Close Pass

Mycroft H

Jawgap wrote: »

Anyway, re the Aircoach one - the last thing you want to be in a situation like that is assertive. I cycle that stretch regularly - if it had been me, I would have just slowed, let the bus pass before I even got near the bridge and I certainly would have slowed down once I realised there was bus along side me and we were heading for those bridges.

He seems to want to hold his line and force the bus to back off.

If I've learned one thing in the city centre, it's don't f&ck with Aircoaches (or Kavanaghs) - even where you are 100% totally right......as the guide says

"don’t be afraid to reasonably assert your rights, but try not to be too pushy or self-righteous either."

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

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. 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.

I'm familiar with the bridge at the customs house and its definitely one of the spots where I would have moved out to center lane for my own safety. Anywhere there is a pinch point, I hold my lane.

However, in saying all that, I look after myself first. So if I see a situation where the potential is there to get hurt, I'm slamming on the anchors.

-PornStar-

Jawgap wrote: »

I think you mean facetious.

I meant what I said, and I said you were getting overly concerned with minute detail. This is a ploy often used by people to get away from their initial point of view. Not saying it is the case here, but this is usually done when that point of view is indefensible.

Anyway, re the Aircoach one - the last thing you want to be in a situation like that is assertive. I cycle that stretch regularly - if it had been me, I would have just slowed, let the bus pass before I even got near the bridge and I certainly would have slowed down once I realised there was bus along side me and we were heading for those bridges.

He seems to want to hold his line and force the bus to back off.

If I've learned one thing in the city centre, it's don't f&ck with Aircoaches (or Kavanaghs) - even where you are 100% totally right......as the guide says

"don’t be afraid to reasonably assert your rights, but try not to be too pushy or self-righteous either."

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

This is so far away from your initial point now. I would be a fool to further engage with you on this particular matter.

To attempt to get back to what you were saying. As an inexperienced rider myself. I am telling you with first hand experience. That I would most likely never have bothered using my bike again, only for these videos. This is completely contrary to what you were saying, in that they would only scare people away from cycling. So as one of the people you appear to be speaking for, I am telling you, you are wrong.

John37

Do any posters here find it safer to cycle on country rural roads then in a suburban area such as the city center?

Briain O Loinsigh

The percentage of the population in Ireland that cycles is still small. Videos like these are fine for cyclists with some sort of experience ,for those without that viewpoint ,I can imagine it a different story.

Seweryn

John37 wrote: »

Do any posters here find it safer to cycle on country rural roads then in a suburban area such as the city center?

Yes, I much prefer narrow, bendy country roads to anything. I also cycle on a busy national road with some dangerous bends (nearly as dangerous as in the city, but with vehicles passing at higher speed) and very little in town, where I avoid using cycle lanes, as on my cycle to work it is too dangerous to use some particular stretches and also impractical.

I do not cycle in busy town / city and would prefer not to.

awec

Surely it's a trade off?

City centres = lots of traffic but moving at a slow enough speed.

Rural roads (especially windy country lanes) = not a lot of cars, but any there are will be travelling at speed.

-PornStar-

John37 wrote: »

Do any posters here find it safer to cycle on country rural roads then in a suburban area such as the city center?

I primarily cycle on rural roads. The vast majority of motorists are absolutely fantastic. Usually they overtake on the complete other side of the road. A lot of them are very patient when it comes to oncoming traffic, or blind corners. These ones always get a friendly wave, after I move aside when the coast is clear. HGV are usually especially courteous for some reason, usually get a flash of hazard lights when they pass.

Since being more assertive. The only incidents I have are people beeping behind me, approaching corners. Which I assume is to let me know they are behind me, and they would like me to move aside so they can pass on the corner. I must stress, that this is a very rare occurrence.

Beasty

I cycle mainly mainly rural roads, and although there have been plenty of dangerous manouvers by drivers I have not had any very close calls with motor vehicles. I put it down to being assertive most of the time, but backing off when appropriate.

Tbh, there are a few people out there that go out of their way to find problems. There are others that don't go looking for it, but will not back off when they encounter it. There are others (and I put myself in this category) who when they anticipate issues will take action to minimise the risk.

I'm not saying my approach will guarantee safety - nothing can do that - but I do believe it reduces any risk to myself when cycling.

Jawgap

John37 wrote: »

Do any posters here find it safer to cycle on country rural roads then in a suburban area such as the city center?

Different risks, but I'd say generally safer. I think the key determinant is speed - city traffic tends to be voluminous and slow moving - rural traffic, less of it but faster moving.

Interestingly, the RSA stats state that between 1997 and 2009:

"51.4% of the cyclists road death occurred on rural roads (i.e. road roads with speed limit more 60km/h)" Total deaths were 175 (1997 to 2009)

The figure is the reverse for serious injuries:-
364 (59.4%) of serious injuries to cyclists were on urban roads compared to 251 (40.6%) on rural roads (1997 to 2009).

Jawgap

I can't find the original report, but there was a piece of work done by the Guards and the City Council that showed that while the majority (8 out of 11) cycling fatalities between 2002 and 2006 involved left turning HGVs, the largest proportion of car -v- bike collisions involved right turning vehicles.

Side swipes were the next most frequent type of occurence.

In other words, bad and all as the left hook is, it's the right cross and rabbit punch you have to look out for;)

Linky to a piece about the report on DCC

doozerie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@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

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

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

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

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

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.