Garda & Cyclist close call

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Chronicler wrote: »

Only beacuse the cyclist was being a dick though.

No he wasn't. The drive was the one being the dick here.

Here's the facts;

1. Width of car = 1.874 Meters EXCLUDING wing mirrors.

2. Width of cyclist = 0.75 Meters

3. Width of bus = 2.51 Meters (Bus lane is about 3.1 Meters I think?)

4. Cyclist needs distance from the kerb, lets give a conservative 0.3 Meters.

5. Car didn't cross the white line.

That doesn't leave a distance of 1.5 Meters for the car to overtake. The bus lane would need to be 4.424 (not taking into account the car wing mirrors), for the car to pass safely. So there you have it... maths.

Oh. here's a nice link which might give some ideas to the planning; https://www.nationaltransport.ie/downloads/archive/provision_of_cycling_facilities_ch3_2006.pdf

Kimbot

Fian wrote: »

It is a minister's car, or perhaps a senior Judge's. The Mercs 'n perks cars are Audi's now, rather than Mercs.

Cyclist was 100% correct to take the lane imo. The Car had tried to overtake him dangerously, that bus lane is too narrow for a safe pass. Pure self preservation. Seems from the other videos the cyclist "has form" but on this occassion he did nothing wrong as far as I am concerned.

The car has an insurance disk in the window, no "offical" cars will have that so no its not a state car its a privately owned car!!

seamus

BoardsMember wrote: »

Of course it is the overtakers decision to make.

I don't think that was his point. One person may decide, "The lane is easily wide enough for us both", but if the cyclist decides to take a defensive position in the lane, then you don't get to tell him he has to move over.

That is, while you may decide there should be enough room, you don't have the right to enforce that decision.

wexandproud

mr spuckler wrote: »

could the car have allowed him 1.5m of space while travelling in the bus lane? if not it was not safe for him to pass even if the cyclist was staying left.

in this case the recommended 1.5m of passing space probably could not have been left .I would be a big supporter of the 1.5m campaign and was probably one of the first in the country to wear one of the jerseys but sometimes a little bit of common sense is needed and there are times when it is not practical , like in a city , however another poster on here said my choice of words was biased ,when i said the driver was a bit hasty [ as a keen cyclist i dont see how i am ] , so , ok , the driver was wrong but so also was the cyclist , there was no need for him to pull out the way he did . After their little tete a tete the road doesn't look any wider but there is still room for a cycle lane so it appears there is enough space for both road users to share the road

mp31

Epicbutterfly wrote: »

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

Is the cyclist martialling the bus lane or is he trying to ensure his own safety.

Is the car driver attempting to overtake as required by the rules of the road or he trying to overtake in such a way as to make the cyclist feel unsafe (which in turn makes the cyclist react in this way).

After all, if the driver had overtaken as per the rules of the road then none of this would have happened.

mr spuckler

frozenfrozen wrote: »

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

i love that you want someone to argue / debate with you! but to be fair you're inviting debate so i will reply on the various points.

i both cycle and drive and seeing any road user (including cyclists) acting like dicks pisses me off. i'm not a militant cyclist or one who can't see when cyclists do wrong. do you cycle in the city?

frozenfrozen wrote: »

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

so we both agree that the driver was in the wrong

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 cycle in the city you will know that you need to ride assertively / defensively. none of us know what this lad would have done if it was a squad car. if it was me i'd have done exactly the same as he did though. if the squad car had the lights flashing and siren on i would have pulled in and let him past. i've encountered squad cars many time in bus lanes where i've ridden assertively to ensure my safety (and hence prevent them passing too close) with no problems.

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,

there is not enough room to overtake safely in the lane and he can see that the car is about to regardless. should he let him pass in a manner which endangers himself?

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"

so the cyclist doesn't move any further left as the driver is waiting for but he overtakes anyway?

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

it really does, particularly when it's you vs a couple of tonnes of car

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

it really wouldn't. in that example you would have to change lanes. if a car attempted to overtake 2 other cars side by side on a 2 lane motorway you might have more of a comparison. what would you do in that case?

to be clear - cyclists have as much right to the lane as motorists, there is no obligation to get out of the way. both cyclists and motorists have a responsibility to interact safely.

