Don't busy bodies just pi$$ you off!

joesoap5

I was cycling down the north circular towards south side yesterday and
some motorist in front of me decided it would be a good idea
to drive in the cycle lane. So I was cycling behind the car and another cyclist with bright ideas decided to swerve in front of the car to get into the cycle lane.
The car jammed his brakes so as not to hit the cyclist and I hadn't a chance.
I ended up braking but not enough time and I hit the back of the car.
I shouted some angry words at the driver and sarcastically he said I cant hear you.
So I was about to take the drivers reg when this busy body on her bike came along telling me it wasn't the drivers fault.
I said yeah it was, he was clearly driving in the cycle lane and he was actually still in it when this one arrived.
She just looked at me like I had two heads.
I was ok so I just decided I was too angry to hang around and cycled off to work.
I seen the aul one down the road and said to her about her being a busy body who didn't know what happened. She said she saw everything and that it wasn't his fault.
I actually found her more annoying than the driver.
I'm actually quite sore today and I'm sorry I didnt report the driver when he made no attempt to apologise or ask if I was okay.

joesoap5

<snip deleted post>

If I ever see her again I'm giving her a copy of the rules of the road.

Ferrari3600

That's terrible, Joe!

Rackstar

You cycled into the back of him, regardless of where he was, you didn't leave enough of a gap to stop if he braked.

joesoap5

Rackstar wrote: »

You cycled into the back of him, regardless of where he was, you didn't leave enough of a gap to stop if he braked.

Its illegal to drive in a clearly marked bike lane and he slammed his brakes so I had no hope of stopping in time even though I did brake myself asap.

No, I really didn't have a chance, there was space between us by the way.

How much space is there in rush hour traffic on a main road?

Rackstar

joesoap5 wrote: »

Its illegal to drive in a clearly marked bike lane and he slammed his brakes so I had no hope of stopping in time even though I did brake myself asap.

No, I really didn't have a chance, there was space between us by the way.

How much space is there in rush hour traffic on a main road?

Either you didn't leave enough space or you were travelling too fast. End of, you hit the back of him.

CramCycle

joesoap5 wrote: »

Its illegal to drive in a clearly marked bike lane and he slammed his brakes so I had no hope of stopping in time even though I did brake myself asap.

No, I really didn't have a chance, there was space between us by the way.

How much space is there in rush hour traffic on a main road?

She may have been a busy body but she was right. You were in the wrong. Even the rules of the road have this bit nailed down. No matter the vehicle in front of you, you should be travelling at a speed and distance that you can stop in time if they drop anchor.

joesoap5

CramCycle wrote: »

She may have been a busy body but she was right. You were in the wrong. Even the rules of the road have this bit nailed down. No matter the vehicle in front of you, you should be travelling at a speed and distance that you can stop in time if they drop anchor.

Yeah, I agree about the hitting the back of any vehicle, everyone knows that rule.

So how does it work out if he was illegally driving in a bike lane when it happened?

Isn't it a case that pedestrians are number one, cyclists number 2 then vehicles?

CramCycle

joesoap5 wrote: »

So how does it work out if he was illegally driving in a bike lane when it happened?

No difference, imagine you were a bus, not a bicycle and you rear ended the car. Would it still be the cars fault?

Legalities aside, no matter the reason the car was there, for your own sake you should not have been that close. It is no different than someone tailgating beause they feel the Sunday driver should not be there. It is not only illegal, it is ill advised and dangerous.

joesoap5

CramCycle wrote: »

No difference, imagine you were a bus, not a bicycle and you rear ended the car. Would it still be the cars fault?

Legalities aside, no matter the reason the car was there, for your own sake you should not have been that close. It is no different than someone tailgating beause they feel the Sunday driver should not be there. It is not only illegal, it is ill advised and dangerous.

That comparison is just silly.

You'd swear we were travelling on a country road on a bank holiday monday with endless stretches of road to ourselves.

