Dash cam thread (car videos only)

rocky

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgaQDn3vJYE

davo2001

rocky wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgaQDn3vJYE

Where is the problem here? The guy was obviously looking for a specific house and wasn't sure where it was.

You're just being impatient.

rocky

davo2001 wrote: »

Where is the problem here? The guy was obviously looking for a specific house and wasn't sure where it was.

You're just being impatient.

2 cars cut him off at different times + 1 pedestrian, then he signals after he starts to cross the road. I wasn't in a hurry, happy I have something to post in this thread :cool:

Taytomal

rocky wrote: »

2 cars cut him off at different times + 1 pedestrian, then he signals after he starts to cross the road. I wasn't in a hurry, happy I have something to post in this thread :cool:

Nice to see Mervue at a slower pace rather than idiots flying up and down that road!!!!!

Sam Quentin

Sam Quentin wrote: »

Here's the pics, sorry video from laptop and pics from phone...

cormie wrote: »

Don't see what the problem is? Did he hit you when reversing, doesn't look like it? Looks like he didn't have much space himself to fit within the lines and he drove by you already so could probably see you had a gap behind you so all you'd have to do is reverse? It would still be possible to get out of that space even if you were bumper to bumper with the vehicle behind you though :pac:

Dear God..

It was you wasn't it!?

inforfun

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/7278717/8f7d2b16/puntstukje_meepakken.html (can quit after 25 secs, not much happening after.

And.....

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/7278491/73a09efb/even_snel_inhalen.html

Kamili

inforfun wrote: »

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/7278717/8f7d2b16/puntstukje_meepakken.html (can quit after 25 secs, not much happening after.

And.....

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/7278491/73a09efb/even_snel_inhalen.html

Seems like its company policy to drive your truck like a :rolleyes:

zapata

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

The guard thinking “if there was only someone who could give that cyclist a good bollocking”

Maybe if it was a boatcycle...

jaxxx

zapata wrote: »

Maybe if it was a boatcycle...

Me thinks he be... harbouring a grudge.

[cough, cough, coughity, cough]

nanook5

Small clip from last night.

jaxxx

nanook5 wrote: »

Small clip from last night.

Both dumb dumbs from what I see, dark/non-reflective clothing and poor observation by the driver, though at least a smidge enough to actually notice them and stop before he/she hit them.

With regards to clothing comment, I don't know the law with regards to cycling at night as I don't cycle but surely reflective clothing is necessary?

AndrewJRenko

jaxxx wrote: »

Both dumb dumbs from what I see, dark/non-reflective clothing and poor observation by the driver, though at least a smidge enough to actually notice them and stop before he/she hit them.

With regards to clothing comment, I don't know the law with regards to cycling at night as I don't cycle but surely reflective clothing is necessary?

Are you joking? No, reflective clothing is NOT necessary, either in law or in reality.

Cyclists are required to have a reflector on the bike at all times, and are required to have lights at night. These guys both had flashing LED lights - looks like two separate lights on the bike behind, and one central one plus reflective panniers on the bike in front.

The only reason Mr Avensis didn't see them was because he wasn't looking. If you need people to wear hi-vis on the roads in order to avoid killing them, it might be time to hand over the keys.

Alanstrainor

jaxxx wrote: »

Both dumb dumbs from what I see, dark/non-reflective clothing and poor observation by the driver, though at least a smidge enough to actually notice them and stop before he/she hit them.

With regards to clothing comment, I don't know the law with regards to cycling at night as I don't cycle but surely reflective clothing is necessary?

Both are lit up like bloody christmas trees, if the driver couldn't see them with those lights, their clothing would have made little difference.

rizzodun

jaxxx wrote: »

Both dumb dumbs from what I see, dark/non-reflective clothing and poor observation by the driver, though at least a smidge enough to actually notice them and stop before he/she hit them.

With regards to clothing comment, I don't know the law with regards to cycling at night as I don't cycle but surely reflective clothing is necessary?

Bull**** like this is why there's animosity between motorists and cyclists.

In this case, the cyclists are clearly visible, if the driver couldn't be arsed paying attention that's on them, until of course, they left hook the cyclist and the cyclist has to deal with the injuries.

