Dash cam thread (car videos only)

That Garda only has to do that another 10,000 times and the message might get through.....

Isambard

Deleted User wrote: »

That Garda only has to do that another 10,000 times and the message might get through.....

it's such a known problem that you have to wonder why the Traffic Corps don't do this visibly and often. What exactly do they do? I seem to see them often enough driving the other way and I also see guys like the one in the video all the time, how come the Gards don't see them?

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Fanny Wank

I've often seen Guards move lane hoggers in from the middle lane on the M50. As soon as the guard taks the exit all the cars move back out to the middle. It's mind boggling

An enforcement blitz and fines would cop people on (can you be fined for lane hogging currently?)

blade1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Px4TrgRhTU0

Riva10

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Must have been near end of Gárda's shift. :rolleyes:

Riva10

Fanny **** wrote: »

An enforcement blitz and fines would cop people on (can you be fined for lane hogging currently?)

Drive on the left. Simple as.

Roanmore

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18wfIt6mhfk

Last Friday on the N25 near Little Island turn off heading west.

Guy in silver car couldn't wait for the 2 cars in front, undertook them and nearly collided with the first car.
It was a woman with a child in the car, she was shook when I passed her just after.
It's not like the cars were going slow either.

JimmyMcGill

He was dangerously wrong but she had loads of time to pull in. Hope she learnt from it.

Dartz

Roanmore wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18wfIt6mhfk

Last Friday on the N25 near Little Island turn off heading west.

Guy in silver car couldn't wait for the 2 cars in front, undertook them and nearly collided with the first car.
It was a woman with a child in the car, she was shook when I passed her just after.
It's not like the cars were going slow either.

Ooh, I saw that guy pull a similar move up on the M11 earlier.

RustyNut

Patww79 wrote: »

He was holding the Garda up. If he wasn't then they wouldn't bat an eyelid.

Did said Garda take both his hands off the bars to express his frustration with the driver in front? Looking on phone. Its hard to tell.

Isambard

JimmyMcGill wrote: »

He was dangerously wrong but she had loads of time to pull in. Hope she learnt from it.

yes she had plenty of time to move to the lane she should have been in, not to take away from the very dangerous driving, not very far off a major smash

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Falcon L

This truck was coming into a busy village, he was well within the 50 zone. He was holding a mobile to his right ear. This is a relatively busy junction with heavy vehicles exiting and entering, including large tipper trucks and tractors with long trailers.

I sent a copy of the video to the company concerned a couple of weeks ago. They chose to ignore it.

Sorry for the wobblies. Loose mount needs attention.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr1QKIvTqcc

inforfun

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/7281039/6c463816/slechtste_plek_om_te_struikelen.html

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/7281161/b67b5e5f/meneer,_je_band_is_zacht.html

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/7279577/487d68cd/door_rood_in_beneden_leeuwen.html

kirving

I’ll preface this by stating that I’m a cyclist, have been for years, and also a motorist. The driver was clearly an idiot, but that aside, you have a duty to yourself to make yourself as visible as possible, and wearing black does not help that cause
.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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

Right, in the spirit of the cycling forum, have you any data to back that up? And by that I don’t mean a study that says “hi-vis is not effective as people believe it is”. As I said in the cycling forum, I don’t maintain my car to meet the bare minimum requirement which is the NCT, I go above and beyond because doing so is the safest option for me.

Also, it might not be the law of the country, but the laws of physics state differently. A lighter colour, and reflective strips(which almost all hi-vis have) reflect a greater amount of light than dark colours, and as such are a better option in almost all circumstances. It’s not only about contrast as some people would lead you to believe.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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.

I’m not disputing the number of lights on the bike, but my work involves making and testing automotive camera systems. An image sensor within in camera, and the post processing of the image afterward is not identical to how the human eye sees an image, or how we process it. It is absolutely possible that the bicycle light does not look as bright in reality as it does on the video. Again, I agree that the driver should have seen them, but that a hi-vis would have helped further.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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.

So what you’re saying here is that hi-vis would help, but drivers should see them anyway. The reality is that if a driver hits me, and I was wearing black, I didn’t do as much as was in my power to make myself visible, and I’m the one who’ll lose out. I absolutely believe that while the driver should have seen them, but that the cyclist is partially negligent in not wearing one, whether it’s the law or not.

bladespin

Kevin Irving wrote: »

I absolutely believe that while the driver should have seen them, but that the cyclist is partially negligent in not wearing one, whether it’s the law or not.

Lights and reflective bits on the bike should be enough, that said the rider is wearing a red top, while not hi-vis it should certainly be next best thing.

kirving

bladespin wrote: »

Lights and reflective bits on the bike should be enough, that said the rider is wearing a red top, while not hi-vis it should certainly be next best thing.