Fact - it was town at 8.30 am, nobody on any mode of transport can afford to leave 20 foot of free space between them a
and another and nobody does, yourself included so stop preaching.

The guy was a dickhead, he was in illegal space and he slammed suddenly in order to not hit another cyclist.

I'm sore and I'm annoyed and you're not helping. Thanks buddy.

Rackstar

joesoap5 wrote: »

That comparison is just silly.

You'd swear we were travelling on a country road on a bank holiday monday with endless stretches of road to ourselves.

Fact - it was town at 8.30 am, nobody on any mode of transport can afford to leave 20 foot of free space between them a
and another and nobody does, yourself included so stop preaching.

The guy was a dickhead, he was in illegal space and he slammed suddenly in order to not hit another cyclist.

I'm sore and I'm annoyed and you're not helping. Thanks buddy.

WTF. Did you get a bang in the head when you cycled into the back of the car?

Go get yourself checked by a doctor. You were in the wrong, your are not thinking straight. Go for a check up.

joesoap5

Rackstar wrote: »

WTF. Did you get a bang in the head when you cycled into the back of the car?

Go get yourself checked by a doctor. You were in the wrong, your are not thinking straight. Go for a check up.

Remarks aside, i'm genuinely interested in knowing the real facts about which legality takes precedence in this instance.

Is it the car in bike lane or bike hitting car in bike lane?

Does vulnerable cyclist get precedence over 3.2 ltr BMW?

BobbyPropane

Rackstar

joesoap5 wrote: »

Remarks aside, i'm genuinely interested in knowing the real facts about which legality takes precedence in this instance.

Is it the car in bike lane or bike hitting car in bike lane?

Does vulnerable cyclist get precedence over 3.2 ltr BMW?

It's a bike hitting a car in the bike lane. You hit the car. 3 people including an eye witness have told you it was your fault.

Eamonnator

The motorist was wrong. He shouldn't have been in the cycle lane.
You were wrong. You didn't leave enough space between him and you.
You should have left enough space to stop, when he braked.
The collision was your fault.
You don't have to like it, you just have to put up with it.

CramCycle

Eamonnator beat me to it

Fwonky

Yes he should have been further away from the vehicle, and the accident could have been avoided this way.
Yes the other cyclist shouldn't have swerved in front of the car, and an accident would have been avoided this way.
But most importantly the car shouldn't have been there in the first place, it was breaking the law and this law is in place to prevent situations exactly like this. If it wasn't there, there wouldn't have been any potential for an accident. So the driver of the car was at fault here.

gctest50

Rackstar wrote: »

It's a bike hitting a car in the bike lane. You hit the car.

3 people including an eye witness have told you it was your fault.

And if 5 people told him the car was at fault, would it be ?

joesoap5

Rackstar wrote: »

It's a bike hitting a car in the bike lane. You hit the car. 3 people including an eye witness have told you it was your fault.

That woman didn't say it was my fault actually and I thought that she was referring to the nifty cyclist who swerved in front of the BMW unscathed and sped off without a notion of what happened.

CramCycle

Two wrongs do not make a right, yes the car should not have been there, no one is arguing that. Does this mean it is OK to tailgate because the driver in front has a broken brake light. Is it OK for me to lie down on the buslane and stop traffic because the car behind me does not have a taxi plate on. Can I run a red light because another car at the crossing junction done it, lets say they ran it first and I ran it second, and we collided, are they more at fault because they were breaking the law first.

The only benefit of it happening in the bus lane from your perspective is that the driver is unlikely to point out their own folly. Thankfully most Gardai would just laugh either of you out of the place, rather than waste time in court.

CramCycle

Fwonky wrote: »

So the driver of the car was at fault here.

Didn't realise the driver forced joe to tailgate

Fwonky

joesoap5 wrote: »

That woman didn't say it was my fault actually and I thought that she was referring to the nifty cyclist who swerved in front of the BMW unscathed and sped off without a notion of what happened.