Maybe it's because I cycle myself, but I really cannot see what is so hard about giving cyclists space.

Now, if it was me in that situation and I came across those cyclists with no lights, I'd have no qualms about stopping and telling them to cop on.

the_pen_turner

there is no way you couldn't see those cyclists.
I wonder did the driver think they were turning left. the driver took the turn very wide like they were leaving space for the cyclists.

no excuse though

jaxxx

Jesus what's with all the negativity. I said the driver was a dumb dumb. I thought the reflective lights were poor. And I only mentioned about the high-vis because it's night. Surely cycling at night would require more than just a light on the bicycle for the safety of the cyclist? Like I said I don't know the law when it comes to cycling, but to me it makes sense to wear bright/reflective clothing if cycling at night. Yeah any driver that's half awake could see those cyclists a mile away, but in darker areas at night surely high-vis clothes would be safer for cyclists?

AndrewJRenko

jaxxx wrote: »

Jesus what's with all the negativity. I said the driver was a dumb dumb. I thought the reflective lights were poor. And I only mentioned about the high-vis because it's night. Surely cycling at night would require more than just a light on the bicycle for the safety of the cyclist? Like I said I don't know the law when it comes to cycling, but to me it makes sense to wear bright/reflective clothing if cycling at night. Yeah any driver that's half awake could see those cyclists a mile away, but in darker areas at night surely high-vis clothes would be safer for cyclists?

Do you need it explained again?

1) The cyclists are not 'dumb dumb' - they are cycling legally and safely, and well-lit.
2) You can wear what you like when you cycle. You really should make sure your car is covered in hi-vis stripes before you go preaching to anyone else about what they wear on the road.
3) Drivers need to be able to see pedestrians crossing the road. Unless you are also suggesting that all pedestrians need to wear specialised industrial clothing in order to minimise the time that drivers have to look up from their phones, you should back off the 'hi-vis for all' approach. What makes cycling safer is having drivers watching what they are doing.
4) This expectation of hi-vis for all is one of the reasons why we have so few female cyclists and very, very few teenage girl cyclists. We have more teenage girls driving themselves to school than cycling to school. We've succeeded in pitching cycling as a hazardous activity 'for the brave', not a normal daily activity. That's one of the reasons why we are facing into an obesity crisis.

Cookie_Monster

jaxxx wrote: »

Jesus what's with all the negativity. I said the driver was a dumb dumb. I thought the reflective lights were poor. And I only mentioned about the high-vis because it's night. Surely cycling at night would require more than just a light on the bicycle for the safety of the cyclist? Like I said I don't know the law when it comes to cycling, but to me it makes sense to wear bright/reflective clothing if cycling at night. Yeah any driver that's half awake could see those cyclists a mile away, but in darker areas at night surely high-vis clothes would be safer for cyclists?

do you paint your car in high vis at night
:rolleyes::rolleyes:

nanook5

the_pen_turner wrote: »

there is no way you couldn't see those cyclists.
I wonder did the driver think they were turning left. the driver took the turn very wide like they were leaving space for the cyclists.

no excuse though

As I was there, I initially thought this at first as they were very close to the kerb, and then the cyclist at the back moves behind the other cyclist as if so they would be parallel once around the corner but obviously not on this occasion.

the_syco

jaxxx wrote: »

With regards to clothing comment, I don't know the law with regards to cycling at night as I don't cycle but surely reflective clothing is necessary?

If the driver can't see the flashing lights, it's only a matter of time before he hits a cyclist or another car!

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

OK, back to the videos...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOkVJvMQ3ns

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

AndrewJRenko

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Though isn't it strange how this never comes out in Garda reports, or Coroner's inquests, or court cases, or dash cam clips - or anyone other than the imagination of some very imaginative people?

Please do prove me wrong with a few references to reputable sources showing these ****ers causing 'accidents'.

inforfun

Think Patww79 is referring to the video above and not to cyclists?

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

AndrewJRenko

My apologies - happy to withdraw

liamog

Absolutely atrocious behaviour by people brake checking, one or two of the videos brutal tail gating going on.

I wonder how well automated emergency brakes respond to brake checkers?

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Caliden

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think the cam car was actually pulling over too.