How close is too close?

Hunterbiker

http://road.cc/content/news/113083-video-caravan-firm-horrified-after-cyclist-suffers-shocking-near-miss

Saw the above on Road cc. How can you stop people like this having any license let alone s HGV one...

Inquitus

Very dangerous, vid from link (which wouldn't work for me its missing the last s) below

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlHQXLI8iiM

Cabaal

Inquitus wrote: »

Very dangerous, vid from link (which wouldn't work for me its missing the last s) below

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlHQXLI8iiM

wow, just wow thats seriously close
He's very lucky he wasn't hit with the trailer

Tenzor07

Shocking how someone can use a broken up "cyclepath" as justification for attempted murder like this...

Panda_Turtle

Crazy stuff by the van driver, guy could easily of been killed.

Don`t see what the problem is with using that cycle path though

Alek

Don`t see what the problem is with using that cycle path though

I don't see what the problem is with NOT using it.

Hunterbiker

The cyclist points out its a shared path with peds and theres lamp posts in the middle of the track.

that road is plenty wide enough to allow that HGV to pass safely but he didn't. It makes you wonder how many times he's done that before...

Koobcam

doesn't matter if there was a cycle path or not, the driver is supposed to react appropriately to driving conditions, meaning if there is someone cycling, they should give them a bit of space.

Panda_Turtle

Alek wrote: »

I don't see what the problem is with NOT using it.

Because it would be significantly safer for a cyclist on that stretch of road to use the path vs the road

Hunterbiker wrote: »

The cyclist points out its a shared path with peds and theres lamp posts in the middle of the track.

Yeah I saw that he pointed that out. Plenty of room for pedestrians and cyclists on that path, even accounting for the lamp posts etc. A lot safer than being on the road.

Koobcam wrote: »

doesn't matter if there was a cycle path or not, the driver is supposed to react appropriately to driving conditions, meaning if there is someone cycling, they should give them a bit of space.

Agree!

Alek

Because it would be significantly safer for a cyclist on that stretch of road to use the path vs the road

I'd say it would be much safer for cyclists if some drivers would consider them legitimate and vulnerable road users, which they are.

C'mon. Its like demanding all cars to move no faster than 20kmh, because it is safer.

Cyclewizard

frightening!

Panda_Turtle

Alek wrote: »

I'd say it would be much safer for cyclists if some drivers would consider them legitimate and vulnerable road users, which they are.

C'mon. Its like demanding all cars to move no faster than 20kmh, because it is safer.

Don`t see how its like that at all. I`m just saying in my opinion it would be much safer for the cyclist on the path! I just don`t understand why would somebody cycle on the road when the path (albeit not the best one) is provided and is safer!? Each to their own!

I fully agree the van/multiple caravan driver was a complete nutter though, bordering on attempted murder!

Inquitus

Panda_Turtle wrote: »

Don`t see how its like that at all. I`m just saying in my opinion it would be much safer for the cyclist on the path! I just don`t understand why would somebody cycle on the road when the path (albeit not the best one) is provided and is safer!? Each to their own!

I fully agree the van/multiple caravan driver was a complete nutter though, bordering on attempted murder!

A cyclist can travel at 30kph plus on the road, much less on the path, that's why.

knotknowbody

I'm struggling to believe anyone would deliberately go that close to a cyclist with such a large long vehicle, it would be absolute madness.

I wonder was the driver daydreaming and not fully concentrating and didn't see the cyclist until very late, he basically seems to have continued on his driving line as if there was nothing there and made absolutely no allowance for the cyclist, perhaps the horn sounding was a warning to the cyclist that it was going to be close rather than an aggressive get off the road/you should use the cycle lane gesture.

I don't know, just playing devils advocate here, but if that was deliberate he deserves to be without his license for a few months at least, the slightest wobble from either party and it would have been almost certain death for the cyclist, fair play to the cyclist for not panicking, could see a lot of people losing it with the fright of that.

CatFromHue

Did the driver not beep before he passed the guy?

