber lights and stuff.

DualFrontDiscs

kenmc wrote: »

I think the only workable solution is for us all to get back into our cars - it's drier and warmer in there anyway, and you can get away with not paying attention to mirrors or amber lights and stuff.

It's easier to listen to the radio, apply makeup, eat food and talk on the mobile too. If only there was an upside to cycling......

DFD

blorg

kenmc wrote: »

So, legally speaking, when a cyclist comes upon a line of traffic in front of them, stopped at lights, they should wait behind the lastmost vehicle in that queue?

Eh, no, you can undertake if the traffic to right is "moving slowly", I think this would be interpreted to include stopped.

How slow is slowly is not defined but it does make a certain amount of sense to have a rule against undertaking at high speed.

Cabaal

I don't see how the blame is 50/50, you were beside her regardless of if you were in a cycle lane or not she turned without looking and accordingly was driving without due care and attention. So 100% her fault.

petethedrummer

lukester wrote: »

Disposable camera? Das ist zooooo noughties, ja?

Ja it vas the ninetees. Now, ich use mein handy.

fletch

Well made it home in one piece

Good news and bad news....The good news first....managed to fix the saddle and front derailleur, both had moved out of place due to the impact. The bad news....the rear wheel has a slight buckle in it. Anybody got any good guides on fixing a buckled wheel?? Or would I be better leaving it to the professionals?

ateam

fletch wrote: »

Well made it home in one piece

Good news and bad news....The good news first....managed to fix the saddle and front derailleur, both had moved out of place due to the impact. The bad news....the rear wheel has a slight buckle in it. Anybody got any good guides on fixing a buckled wheel?? Or would I be better leaving it to the professionals?

Find a good spot to chuck it in the canal. That will sort it out once and for all.:)

blorg

fletch wrote: »

the rear wheel has a slight buckle in it. Anybody got any good guides on fixing a buckled wheel?? Or would I be better leaving it to the professionals?

I have never tried it myself, possibly I should... Just google for "wheel truing"

http://www.google.ie/search?q=wheel+truing

tomasrojo

I've trued wheels quite a bit, mostly after replacing broken spokes. I found it quite easy compared to a lot of other maintenance. It requires patience and care (and a correctly sized spoke key), but I could get wheels tolerably straight and round. Best to do it when you're watching television or something as it's a bit boring.

You put the bike into a stand, or turn it upside down, and then spin the wheel slowly looking for the point at which the rim comes closest to the brakes. Tackle that spot first. You loosen the spoke on one side of the deformity and tighten the spoke on the other, both a quarter turn, max. You loosen the spoke that is on the side of the rim that was close to the brake pad, and tighen the spoke on the other side.

To know which way to tighten, imagine you are tightening the spoke with a screwdriver in the channel between the rims. Clockwise tightens, anti-clockwise loosens.

Repeat until that deformity is gone. Then tackle the next one. Very important to take it very slowly and do small turns.

You can buy a combination spoke key that has the three most common sizes. That'll do. It's not very expensive.

tomasrojo

Actually, what I said there isn't quite true. You don't concentrate on one deformity until it's gone. You actually do the quarter turns and then spin the wheel slowly again, looking for the biggest deformity remaining, which you then tackle. It's usually the same one, but not necessarily.

seamus

The hardest part about truing wheels is understanding the concept really. You really need to take your time - if you've only got twenty minutes to spare, don't bother trying to rush it, wait until you've an hour or two to spare. It might still only take you twenty minutes, but you won't rush it.

If you can get your hands on a truing stand, do. This will let you true the wheel to within fractions of a mm. Just doing it by sight with the wheel in the bike, I haven't been able to get more accurate than 2-3 mm of a wobble. I have nowhere to store or use a truing stand though, so I'm stuck with that method for the moment.

Funsterdelux

I had a similar collision a few years back crossing the M1 out of Swords, turning right at one of the many roundabouts. A woman cut across me, she just clipped me too, I was placing myself on her bonnet in my head. She did stop and was more shook than I was at the time. No damage to the bike until later that day sitting in my office, my bike behind my chair and I heard a "ping", oh a spoke broke.

After that I made sure always to wear my high-vis apparel and in some cases you have to act like you're driving a car and take up as much space as possible.

tomasrojo

It probably makes me appear a little eccentric, but the only high-viz thing I wear most days during daylit hours are "cuffs", which I put around my wrists. That way you can wave at motorists who you suspect haven't seen you. I think that a small bit of high-viz moving in an agitated fashion is more visible than a large bit of high-viz moving in a smooth fashion (how agitated the motion is depends on the level of hazard you feel you're facing). I think motion camouflage is a much bigger problem than visibility, per se, and a wave breaks that motion camouflage.

Funsterdelux

oh yeah, I also get animated too!

And a good stare goes a long way

:eek:

kenmc

Funsterdelux wrote: »

And a good stare goes a long way:eek:

Best done at night though, with a helmet-mounted Fenix That really fixes them in place like a rabbit.

rottenhat

tomasrojo wrote: »

You loosen the spoke on one side of the deformity and tighten the spoke on the other, both a quarter turn, max.

Shouldn't that be loosen the spoke on the near side and tighten the two spokes on the far side half as much as you loosen the near side spoke? That's what Lennard Zinn recommends, and I think Jobst Brandt says the same, so I've always done that. Sounds like you're getting decent results your way though.

Oh yeah, and after working on one side of the wheel for a little while, flip the wheel over and work on the other side for a while or you'll tend to pull the wheel out of dish.

tomasrojo

Thanks, rottenhat. I'm sure there are better ways than the way I'm doing it. But I guess my way works out ok because it's very incremental.