Garda & Cyclist close call

Chronicler

mr spuckler wrote: »

blaming him for 'tempting' the driver to overtake is like blaming a girl for wearing a low cut top.

It's more like a girl with a low-cut top blaming a guy for having a sneaky peak.

Beasty

A message to everyone prompted by some of the recent posts

Stay on topic and leave the modding to the mods

Any questions, PM me. Do not respond to this warning in-thread

Thanks

Epicbutterfly

ThisRegard wrote: »

I was simply asking because if you did read it you will see he was not policing the use of the bus lane.

I don't think I need to read what I saw in the video! Waving your hands and pulling out toward to right hand of the lane is dangerous and also giving a lot of safe cyclist a bad name. Mine included.

stoplooklisten

Epicbutterfly wrote: »

I don't think I need to read what I saw in the video! Waving your hands and pulling out toward to right hand of the lane is dangerous and also giving a lot of safe cyclist a bad name. Mine included.

Signalling that you are going to pull out towards the right is dangerous? How?

seamus

mr spuckler wrote: »

"while on duty"

Only non-criminal rules and within reason.

So they can't blam it through a residential estate at 4pm at 120km/h and claim immunity. Or pass a cyclist so close they hit them with their wing mirror.

On duty they can drive without tax, but they can't drive hammered.

All pretty common sense stuff, but some people and Gardai have difficulty understanding the difference.

Effects

Epicbutterfly wrote: »

He deliberately cycled out well before the confrontation takes place! It's not up to the cyclist to martial the bus lanes.

It's up to him to look after his own safety. Which is what he was doing, not marshalling the lanes.

Epicbutterfly

stoplooklisten wrote: »

Signalling that you are going to pull out towards the right is dangerous? How?

Can you show me where he signalled to pull out to the right when he cycles out in to the middle of the lane? He didn't! He pulled clearly out when the Audi went to overtake. That lane is wide enough for both to pass without confrontation.

mr spuckler

seamus wrote: »

Only non-criminal rules and within reason.

So they can't blam it through a residential estate at 4pm at 120km/h and claim immunity. Or pass a cyclist so close they hit them with their wing mirror.

On duty they can drive without tax, but they can't drive hammered.

All pretty common sense stuff, but some people and Gardai have difficulty understanding the difference.

i get all that, the question has been raised earlier though as to whether he was actually on duty as he seems to be driving a private car.

Weepsie

Epicbutterfly wrote: »

Can you show me where he signalled to pull out to the right when he cycles out in to the middle of the lane? He didn't! He pulled clearly out when the Audi went to overtake. That lane is wide enough for both to pass without confrontation.

It isn't though, not safely anyway. Should the cyclist wobble as can happen the driver could hit him. Bikes veer side to side anyway too, so driver should not be taking the chance and uphold their duty of care. Simple fact of the matter is, he was wrong. If he was on the white line, he didn't have enough space.

Beasty

Epicbutterfly wrote: »

Can you show me where he signalled to pull out to the right when he cycles out in to the middle of the lane? He didn't! He pulled clearly out when the Audi went to overtake. That lane is wide enough for both to pass without confrontation.

Do you know what the minmum recommended passing distance is when overtaking a bicycle? That car was barely giving the kerb that much distance when attempting its overtake

stoplooklisten

Epicbutterfly wrote: »

Can you show me where he signalled to pull out to the right when he cycles out in to the middle of the lane? He didn't! He pulled clearly out when the Audi went to overtake. That lane is wide enough for both to pass without confrontation.

Epicbutterfly wrote: »

...Waving your hands and pulling out toward to right hand of the lane...

What was he waving his hands for? To say Hello?

frozenfrozen

First of all.. the car driver was reckless and shouldn't have done what he did with getting so close etc.

However.. would it have happened if the cyclist had looked behind him and seen a garda car in full livery? No, he would have got out of the way ASAP, so why does he think he is entitled to police the bus lane, only letting people pass who he decides


If you watch the video up until the point of the aggressive acceleration, the cyclist looks like a complete tool, he notices the audi coming up behind him, and when he looks back ( at around 14 seconds), the audi is over as far as it can go in the lane, ready to overtake, he is lingering there likely until the bike moves over to give him room, the bike stays left, and as soon as the car starts to overtake he sweeps back in to "control the lane"

You take up a dominant lane position to influence the decisions of other drivers, not to BLOCK them in the middle of a manoeuvre, it doesn't matter if that they're doing is legal or if they should be there or if they're a guard or anything, it would be like pulling out into the overtaking lane on the motorway because you see someone approaching doing over the speed limit

The more I watch the video the more I actually understand the frustration of the audi driver. The bike has no right to decide who does and does not get to drive there, whatever about there being enough space, the car was going about the overtake in a much more obliging way than other cars who would simply fly past. He takes up an overtaking position, and waits for the bike to move in to allow it, only after he has started accelerating past does the bike decide to control the lane. The aggressive acceleration is unacceptable.