As much that cyclists fault than yours tbh, you should never make a manoeuvre that causes someone on the road to slow down unintentionally. This would be a fail on a drivers test, and being on the road, cyclists should follow these standards too really.

joesoap5

CramCycle wrote: »

Two wrongs do not make a right, yes the car should not have been there, no one is arguing that. Does this mean it is OK to tailgate because the driver in front has a broken brake light. Is it OK for me to lie down on the buslane and stop traffic because the car behind me does not have a taxi plate on. Can I run a red light because another car at the crossing junction done it, lets say they ran it first and I ran it second, and we collided, are they more at fault because they were breaking the law first.

The only benefit of it happening in the bus lane from your perspective is that the driver is unlikely to point out their own folly. Thankfully most Gardai would just laugh either of you out of the place, rather than waste time in court.

Number one it happened in a bike lane not a bus lane.
Number two i hope like you said in the comment you deleted earlier that
you can indeed stop in time if a car ever suddenly slams its brakes in a bike lane in rush hour traffic when you are keeping up with the flow of traffic, not tail gating. Why would a small bike tail gate a massive beemer?
No logic there at all. You tail gate when you're bullying a driver to move out of your way. Some of your replies are just ridiculous.

You sound so arrogant about a scenario that you didn't even witness.

I take responsibility for actually going into the back of the car but only cause he slammed brakes.

joesoap5

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Cyclists would do well to remember that they are essentially bags of flesh and bone sitting on a metal pole with little or no protection. Some of the things I have seen them do are downright suicidal, like the chap I saw recently holding on to the back of a lorry for a tow. Now I am not bashing all cyclists but surely most cyclists can agree that there is a nutcase element that gives the rest a bad name.

Yeah I seen a bike do that on the Drumcondra road a few weeks back and it looked mental and he wasn't a young cyclist either.
This was one of those old trucks like the ones that used to deliver coal years ago. He was holding the corner of it like he was showing off or something.

chicorytip

The motorist is a jerk who is completely at fault in this instance. What on earth was his intention? Was he intending to dive up the inside of stationary traffic up ahead in order to make a left turn or just being plain careless and unaware of his exact position? I have never witnessed similar driver behaviour during my own lengthy cycling experience. It's simply bizarre.
OP, you did indeed err by not calling the Gardai or taking note of his reg.
It's a shame you didn't leave a large dent as a souvenir!

CramCycle

joesoap5 wrote: »

Number one it happened in a bike lane not a bus lane.
Number two i hope like you said in the comment you deleted earlier that
you can indeed stop in time if a car ever suddenly slams its brakes in a bike lane in rush hour traffic when you are keeping up with the flow of traffic, not tail gating. Why would a small bike tail gate a massive beemer?

I can by leaving enough room. In rush hour traffic it does not take much.

No logic there at all. You tail gate when you're bullying a driver to move out of your way. Some of your replies are just ridiculous.

Not what tailgating is although often what it is used for. You were either tailgating or were slow to react for whatever reason. Neither are a great reason.

You sound so arrogant about a scenario that you didn't even witness

I am taking your version of events unless you left something out

I take responsibility for actually going into the back of the car but only cause he slammed brakes.

All sorted then, it sounded like you were blaming the driver earlier. Apologies.

joesoap5

chicorytip wrote: »

The motorist is a jerk who is completely at fault in this instance. What on earth was his intention? Was he intending to dive up the inside of stationary traffic up ahead in order to make a left turn or just being plain careless and unaware of his exact position? I have never witnessed similar driver behaviour during my own lengthy cycling experience. It's simply bizarre.
OP, you did indeed err by not calling the Gardai or taking note of his reg.
It's a shame you didn't leave a large dent as a souvenir!

I'm not sure if you know the length of road I'm talking about but there is one car lane for most of the road and a bike lane.
Then as you approach the crossroads there is a lane to turn left.