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.

less bad is still bad. in your opinion who is it that 'decides who does and does not get to drive there'? is is the car because he's not a cyclist? the rules of the road actually dictate how to safely use the road and in this case they clearly indicate that the driver is in the wrong - as you agreed at the start

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.

the acceleration of the car?! per above you'll agree that the cyclist doesn't move in but the driver still overtakes.

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

moving out to prevent the overtaking was the self preservation you're talking about. permitting a dangerous overtaking manouevre would be reckless.

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.

you come down very close to 100% against the cyclist! he isn't policiing, he's self preserving.

jonnycivic

jonnycivic wrote: »

The car has an insurance disk in the window, no "offical" cars will have that so no its not a state car its a privately owned car!!

Lots of state cars have ' insurance ' disks in them.

Management ranks also use their personal cars for state business. I find the higher up the ranks you go the more arrogant they become.
I kind of hope he was a superintendent....

frozenfrozen

mp31 wrote: »

Is the cyclist martialling the bus lane or is he trying to ensure his own safety.

Is the car driver attempting to overtake as required by the rules of the road or he trying to overtake in such a way as to make the cyclist feel unsafe (which in turn makes the cyclist react in this way).

After all, if the driver had overtaken as per the rules of the road then none of this would have happened.

The car was being more courteous than most when overtaking a bike in a city, lets not be silly. He pulled out as far as he could, held back and then accelerated, before the bike pulled out to the middle of the lane to block him while braking.

As I said before in this thread, would the cyclist have done the same thing if it had been a garda car in full livery? Of course not, so he was obviously trying to police this lane himself.

magicbastarder

BoardsMember wrote: »

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.

it's not an overtaking manouevre.
certainly not in the sense that overtaking is commonly understood, where you've to temporarily leave your lane.

in the above instance, the motorist is trying to pass another vehicle without even touching the white line. so it's not overtaking as is commonly understood.

stoplooklisten

frozenfrozen wrote: »

The car was being more courteous than most when overtaking a bike in a city, lets not be silly. He pulled out as far as he could, held back and then accelerated, before the bike pulled out to the middle of the lane to block him while braking.

As I said before in this thread, would the cyclist have done the same thing if it had been a garda car in full livery? Of course not, so he was obviously trying to police this lane himself.

Would the garda have acted any different if it was the Garda commissioner on the bicycle?

Chronicler

Cayden Flaky Sewage wrote: »

That doesn't leave a distance of 1.5 Meters for the car to overtake. The bus lane would need to be 4.424 (not taking into account the car wing mirrors), for the car to pass safely. So there you have it... maths.

Or you could use....reality.

Stand on the footpath on the Quays some morning and witness the 100's of safe overtaking manoeuvres performed.

You'd swear there were dozens of cyclists being mowed down every day on the north quays from the hysterical reactions on here.

BoardsMember

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's not an overtaking manouevre.
certainly not in the sense that overtaking is commonly understood, where you've to temporarily leave your lane.

in the above instance, the motorist is trying to pass another vehicle without even touching the white line. so it's not overtaking as is commonly understood.

Not sure that's the commonly understood meaning of overtaking.

And people on here seem to be saying he's on the white line/over the white line/doesn't touch it.

Anyhow, the fella tried to overtake, the bike took a position in the lane that didn't allow, so no overtake took place. In my humble opinion, I think a reasonable person can see that neither the bike nor the driver covered themselves in glory.

Kaisr Sose

Chiparus wrote: »

A lot of guards seem use the bus lane getting to work on Pierce street, I have seen them "flash the card" at the motorbike cop who sometimes is there to stop private vehicles using the bus lane.

It also allows free carparking outside the station and other privilages.

It's not right that they can do that! It's not right that they think rules of the road don't apply to them. As far as I am aware, while they can pass a red light when lit and break speed limits (responding to a call siren and lights on) the requirement for them to drive safely and with due care and attention is not waived. Clearly this Garda is not driving with lights on/siren sounding and by attempting to overtake a cyclist without passing within a reasonable distance is both dangerous driving and driving without due care and attention. Thus, whether working or not, a potential offence under the RTA and possibly the Garda Diciplinary code has occurred.

