Near misses - mod warning 22/04 - see OP/post 822

Fighting Tao

Duffryman wrote: »

Have to say that's an example of the sort of cyclist manoeuvre I sometimes wonder about.

Looks like you chose to try go up the inside of a moving car, through a space less than 1 metre wide.

If it was the other way round, with the car coming from behind you, and the driver tried to go past you while leaving just that much space, you'd be annoyed about it (and rightly so), since they wouldn't be giving you a metre passing space. So why is it 'okay' for you to try pass at less than a metre space, especially when it ends up with that sort of tricky situation?

Might you not have been better off just hanging in behind that car instead, especially when you intended to turn off the road just a short distance up ahead anyway? The driver of the second car seems to be hanging back to give you room to slot in behind that front one.

I don't know how many times I've seen cyclists complain about motorists forcing their way past them, only for that motorist to turn off the road a short distance ahead (in those cases, it would be the motorist turning left after going past the cyclist). This seems to be the same thing, but the other way round.

A case of that 'must get past' syndrome that some cyclists sometimes accuse some motorists of?

You must not have popped your cherry yet when it comes to crossing the east link. I can cross it in the mornings and be waiting at Booterstown before motor vehicles that I’ve passed on the east link pass by. 6km of a distance. I can guarantee that there was no where for the car to go if she had of managed to pass the bike.

However, it is perfectly legal for bikes to filter through slower traffic. It’s safe too once there isn’t an asshat like that driver.

Duffryman

Fighting Tao wrote: »

You must not have popped your cherry yet when it comes to crossing the east link.

However, it is perfectly legal for bikes to filter through slower traffic. It’s safe too once there isn’t an asshat like that driver.

I cycle sometimes on a short journey around home but I don't live near Dublin, and no, ove never cycled the East Link. Not sure that's particularly relevant here though, since I'm wondering about the actions of somebody else in the clip here.

I'm well aware that it's legal to filter up the inside of slower moving or stationary traffic. What I wonder about is trying to filter up such narrow spaces in circumstances where the car or cars or other vehicles are quite likely to be able to speed up again before the cyclist has finished that filtering.

That's what happened here. Still wondering if in this particular case, that cyclist wouldn't have been better off just hanging in behind that car, especially he was turning off so soon afterwards anyway. He hadn't much to gain by trying to get past. A second or two, maybe?

Again, if it was the other way round and a motorist tried to squeeze past a cyclist to save just a few seconds, people would give out stink about it. So what - if anything - makes it okay when it's a cyclist who's doing the squeezing past to save those seconds?

magicbastarder

Duffryman wrote: »

What I wonder about is trying to filter up such narrow spaces

you mean from about 15s? several seconds later, you can see the car's rear wheel is passing over the arrow in the road. the car is *far* from hugging the kerb.

in fact, the only thing i'd have done different (in that i do it differently) is that i don't use that cycle path being used in the opening seconds of the video - with an important caveat that i'm usually there before 7am when the traffic is lighter.
there was a cyclist killed on that stretch last year; i don't know what the cause was, though i have my suspicions which i'm not going to air here.

magicbastarder

Fighting Tao wrote: »

I can cross it in the mornings and be waiting at Booterstown before motor vehicles that I’ve passed on the east link pass by. 6km of a distance.

i was passed by an audi on the east wall road one morning last summer - even before it swings right for the point depot - and was still swapping places with it passing leopardstown racecourse.
the reason i was able to keep track of it was that it had the strangest **** brown paint job i've seen on a modern car.

Alanstrainor

Jesus I hate that carryon. The half overtake/intimidation, ridiculous behaviour and for no end.

Breezer

I witnessed one as a pedestrian this evening. A woman is cycling over Harold's Cross Bridge outbound here, with a green light.

Meanwhile, another cyclist with no lights comes up Grove Road on the wrong side of the road, makes an illegal right turn through a red light onto Harold's Cross Road inbound, still on the wrong side of the road, and continues towards her in the cycle lane at speed in the wrong direction. He swerves at the last second into the path of a car in the narrow driving lane, which thankfully was far enough back that he was able to nip back into the wrong cycle lane and continue down the road.

The woman continued serenely on as if nothing had happened!

I got the impression though I concede we don't see what's ahead of the OP and I don't know the road but experience tells me that he was outpacing traffic there and that had that car got around him they'd have only ended up behind another slow moving car for him to pass them on the left again a few seconds later.