I seen him as I was approaching the traffic and I remember thinking he must be taking a left turn but he moved into the left way too early as he was completely in the bike lane as the left turn lane hadn't developed yet. He was trying to beat the other traffic where he would be the first to get into the left lane when it finally arrives.

I also remember thinking hes a selfish get, where are cyclists supposed to go. the cyclist who spun in front of him was determined to get into the bike lane.

Lumen

Did the cycle lane have a solid or dashed line?

Borderfox

joesoap5 wrote: »

If I ever see her again I'm giving her a copy of the rules of the road.

Roll them up. I give you a good idea where you can stick them :-)

Mellor

joesoap5 wrote: »

If I ever see her again I'm giving her a copy of the rules of the road.

Make sure you have a read of it yourself before you hand it over.
From your posts, it's clear you are completely oblivious to road safety.


From the Rules of the road handbook;

joesoap5 wrote: »

Its illegal to drive in a clearly marked bike lane and he slammed his brakes so I had no hope of stopping in time even though I did brake myself asap.

If you had no hope of stopping, then you were too close to him, by definition. Ergo, you are at fault.

His presence in the cycle lane was probably illegal, but they doesn't remove the onus from you to keep a safe distance. Especially relevant is that you seen him in the lane, and decided to cycle up his ass anyway.

joesoap5 wrote: »

Remarks aside, i'm genuinely interested in knowing the real facts about which legality takes precedence in this instance.

Is it the car in bike lane or bike hitting car in bike lane?

Does vulnerable cyclist get precedence over 3.2 ltr BMW?

Neither takes precedence over the other. Both are illegal.
Well, we can't be sure about the car in the lane without seeing the exact layout, but you were definitely in the wrong, by your admission of not having time to stop above.

joesoap5 wrote: »

Number one it happened in a bike lane not a bus lane.
Number two i hope like you said in the comment you deleted earlier that
you can indeed stop in time if a car ever suddenly slams its brakes in a bike lane in rush hour traffic when you are keeping up with the flow of traffic.

The lane it happened in doesn't change that you decided to cycle too close to him.

You keep talking about rush hour traffic. Why do you think that makes a difference. Rush hour traffic is, if anything, slower moving.

Wishbone Ash

joesoap5 wrote: »

I'm not sure if you know the length of road I'm talking about but there is one car lane for most of the road and a bike lane.
Then as you approach the crossroads there is a lane to turn left.....

Sounds more like you were on Portland Row heading for the junction with North Strand (5 lamps junction).

joesoap5 - count yourself lucky that the car driver isn't after you for any damage than you may have caused. Regardless of whether or not his actions were illegal, you have a duty to moderate your cycling accordingly. It is your responsibility to leave enough space to stop in good time.

I presuming by your posts above that you don't drive - well I hope you don't anyway as you have a lot to learn.

There are drivers/vehicles which are entitled to be in the cycle lane. Would you adopt a similar attitude towards them.

Chuchote

joesoap5 wrote: »

So I was about to take the drivers reg when this busy body on her bike came along telling me it wasn't the drivers fault.
I seen the aul one down the road and said to her about her being a busy body who didn't know what happened. She said she saw everything and that it wasn't his fault.
I actually found her more annoying than the driver.

Everyday sexism? I find this more unpleasant than the description of the crash.

The witness told the OP, correctly, that he was in the wrong for crashing into the back of another vehicle.

ebbsy

joesoap5 wrote: »

Alpha_zero wrote: »

Was she hot, probably in shape cycling. Make the most of a bad situation discuss it over drinks

If I ever see her again I'm giving her a copy of the rules of the road.

You ain't seeing much bud if you are busy crashing into the back of people.

fat bloke

When you see someone crash on their bike the correct response is "Are you OK?" Not "That was your fault".

arybvtcw0eolkf

fat bloke wrote: »

When you see someone crash on their bike the correct response is "Are you OK?" Not "That was your fault".