As for flashing the badge...if the cyclist was wrong, the guard would be within his rights to detain the cyclist and request his name etc. That he did not do that would tend to give weight to them also using the ID for a purpose it is not intended — to intimidate, bully etc. This would also be a Diciplinary matter.

Any motorist speeding along the quays in heavy traffic is driving dangerously. There are just too many variables that cant be forseen, and too many lights to get stuck at to make it worth doing. Garda vehicle or not, if you are 3 cars back at a red light, you ain't going nowhere unless the cars in front move out of your way.

Using the methods on show here, perhaps this driver should just plough through all obsticles that make them slow down, force cars off the road and then flash the badge to indicate to all that he can do what he likes on a public highway?

Somehow, I don't think they would be allowed to that to a car — so why attempt it with a cyclist? Unless of course, for some reason, that person thinks the badge means they can do whatever they want? I hope they are disabused of that belief before somebody gets hurt or worse..

frozenfrozen

mr spuckler wrote: »

i love that you want someone to argue / debate with you! but to be fair you're inviting debate so i will reply on the various points.

i both cycle and drive and seeing any road user (including cyclists) acting like dicks pisses me off. i'm not a militant cyclist or one who can't see when cyclists do wrong. do you cycle in the city?

Thank you for being the first person to at least reply to me and not just attack a single word somebody else used. although you have taken issue with me saying acceleration when referring to the car accelerating aggressively at the bike, we won't go down the rabbit hole of semantics, we both know what I was referring to and how it was not acceptable

so we both agree that the driver was in the wrong

Yes driver is still in the wrong. But the cyclist could have definitely avoided the situation, and when it's 2 tonnes vs a bike there's no point being dead right if you're dead.

if you cycle in the city you will know that you need to ride assertively / defensively. none of us know what this lad would have done if it was a squad car. if it was me i'd have done exactly the same as he did though. if the squad car had the lights flashing and siren on i would have pulled in and let him past. i've encountered squad cars many time in bus lanes where i've ridden assertively to ensure my safety (and hence prevent them passing too close) with no problems.

I agree we can't know what he would have done, but as you've said you would move over for a squad car with the lights on but not a squad car just driving along. I'd be the same but the car in this video wasn't just driving along, he was actively looking for an overtake and it was denied after the manoeuvre had been started. I'll go into this a bit more below..

there is not enough room to overtake safely in the lane and he can see that the car is about to regardless. should he let him pass in a manner which endangers himself?

It's not a case of him letting him pass, it was too late to safely control the lane, if he wanted to take a dominant position he was too late, his body language and position opened him up to be overtaken, you can't just cut back in and stop someone, the advanced driving technique of controlling other road users must be a bit too advanced for this cyclist because he completely missed his opportunity by not planning far enough ahead and keeping track of the traffic around him

so the cyclist doesn't move any further left as the driver is waiting for but he overtakes anyway?

He doesn't move over more, but he also doesn't change his position at all until he realises the car is going for the overtake. At this point the choice was no longer his, he opened himself up to be dangerously overtaken. Whether it is right or wrong at this point his only option would be to stay out of the way for his own safety and make sure he is more on top of the situation in future.

it really does, particularly when it's you vs a couple of tonnes of car

this is the point I'm going for, you can't boss around 2 tonnes of car on the premise of 'if they hit me, they'll be in the wrong', up until the audi did the aggressive acceleration (or whatever you're happy with calling it) the bike was toying with this fact that if the driver hadn't reacted quickly enough he would've gone under the offside wheel, all because he knew that legally he had control of the lane. Legally doesn't mean anything when you're smushed.

it really wouldn't. in that example you would have to change lanes. if a car attempted to overtake 2 other cars side by side on a 2 lane motorway you might have more of a comparison. what would you do in that case?

to be clear - cyclists have as much right to the lane as motorists, there is no obligation to get out of the way. both cyclists and motorists have a responsibility to interact safely.

I gave the example to try say this cyclist was endangering himself and making the whole situation a lot more dangerous by enforcing a law, he assumed the car shouldn't have been there and blocked him, that's what happened.

less bad is still bad. in your opinion who is it that 'decides who does and does not get to drive there'? is is the car because he's not a cyclist? the rules of the road actually dictate how to safely use the road and in this case they clearly indicate that the driver is in the wrong - as you agreed at the start

Again, the driver was in the wrong but the cyclist should have just let him past, it would be different if the car was trying to squeeze past even while the bike was in position 2 / 3 of the lane, but he was in position 1 and opened himself up to be overtaken

the acceleration of the car?! per above you'll agree that the cyclist doesn't move in but the driver still overtakes.