A bit of self preservation needed by the cyclist, and anger management for the guard

It's silly for people here to be 100% on either 'side', if it had been a marked garda car and not someone he thought he could police himself, it wouldn't have happened.

Chronicler

I drive that section of quays every morning in the bus lane (before 7am).
There's plenty of space for a car to safely overtake a bicycle with a bit of care and attention from both parties.

galwaycyclist

Chronicler wrote: »

I drive that section of quays every morning in the bus lane (before 7am).
There's plenty of space for a car to safely overtake a bicycle with a bit of care and attention from both parties.

Its not your decision to make. Under law a cyclist, like any other road user, has a duty to avoid injury and damage to property. So if a cyclist already has possession of the lane then it is up to them whether it is safe to let you past or not.

In this particular situation there is already another lane available for overtaking.

wotswattage

Sure look at the end of the video he is stopped having the argument with the guard (who is still fully inside the bus lane) and bikes still passing them both on the left!

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

wexandproud wrote: »

have too agree with ya . Two wrongs will never make a right , while the driver might have been a little hasty in his overtaking it would not have have been a problem if the idiot on the bike was keeping to his left . There are no parked cars where he could get clattered with a door and no pedestrians who could step out. If he had kept to the left instead of pulling out when the car was almost level with his drive wheel there would not have been a problem.. another cycling warrior with a camera

But there was only one wrong here, the driver. Your choice of words leaves a lot to be desired. It's incredibly biased. You imply that the driver is a "little" hasty, while the cyclist is an "idiot". It's clear to see your argument is absolutely one sided, even though we have video evidence and the rules and recommendations have been posted in this thread several times. People just see bike/cyclist, and automatically they made up their mind that cyclists are a nuisance, in the wrong, whatever.

I wonder do people have the same opinion for the likes of what happened in the below video. Skip to 00:18 to see a similar incident to the OP. Driver tries to overtake cyclist meters before a roundabout, cyclist takes up a better road position on and after roundabout and determines when it's safe to move in. In the last clip, two cars pass cyclist much too fast, cyclist them moves into a better road position to stop this from happening. Cycle path on the left, is in disrepair and has a barrier. The planning here is pretty bad.

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

Beasty

Chronicler wrote: »

There's plenty of space for a car to safely overtake a bicycle with a bit of care and attention from both parties.

Really?

What if the cyclist suddenly came across an obstruction/pothole forcing him to swerve half a metre further out?

Oh, and in case you are woinding, that minimum "safe" overtaking distance is 1.5m. I'm not saying I need it all the time but I'm quite experienced. However one of the reasons it is 1.5m is to allow cyclists to react to the something unexpected on their cycling line

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

wotswattage wrote: »

Sure look at the end of the video he is stopped having the argument with the guard (who is still fully inside the bus lane) and bikes still passing them both on the left!

Is that your strategy? "If it fits, sure it'll be grand"...? Well it's not a very safe one

BoardsMember

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Its not your decision to make. Under law a cyclist, like any other road user, has a duty to avoid injury and damage to property. So if a cyclist already has possession of the lane then it is up to them whether it is safe to let you past or not.

In this particular situation there is already another lane available for overtaking.

Of course it is the overtakers decision to make. Who else makes a decision to overtake, if not the overtaker? There is no "letting you past". The driver must make a decision on whether is is safe to pass.

The cyclist might choose to take more or less of the lane, and that should inform the driver as to the safety of any potential overtaking manoeuvre, taking all things into consideration. Like, for example, using some of the bus lane and some of the other lane. But to say it is not the drivers decision to make is just nonsense, drivers have to make the decision. Making a bad one, like the attempted one in this clip, does not mean it was not his to make.

Chronicler

Beasty wrote: »

Really?

What if the cyclist suddenly came across an obstruction/pothole forcing him to swerve half a metre further out?