That to me would indicate he knew what he was doing.

knotknowbody

CatFromHue wrote: »

Did the driver not beep before he passed the guy?

That to me would indicate he knew what he was doing.

Yeah, but maybe if he seen him late the beep was a warning, as in "oh ****, look out, I ****ed up and this is going to be close/dangerous" rather than an aggressive "Get off the ****in road and use the fuppin cycle path"

Maybe he was using the horn in its proper way as a warning device to another road user, rather than as an aggressive thing.

Again playing devils advocate here, I admit looking at the vid it looks deliberate but there is the possibility that it was just a genuine mess up on the drivers part, driving a vehicle like that means he is most likely a professional driver, so to do something so dangerous deliberately would be absolute madness.

cdaly_

knotknowbody wrote: »

Again playing devils advocate here, I admit looking at the vid it looks deliberate but there is the possibility that it was just a genuine mess up on the drivers part, driving a vehicle like that means he is most likely a professional driver, so to do something so dangerous deliberately would be absolute madness.

That configuration is a typical circus vehicle. I don't know how 'professional' circus drivers are but they don't spend their working days on the roads like a professional driver does.

Hunterbiker

The driver sat on the horn. It all looks a bit nasty. Saying that we don't know if there was anything earlier on or, as has been said the driver screwed up but had he screwed up he would sutely have stopped slowed to check all was well in his wake.
He just took off which suggests he knew what he was doing...

Hunterbiker

cdaly_ wrote: »

That configuration is a typical circus vehicle. I don't know how 'professional' circus drivers are but they don't spend their working days on the roads like a professional driver does.

they traced the driver. Its a caravan company and he is a delivery driver

Tenzor07

Panda_Turtle wrote: »

ll. I`m just saying in my opinion it would be much safer for the cyclist on the path! I just don`t understand why would somebody cycle on the road when the path (albeit not the best one) is provided and is safer!? Each to their own!

Oh Hello! That's my point, because the cyclist is not on the path that mean's he's fair game?

Panda_Turtle

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Oh Hello! That's my point, because the cyclist is not on the path that mean's he's fair game?

Ha, no. I didn`t say that. Your letting your imagination run wild!!

Ninap

Hunterbiker wrote: »

they traced the driver. Its a caravan company and he is a delivery driver

Appalling driving. Hope driver gets a ban at a minimum.

Hunterbiker

His employer has come oit to say that its unacceptable and will be taking action and assisting with any police enquiry.

Type 17

More info

That is some sick driving - the guy needs a form of punishment that teaches him to share the road with others...

RobertFoster

I'm glad he didn't do a shoulder check when the horn started and drift a little to his right.

Hunterbiker

He'd have taken his head off had he done that.

No Pants

That's shocking stuff. The guy clearly has no notion about the appropriate use of an apostrophe.

Seriously, I've had a few of what I would consider to be close overtakes, but nothing like that. Really bad. The police need to pursue this.

Alek

A cyclist can travel at 30kph plus on the road, much less on the path, that's why.

I was going 42kmh on a short stretch near Drumconda today (totally safe, bus lane, no side roads, no peds access), which apparently wasn't enough for the taxi driver as he gave me a few beeps from behind. Approached him on lights, asking if he had any problem and he said he was letting me know i must use the cycle lane.... I'm not too proud of my following response.........:pac:

I'm trying to be more civil normally, but it wasn't my best day.


Regarding the video, absolutely terrifying. If I was the judge, today, the driver would never sit behind any wheel again.

Crasp

This one's easy...

Common sense would dictate that the cyclist should be in the cycle lane, and the driver should have given the cyclist more space.

It's not even possible to overtake legally or safely on that stretch of road. It's not legal to drive on the cross hatchings and not smart to overtake at junctions. Therefore it was not possible to overtake the cyclist at all, by riding on the road he was giving the drivers no choice but to hang back and follow him at cyclist speed until a broken white line appeared.

CramCycle

Crasp wrote: »

Common sense would dictate...