The cyclist doesn't move in any more but he also didn't end the opportunity for overtake until after the overtake had been started.

moving out to prevent the overtaking was the self preservation you're talking about. permitting a dangerous overtaking manouevre would be reckless.

He was too late for this, so he ended up putting himself in more danger. Staying out from junctions and other hazards on the inside is equalising the danger, he gave up his safety to prove a point of not being pushed into the kerb. The safest thing would have been to pull in and then deal with potential hazards, maximising the distance from the danger (the car overtaking)

you come down very close to 100% against the cyclist! he isn't policiing, he's self preserving.

I think he was policing, he wanted to tell off the car far more than stay safe, which is shown by him not even hesitating to turn into the path of the car and put his brakes on before throwing the hand signals etc. Self preservation really would have been him being on top of the situation and controlling the lane earlier or else not letting his ego get in the way of his safety

I'm not 100% against the cyclist, but he had the power to make the dangerous situation much safer but he threw it away. Driver was still unacceptable as we both agree on, the cyclist just wasn't 100% clean

Lumen

I think there's a bit of dishonesty in this thread.

Whatever about the objective rights and wrongs of various driving/cycling strategies, this was not two calm headed people going about their business. That's not how people behave on the roads in these situations.

I read it as follows:

Cyclist: who the fk is that driving their private car in the bus lane?
Driver: fk this traffic, needs to get my breakfast roll, let me past, I'm a guard
Cyclist: he's not getting past, take the lane
Driver: gonna teach the fcker a lesson
Cyclist: bastard's trying to kill me
Driver: RESPECT MY AUTHORITY!
Cyclist: **** YOU HOMICIDAL GUARD!

I've done the same thing on rare occasions as a cyclist on the north quays - and in some cases blocked the lane only to find out it's a guard.

I have no right to block the lane for the sake of it, but it's usually members of the legal profession taking an illegal short cut to get to the courts, so fck 'em.

I don't know whether gardai have the legal right to use that lane whenever they like, and in any case I assume they would make up some bull**** about going to save the world even if they were on the way to Coppers for lunch (I've personal experience of law-breaking Gardai covering for each other) but if they want to take it to court I'd enjoy the day off.

From a more reasonable angle, I cycle that lane every day and have no issue with cars or buses passing in their lane, but the lanes are very narrow and some cyclists are more nervous/wobbly than others. It's bad lane design but that's not unusual for Dublin.

If you paint lines on the road it's to be expected that people act territorially.

frozenfrozen

stoplooklisten wrote: »

Would the garda have acted any different if it was the Garda commissioner on the bicycle?

Yes, same way they would have acted differently if it had been a child on the bike. But the difference is the cyclist should have continued on his path, not turned into some advanced cyclist looking to dominate the lane at the last second. You can't have it both ways by daydreaming along and then turning into a rospa gold cyclist at the first sight of being overtaken dangerously. The cyclist wasn't on top of the situation, so he should've left the channel open for overtaking and then covered it after. You can't fix a mistake like that in the middle of an overtake, he made it much more dangerous

frozenfrozen

Lumen wrote: »

I think there's a bit of dishonesty in this thread.

Whatever about the objective rights and wrongs of various driving/cycling strategies, this was not two calm headed people going about their business. That's not how people behave on the roads in these situations.

I read it as follows:

Cyclist: who the fk is that driving their private car in the bus lane?
Driver: fk this traffic, needs to get my breakfast roll, let me past, I'm a guard
Cyclist: he's not getting past, take the lane
Driver: gonna teach the fcker a lesson
Cyclist: bastard's trying to kill me
Driver: RESPECT MY AUTHORITY!
Cyclist: **** YOU HOMICIDAL GUARD!

I've done the same thing on rare occasions as a cyclist on the north quays - and in some cases blocked the lane only to find out it's a guard.

I have no right to block the lane for the sake of it, but it's usually members of the legal profession taking an illegal short cut to get to the courts, so fck 'em.