I'd always leave more than 0.5m gap.

frozenfrozen

Try pulling my post a part then lads, I'm sick of seeing these arguments degrading to semantics over word choices. I don't even care if you prove me wrong after having a back and forth argument but this crap of 5 people quoting one badly worded post and then derailing the thread is a waste of time

wotswattage

Cayden Flaky Sewage wrote: »

Is that your strategy? "If it fits, sure it'll be grand"...? Well it's not a very safe one

No it's not my strategy I haven't said anywhere that it is. Don't know how you are jumping to conclusions on my part??

My point was that a car, a bike AND a cargo bike can all fit in that bus lane.

I've cycled past busses on that stretch without leaving the bus lane so can't understand how a cargo bike won't let a car pass him.

Beasty

Chronicler wrote: »

I'd always leave more than 0.5m gap.

Do you always leave the minimum recommended 1.5m?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Chronicler wrote: »

I'd always leave more than 0.5m gap.

Still not enough. 1.5m is the recommended distance. Why is it so difficult to do?

wotswattage wrote: »

No it's not my strategy I haven't said anywhere that it is. Don't know how you are jumping to conclusions on my part??

My point was that a car, a bike AND a cargo bike can all fit in that bus lane.

I've cycled past busses on that stretch without leaving the bus lane so can't understand how a cargo bike won't let a car pass him.

That's why I asked the question

Still you imply that if it fits then it's ok. You could get a moped on the other side of the car and a couple of people in between, but that doesn't make it ok. There's simply not enough room for the maneuver the car wished to take. It's incredibly black and white.

Chronicler

Beasty wrote: »

Do you always leave the minimum recommended 1.5m?

No idea - I don't carry a tape measure out the window whilst driving.

I leave an appropriately safe gap.

Chronicler

Cayden Flaky Sewage wrote: »

There's simply not enough room for the maneuver the car wished to take. .

Only beacuse the cyclist was being a dick though.

nomdeboardie

Mycroft H wrote: »

Garda is exempt from a lot of the Road Traffic laws no matter what he's driving in

Mycroft H wrote: »

See that's where it gets woolly. A Garda is really never off duty. Yes, they may not be on shift or in work, but, they still have the force of law behind them if needs be.

Who knows, he may have been a detective in plain clothes.

Surely IF the driver was on urgent official business he should have been equipped with flasher and siren and used the latter before trying to get past the cyclist safely from behind. As a cyclist, I would move to the kerb and stop to let them by.

bubblypop wrote: »

Why should he have 'blues and twos' on?
Just because something is urgent, doesn't mean it's an emergency.
...

Because otherwise he will be percieved as just another asshole trying to overtake dangerously and possibley abusing the buslane? If driving yourself, do you pull over to the side of the road if tailgated agressively by an apparently ordinary car? A car horn is not a siren.

tomasrojo wrote: »

...
(The flashing of the badge is wrong too, in the sense that it really was to say to the cyclist "Oh really? Well, what do you think of that!" As if he should psychically be aware that the driver was a Garda, or simply give way to every motorised vehicle on the off chance that a Garda is driving it.)

+1

mr spuckler wrote: »

...
if the garda was on official business and had his lights & siren on then the cyclist should of course pull in and let him by, otherwise there is no reason for the cyclist to hug the kerb to let him pass and he is fully correct to ensure his safety by pulling to the middle of the lane to remove the possibility of a dangerous pass by the car.

+1

ted1

wotswattage wrote: »

No it's not my strategy I haven't said anywhere that it is. Don't know how you are jumping to conclusions on my part??

My point was that a car, a bike AND a cargo bike can all fit in that bus lane.

I've cycled past busses on that stretch without leaving the bus lane so can't understand how a cargo bike won't let a car pass him.

You've cycled past busses moving at a slower pace or that are stationary. Big difference than being over taking by a 2 ton+ vehicle at speed. How much air do you displace compared to them , if you knocked off the bus , nothing happens the bus, if a vehicle hit off you , you'd die

ted1

Chronicler wrote: »

Only beacuse the cyclist was being a dick though.

No, he took a defensive position . Simple as that that

frozenfrozen

Nothing in the video was "simple as that" this only happened because an immovable object met an unstoppable force, by that I mean both of these guys egos.

The defensive position would have been to get out of the way once he noticed the car going for the overtake. His chance to take a dominant lane position was gone at that point. If he wanted to influence the other driver he should have done it 10 seconds sooner and if he wanted to drive defensively he would have got out of the way of danger ASAP not move in front of the car and brake then slap his head and try to show that he is 'dead' right