....don't be a d*ck.

Orion

Panda_Turtle wrote: »

Because it would be significantly safer for a cyclist on that stretch of road to use the path vs the road

How is this safer?


You have to cross a separate road instead of staying on the one you're travelling on. And that's even apart from the lampposts littering the 'cycle lane'.

There's no excuse here. The driver's behaviour borders on criminal.

Orion

Crasp wrote: »

hang back and follow him at cyclist peed until a broken white line appeared.

You mean obey the rules of the road? Shocking!

Panda_Turtle

Orion wrote: »

There's no excuse here. The driver's behaviour borders on criminal.

I never said there was an excuse. All I said the cycle lane is safer than the road. And it is.

Orion wrote: »

How is this safer?

How do you think? Your well separated from the dangers of traffic.

Orion wrote: »

You have to cross a separate road instead of staying on the one you're travelling on. And that's even apart from the lampposts littering the 'cycle lane'.

Yeah, that`s why somebody using the 'cycle lane' would be careful crossing the junctions!

CramCycle

Panda_Turtle wrote: »

I never said there was an excuse. All I said the cycle lane is safer than the road. And it is.

Studies, statistics (search the forum), alongside many experienced commuting cyclists here would disagree with you.

If your going to make such a statement back it up with at least some evidence (not opinion).

ezra_pound

I find it bewildering how so many people who very clearly have so little cycling experience can be so forthright in their opinions on cycling safety. Furthermore such opinion is indeed inevitably backed up by a complete lack of any empirical research and often a confident and self assured yet absolutely incorrect knowledge of road traffic laws.

Panda_Turtle

CramCycle wrote: »

Studies, statistics (search the forum), alongside many experienced commuting cyclists here would disagree with you.

If your going to make such a statement back it up with at least some evidence (not opinion).

Okay fair enough well show us one of the studies that you mention then. I would be interested to see.

buffalo

Panda_Turtle wrote: »

How do you think? Your well separated from the dangers of traffic.

Yeah, that`s why somebody using the 'cycle lane' would be careful crossing the junctions!

So if you're "well separated from the dangers of traffic", why would you need to be "careful crossing the junctions"? There's no danger from traffic, right?

Panda_Turtle

buffalo wrote: »

So if you're "well Separated from the dangers of traffic", why would you need to be "careful crossing the junctions"? There's no danger from traffic, right?

Wrong. I didn't say that there was no danger. Less danger imo

Panda_Turtle

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregated_cycle_facilities#Segregated_facilities_and_safety

No conclusion then. IMO they seem safer

Cyclewizard

some cycle lanes are great, some are awful. In general I do find them safer when they are clear of glass, pedestrians, twigs and use them where suitable but if I'm honest I find the road faster and very tempting when im training. When commuting during rush hour I'm on the cyclepaths where suitable.

At the end of the day common sense needs to prevail and from that video what the driver did was completely inexcusable and needs action taking against him. How anyone can watch that (cyclist or not) and find any reason to defend him is madness. I see plenty of cyclists and drivers puling some reckless moves and they both wind me up but once you step in that car/van/lorry your essentially stepping inside a controlled missile. I hope the company take serious action against the driver

buffalo

Panda_Turtle wrote: »

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregated_cycle_facilities#Segregated_facilities_and_safety

No conclusion then. IMO they seem safer

Segregated does not mean that every side road you cede priority, and have to swivel your head 180 degrees to check that a car isn't going to turn across you.

From your link:

The cycle lane in the video is not "well separated" (your words) from traffic, it is somewhat separated, but guess what? It has to interact with traffic at every junction, and not only that, it has to give way. So not only is it dangerous (thanks to the lampposts and badly designed intersections), it is also pointless if you want to get from A to B at anything more than a cautious crawl.

Diarmuid

ezra_pound wrote: »

I find it bewildering how so many people who very clearly have so little cycling experience can be so forthright in their opinions on cycling safety. Furthermore such opinion is indeed inevitably backed up by a complete lack of any empirical research and often a confident and self assured yet absolutely incorrect knowledge of road traffic laws.