I don't know whether gardai have the legal right to use that lane whenever they like, and in any case I assume they would make up some bull**** about going to save the world even if they were on the way to Coppers for lunch (I've personal experience of law-breaking Gardai covering for each other) but if they want to take it to court I'd enjoy the day off.

From a more reasonable angle, I cycle that lane every day and have no issue with cars or buses passing in their lane, but the lanes are very narrow and some cyclists are more nervous/wobbly than others. It's bad lane design but that's not unusual for Dublin.

If you paint lines on the road it's to be expected that people act territorially.

That's the crux of the whole thing, it's two egos meeting, if the man driving had seen his friend on the bike and the man on the bike had seen his friend behind he'd have pulled right in and they would have waved as they went past. But the bike thought who the **** is this asshole using the BUS lane!!!! and the guard went I'll overtake this bike oH what the **** he's blocking me on purpose I'll scare him now

Lumen

frozenfrozen wrote: »

That's the crux of the whole thing, it's two egos meeting, if the man driving had seen his friend on the bike and the man on the bike had seen his friend behind he'd have pulled right in and they would have waved as they went past. But the bike thought who the **** is this asshole using the BUS lane!!!! and the guard went I'll overtake this bike oH what the **** he's blocking me on purpose I'll scare him now

The difference is that the driver is operating a couple of tons of killing machine and the cyclist in on 20kgs of metal tubes and rubber.

Therefore we should expect the driver to be the bigger person, particularly when they're a member of AGS.

frozenfrozen

Lumen wrote: »

The difference is that the driver is operating a couple of tons of killing machine and the cyclist in on 20kgs of metal tubes and rubber.

Therefore we should expect the driver to be the bigger person, particularly when they're a member of AGS.

But really up until after the bike moved out to block him, he was being quite courteous by going out as far as possible and staying there until the bike noticed him. It's not like he just shot up the side of the bike, there was good 5 or so seconds of him in an overtaking position. It's only after they butted heads that the whole situation went to the dogs

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Chronicler wrote: »

Or you could use....reality.

Stand on the footpath on the Quays some morning and witness the 100's of safe overtaking manoeuvres performed.

You'd swear there were dozens of cyclists being mowed down every day on the north quays from the hysterical reactions on here.

That's a terrible straw man argument. It only takes one unsafe overtake to kill somebody. Do the 100's of "safe" (I would use successful, not safe) passes outweigh the few collisions? I don't think so.

Lumen

frozenfrozen wrote: »

But really up until after the bike moved out to block him, he was being quite courteous by going out as far as possible and staying there until the bike noticed him. It's not like he just shot up the side of the bike, there was good 5 or so seconds of him in an overtaking position. It's only after they butted heads that the whole situation went to the dogs

Well OK then. Most date rapists are quite courteous up until the point where they don't take no for an answer.

Chronicler

Cayden Flaky Sewage wrote: »

Do the 100's of "safe" (I would use successful, not safe) passes outweigh the few collisions?

They clearly demonstrate the nonsense of the argument that it's not safe to overtake a cyclist in the bus lane.

Chronicler

Lumen wrote: »

Well OK then. Most date rapists are quite courteous up until the point where they don't take no for an answer.

Oh good.

Another 'rape analogy'.

Lumen

Chronicler wrote: »

Oh good.

Another 'rape analogy'.

I can do Nazis if you'd prefer..?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Chronicler wrote: »

They clearly demonstrate the nonsense of the argument that it's not safe to overtake a cyclist in the bus lane.

It depends on the case. In the OP's case, it was not safe.

Carawaystick

Lets look at this another way, lets say the cyclist was in the right lane, with a load of stopped traffic in the left lane, and a car came up trying to overtake all the stopped traffic and the cyclist. That would be unacceptable behaviour by the motorist. Just like it is here.

frozenfrozen

Lumen wrote: »

Well OK then. Most date rapists are quite courteous up until the point where they don't take no for an answer.

That's just ridiculous.

Lumen

frozenfrozen wrote: »

That's just ridiculous.

Why?

frozenfrozen

Lumen wrote: »

Why?

Just no. you can discuss that with someone else if you want but I won't

Chronicler

Cayden Flaky Sewage wrote: »

It depends on the case. In the OP's case, it was not safe.

Because the cyclist was being a dick.