Effects

Cycling towards Blackrock on the Kilmacud Rd. last night. Spotted a faint white light coming towards me in the cycle lane and thought someone had a front light on the back, and I was gaining on them quite fast. Nope, it was a woman cycling on the wrong side of the road. At least she had a light, even if it was a bad one!

mr spuckler

Deleted User wrote: »

I got the impression though I concede we don't see what's ahead of the OP and I don't know the road but experience tells me that he was outpacing traffic there and that had that car got around him they'd have only ended up behind another slow moving car for him to pass them on the left again a few seconds later.

yeah I didn't bother with the front camera view but it's just a solid line of traffic in front of me. you can see one of her early overtaking attempts nearly takes her in front of an oncoming lorry just to sit in front of me in that queue.

and to satisfy the deep concern above for my judgment in heavy traffic, there was a path along the inside of several cars when I passed her initially, that gap closed quickly though as the motorist in front of her nudged left for some reason. hence why I got stuck where I did.

magicbastarder wrote: »

in fact, the only thing i'd have done different (in that i do it differently) is that i don't use that cycle path being used in the opening seconds of the video - with an important caveat that i'm usually there before 7am when the traffic is lighter.

yeah traffic is usually too heavy for me to be bothered with the hassle of that! there often tends to be a lot of trucks there when I'm passing too so despite the benefit of already holding the road position from your approach I stick to the cycle lane. a lot of cyclists who do that continue up the footpath where I rejoined the road but that spits you out on the roundabout which I think is worse again.

Duffryman

mr spuckler wrote: »

yeah I didn't bother with the front camera view but it's just a solid line of traffic in front of me. you can see one of her early overtaking attempts nearly takes her in front of an oncoming lorry just to sit in front of me in that queue.

and to satisfy the deep concern above for my judgment in heavy traffic, there was a path along the inside of several cars when I passed her initially, that gap closed quickly though as the motorist in front of her nudged left for some reason. hence why I got stuck where I did.

Okay, I'm just going by what we can see in that video, where traffic appears to be flowing fairly freely. It's definitely not bumper-to-bumper gridlock anyway.

If that's all that faced her up front, then yeah, she might have done things differently too, and hung back to let you past easier.

But either way, I still wonder why so determined to get past a vehicle when you'd be turning off that road such a short time later anyway?

Again, if a motorist battled their way past a cyclist, only to cut across them to make a turn-off at such a short distance later, that cyclist would be rightly annoyed. This seems to be the same thing in reverse.

Driver of the second car seems to be behaving reasonably in making sure you'd have enough space to drop back in behind that front car, if you wanted to. I'd suggest you could have just taken up position there, and just arrived to your turn-off point maybe three or four seconds later?

Obviously we all make countless split-second decisions while we're cycling or driving. We can't all be 100% correct all of the time.

mr spuckler

it wasn't about her 'letting me past', I was already past and she decided that she had to get back in front.

then you're equating a left hook by a motorist, which rightly infuriates cyclists as it seriously endangers their wellbeing, with a cyclist proceeding ahead of a motorist to whom he poses absolutely zero threat for at least 40s before turning off safely. I think that's what we refer to as false equivalence.

if I knew at the time what was to transpire I certainly wouldn't have passed her, however my read of the road before I passed her showed a more likely different picture which didn't come to pass. however, the only person committing an offence and endangering the other through their impatient behaviour is the motorist. you'd do well to see & acknowledge that.

Vincenzo Nibbly

Monday - Cyclist carries straight on through red at UCD Clonskeagh almost mowing down 3 peds
Wednesday - Approaching the right turn onto Beech Hill Rd off the Clonskeagh Rd, a car is waiting in the right lane on red, fully in the cycle box, behind a motorcycle. The straight ahead light goes green, the right filter arrow remaining on red, but this doesn't deter our hero in the car who clearly has places to be. They start to edge forward, towards the motorcyclist's standing leg, inch by inch. Eventually I feel the need to tap the car and warn them that they are about to hit someone's leg, to which the passenger winds down the window to tell me to calm down...

Hurrache

Not so much a near miss for someone this morning
https://twitter.com/DubFireBrigade/status/1095658527140515840

Duffryman

mr spuckler wrote: »

if I knew at the time what was to transpire I certainly wouldn't have passed her, however my read of the road before I passed her showed a more likely different picture which didn't come to pass. however, the only person committing an offence and endangering the other through their impatient behaviour is the motorist. you'd do well to see & acknowledge that.

...and that's what I mean by how we all have to make split second decisions that don't always turn out to be 100% the correct one.