Unless it was the OP who crashed :pac:

OP you're not really describing the location very well tbh. Did you have a continuous white line on the cycle lane or a broken white line?.

Either way you're the more vulnerable one in a collision with just about anything else on the road so you should be taking better care of yourself.

Glad you're well enough to have a good ol' rant about it, but take it on the chin as a lesson learned.

Safe cycling

Chuchote

fat bloke wrote: »

When you see someone crash on their bike the correct response is "Are you OK?" Not "That was your fault".

Unless - and this is just a theory, mind - the cyclist is in full voice telling the other party off when the cyclist is actually at fault?

DanDublin1982

I take it the other cyclist overtook you and Mr beemer in order to be in a position to cut into the cycle lane? Or where did he come from?

magicbastarder

this is like telling someone 'it's your fault i punched you in the face because you put your face in the way when i swung my fist'.

OP, i was once in a very similar position to you, i hit the back of a taxi due to my own lack of observation, after he pulled in to pick up a fare - and i was looking the wrong way. it was my fault i hit him, he was completely stationary by the time i looked up.

ThisRegard

joesoap5 wrote: »

The guy was a dickhead, he was in illegal space and he slammed suddenly in order to not hit another cyclist.

Sounds like an asshole alright, what was he thinking stopping to avoid driving over another cyclist?

Chuchote

Anyway, this thread and this event is a perfect illustration of why protected, separated cycle lanes are badly needed.

fat bloke

Chuchote wrote: »

Anyway, this thread and this event is a perfect illustration of why protected, separated cycle lanes are badly needed.

And what about protection from busybodies? What about them? Who's going to protect us from them? Are you going to do it? Are the cycle lanes going to do that?
And why don't you go get a haircut??

:pac:

Lumen

fat bloke wrote: »

When you see someone crash on their bike the correct response is "Are you OK?" Not "That was your fault".

Jesus, is that you?

fat bloke

Lumen wrote: »

Jesus, is that you?

Yes, my son.

buffalo

Fwonky wrote: »

As much that cyclists fault than yours tbh, you should never make a manoeuvre that causes someone on the road to slow down unintentionally. This would be a fail on a drivers test, and being on the road, cyclists should follow these standards too really.

Is that you Joe?

What is this "causing someone to slow down unintentionally" rule? Sounds great!

Lumen

buffalo wrote: »

Is that you Joe?

What is this "causing someone to slow down unintentionally" rule? Sounds great!

I assume "slow down unintentionally" means "crash".

Wishbone Ash

Lumen wrote: »

I assume "slow down unintentionally" means "crash".

I had visions of a mysterious 3rd leg appearing from under the driver's seat and firmly pressing the brake pedal.

buffalo

Lumen wrote: »

I assume "slow down unintentionally" means "crash".

nuh uh. This definitely means if I'm behind someone who wants to turn into a side road while we're both doing 50kph, they're not allowed slow me down and so have to take the corner at 50kph.

Wishbone Ash

Chuchote wrote: »

Anyway, this thread and this event is a perfect illustration of why protected, separated cycle lanes are badly needed. some people should not have access to public roads.

FYP!

Chuchote

Weepsie wrote: »

Not really. I see a car being arsey and in a cycle lane, I keep my distance. OP should've done the same. Not enough people bother to assess their environment and want everything done for them.

Driver couldn't have driven into a protected cycle lane, though, so the stupidity wouldn't have happened.

xebec

Chuchote wrote: »

Driver couldn't have driven into a protected cycle lane, though, so the stupidity wouldn't have happened.

Really? To me this story is evidence that some cyclists need more education in how to progress safely in traffic.

Eamonnator

Chuchote wrote: »

Everyday sexism? I find this more unpleasant than the description of the crash.

The witness told the OP, correctly, that he was in the wrong for crashing into the back of another vehicle.

"I seen the aul wan"

Can I join in?

Ageism as well as sexism.