The Dunning–Kruger effect

No Pants

Panda_Turtle wrote: »

Okay fair enough well show us one of the studies that you mention then. I would be interested to see.

Have you ever heard of Google?

eeeee

Diarmuid wrote: »

The Dunning–Kruger effect

That is my new answer to almost everything amazing!

In response to the video, it was a horrendously close and dangerous pass, and in my (admittedly unqualified) opinion completely intentional. That drivers license needs to be revoked for a while, I don't care how annoyed someone is about another road users behavior that kind of driving/aggression is absolutely irresponsible.

I have had similar experiences on the n11. I have been almost run off the road a number of times (the last time my handlebars were inches off the side of the bus and my wheels were at the very, very edge of the road to the camber of the path), and it scared the shíte out of me. There is never an excuse. It's pure dangerous, irresponsible and unnecessary.

Panda_Turtle

No Pants wrote: »

Have you ever heard of Google?

That's great input pal.

If you see my next post soon afterwards I linked to a Wikipedia article regarding the subject matter.

Panda_Turtle

Cyclewizard wrote: »

some cycle lanes are great, some are awful. In general I do find them safer when they are clear of glass, pedestrians, twigs and use them where suitable but if I'm honest I find the road faster and very tempting when im training. When commuting during rush hour I'm on the cyclepaths where suitable.

At the end of the day common sense needs to prevail and from that video what the driver did was completely inexcusable and needs action taking against him. How anyone can watch that (cyclist or not) and find any reason to defend him is madness. I see plenty of cyclists and drivers puling some reckless moves and they both wind me up but once you step in that car/van/lorry your essentially stepping inside a controlled missile. I hope the company take serious action against the driver

Finally a nicely-balanced-common-sense-non-arrogant response

Panda_Turtle

Diarmuid wrote: »

The Dunning–Kruger effect

My view is that the cycle path is safer to use than the road. Obviously the junctions require one to pretty much stop at every one, so I can see now why a cyclist would prefer to risk using the road instead to get places faster, no need for people to borderline attack me. Getting a bit upset here so I am

ezra_pound

Panda_Turtle wrote: »

My view is that the cycle path is safer to use than the road. Obviously the junctions require one to pretty much stop at every one, so I can see now why a cyclist would prefer to risk using the road instead to get places faster, no need for people to borderline attack me. Getting a bit upset here so I am

Why don't you conduct an empirical phenomenological study into the joys of traveling around Dublin in safety on our segregated cycling facilities?

You could prove your hypothesis correct.

Or maybe not.

... in which case you could submit your findings to dunning and Kruger.

No Pants

Panda_Turtle wrote: »

That's great input pal.

If you see my next post soon afterwards I linked to a Wikipedia article regarding the subject matter.

One whole Wikipedia article. Well done. I suppose it's one step up from being completely bone-idle and uninformed.

buffalo

Panda_Turtle wrote: »

My view is that the cycle path is safer to use than the road. Obviously the junctions require one to pretty much stop at every one, so I can see now why a cyclist would prefer to risk using the road instead to get places faster, no need for people to borderline attack me. Getting a bit upset here so I am

It's not the risk of the road versus the inconvenience of the cycle path, it's the risk of the road versus the inconvenience *and* risk of the cycle path.

At some point of either journey a cyclist will have to interact with traffic, and it's safer to do it in an expected fashion. Motorists are well used to cyclists riding on the road in a straight line, not so used to cyclists who ride on what is essentially a footpath, and then occasionally veering onto the road at a junction before hopping back onto the footpath ("cycle lane").

Can I ask if you use cycle lanes regularly?

CramCycle

Panda_Turtle wrote: »

Okay fair enough well show us one of the studies that you mention then. I would be interested to see.

http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/copenhagen1.pdf

Only one, as asked, chosen as it is not one I had read on this forum before but if you search the forum you will undoubtedly find many more.