In a perfect world, they should be. But until that's a reality, you have to protect yourself to the best of your ability, and in my opinion, reflective clothing is a big part of that.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Ken.

inforfun wrote: »

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/7281039/6c463816/slechtste_plek_om_te_struikelen.html

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/7281161/b67b5e5f/meneer,_je_band_is_zacht.html

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/7279577/487d68cd/door_rood_in_beneden_leeuwen.html

Is their any way to make that site English. Be nice to read some of the comments.

endacl

Conspectus wrote: »

Is their any way to make that site English. Be nice to read some of the comments.

Chrome will translate.

endacl

endacl wrote: »

Chrome will translate.

so will google, plus other online translation tools

inforfun

inforfun wrote: »

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/7281039/6c463816/slechtste_plek_om_te_struikelen.html

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/7281161/b67b5e5f/meneer,_je_band_is_zacht.html

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/7279577/487d68cd/door_rood_in_beneden_leeuwen.html

An attempted insurance scam almost ended up like suicide.

LeakingLava

My first few dash cam experiences. Please excuse the €6 or €7 quality. :pac: :pac:

AndrewJRenko

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This is pure strawman argument - making up stuff to argue against.

Kevin Irving wrote: »

I’ll preface this by stating that I’m a cyclist, have been for years, and also a motorist. The driver was clearly an idiot, but that aside, you have a duty to yourself to make yourself as visible as possible, and wearing black does not help that cause

Right, in the spirit of the cycling forum, have you any data to back that up? And by that I don’t mean a study that says “hi-vis is not effective as people believe it is”. As I said in the cycling forum, I don’t maintain my car to meet the bare minimum requirement which is the NCT, I go above and beyond because doing so is the safest option for me.

Also, it might not be the law of the country, but the laws of physics state differently. A lighter colour, and reflective strips(which almost all hi-vis have) reflect a greater amount of light than dark colours, and as such are a better option in almost all circumstances. It’s not only about contrast as some people would lead you to believe.

I’m not disputing the number of lights on the bike, but my work involves making and testing automotive camera systems. An image sensor within in camera, and the post processing of the image afterward is not identical to how the human eye sees an image, or how we process it. It is absolutely possible that the bicycle light does not look as bright in reality as it does on the video. Again, I agree that the driver should have seen them, but that a hi-vis would have helped further.

So what you’re saying here is that hi-vis would help, but drivers should see them anyway. The reality is that if a driver hits me, and I was wearing black, I didn’t do as much as was in my power to make myself visible, and I’m the one who’ll lose out. I absolutely believe that while the driver should have seen them, but that the cyclist is partially negligent in not wearing one, whether it’s the law or not.

So if a driver hits you and you are wearing a hi-vis top, will you blame yourself for being partially negligent for not doing as much as was in your power to make yourself visible by wearing hi-vis trousers as well? And if a driver hits you and you are wearing a hi-vis top and hi-vis trousers, will you blame yourself for being partially negligent for not doing as much as was in your power to make yourself visible by wearing flashing lights over the trousers on your ankles as well? And if a driver hits you and you are wearing a hi-vis top and hi-vis trousers and flashing lights on your ankles, will you blame yourself for being partially negligent for not doing as much as was in your power to make yourself visible by not having a 100 lumen light as well?

And do you apply the same victim-blaming logic when a female member of your family gets raped. Will she be judged to be partially negligent and not doing everything she can to avoid rape because she wore a short skirt?

You see where I'm going with this?

I've never come across a scenario where a lit cyclist has been hard to see in an urban setting. I've never seen any research showing that wearing of hi-vis offers a cyclist some protection in an urban setting.

You do all the physics and camera analysis you like, but if the driver is texting his missus at the time, he's not going to see the cyclist regardless of what they are wearing.

There has to be a question of adequacy somewhere along the line. The law requires lights and a reflector on the bike.

If you choose to wear hi-vis, that's your own choice.

Setting an expectation that cycling is so dangerous that it requires special clothing is creating a deterrent to cycling, which (ironically) makes cycling more dangerous by reducing the 'safety in numbers' effect.

dil999

inforfun wrote: »

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/7281039/6c463816/slechtste_plek_om_te_struikelen.html

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/7281161/b67b5e5f/meneer,_je_band_is_zacht.html

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/7279577/487d68cd/door_rood_in_beneden_leeuwen.html

That truck driver in the last one should be taken out and shot (figuratively speaking)

Isambard

Were I a cyclist I would equip myself with the high intensity flashing lights you see

JimmyMcGill

Motors Forum.

Trojan

Motorists can be cyclists.

inforfun

Conspectus wrote: »

Is their any way to make that site English. Be nice to read some of the comments.

That site is part of geenstijl.nl and i fear google translate will not always help on either site.
There is a sort of special lingo going on on both.
Some recent additions to De Dikke Van Dale (the official Dutch dictionary) have their origin on those sites.