For the record, I never said nor suggested that the motorist is completely blameless here either. In fact, when we got the new info that there was nothing but a line of traffic up ahead, rather than a relatively clear road, I even said straight out that she could have done things differently too.

Look, bottom line is that you’d probably have been able to maintain that same speed on the bike anyway, whether you were on the inside of the car, in front of it, or following behind after taking the lane in front of the second car. So you’d still have reached your turn-off point in exactly the same time. You actually gained nothing from the passing manoeuvre.

In fairness to you, you’ve accepted that if you’d known how things would work out, you’d have acted differently. Thank you. All I’d hoped in raising this in the first place was that maybe you or another cyclist or two might consider how sometimes it’s a cyclist’s decision that leads to a tricky situation, and that maybe the cyclist could have acted differently.

Finally, I won’t comment on “committing an offence”, as that would be for the appropriate authorities to decide. I do acknowledge that the motorist was the only one to endanger another person.

But on the other hand, only one person endangered themself too.

buffalo

Duffryman wrote: »

All I’d hoped in raising this in the first place was that maybe you or another cyclist or two might consider how sometimes it’s a cyclist’s decision that leads to a tricky situation, and that maybe the cyclist could have acted differently.

Are you suggesting that cyclists should consider whether a driver is going to be a malicious prick before deciding to overtake on the left? What factors do we use to make this decision? What are the indicators of the future behaviour when a driver is sitting in near-stationary traffic?

What Username Guidelines

Hurrache wrote: »

Not so much a near miss for someone this morning
https://twitter.com/DubFireBrigade/status/1095658527140515840

Yikes. Close one.

I really wish the Garda account would take on the same tone of voice as DFB.

mr spuckler

Duffryman wrote: »

For the record, I never said nor suggested that the motorist is completely blameless here either. In fact, when we got the new info that there was nothing but a line of traffic up ahead, rather than a relatively clear road, I even said straight out that she could have done things differently too.
Finally, I won’t comment on “committing an offence”, as that would be for the appropriate authorities to decide. I do acknowledge that the motorist was the only one to endanger another person.

But on the other hand, only one person endangered themself too.

I'll stop engaging after this because I sense a blind spot.

endangering other road users is an offence - you've acknowledged that she endangered me but refuse to call it an offence for some reason.

I did not endanger myself. I passed her safely, she then had an obligation to not endanger me. nothing I did caused risk to me, the only person that acted in such a way as to put me in danger was the motorist.

the fact that the road ahead was busy or clear makes no difference whatsoever to the standard of her behaviour or what she should or shouldn't have done. there simply wasn't space to pass me safely and she shouldn't have tried to do so.

it's not just that "she could have done things differently too" as you say, it's that she had a legal obligation to do so. your refusal to call out the sh1tty & dangerous standard of her driving combined with focusing moreso on my behaviour is striking.

in case of any doubt the rules of the road state

You must not overtake when it would cause danger or inconvenience to another road user.

Duffryman

Okay, no point carrying this on, because just as I thought we were getting somewhere, you've dug your heels in again. Pity.

All I'll add at this point is that I always think it a little ironic when cyclists quote the Rules of Road, because they also say this:

to be even more visible to motorists at night, you should:
• add strips of reflective material to the bike (white to the front and red
to the back);
• wear a reflective armband; and
• wear a ‘Sam Browne’ reflective belt or reflective vest.


And they say this:
The law does not require you to wear a helmet. However, in the interest of road safety, and in your personal interest, you should wear a helmet when cycling.


And yes, I'm well aware of the difference between 'must/must not' and 'should/should not', but even allowing for that, they also say:
never listen to music or use radios or mobile phones when cycling.

....and yet large numbers of cyclists in Dublin use earphones, and I've seen people online trying to defend the practice with an argument along the lines of 'drivers listen to music or the radio too, so what's the difference'?

And finally, for a must not, there's:
Sometimes it may be safe to cycle two abreast, but you must not cycle in a manner likely to create an obstruction for other road users.

This means that according to the ROTR, you shouldn't cycle two abreast as a matter of course, and you definitely shouldn't be two abreast with the express intention of making it difficult or impossible for other vehicles to get past, which as we all know is something that pairs or groups of cyclists regularly do.

Good day.

MOD VOICE: I am just going to step in real quick as a MOD here. Don't generalise cyclists, you are discussing with each other so bringing in stuff from the ROTR that has nothing to do with the conversation, and less to do with the poster is strawmanning. Maybe unintentional but it is what it is, nip it in the bud now. Generalise again in such a manner as does not fit in with the conversation will result in a ban from the thread

ganmo

mr spuckler wrote: »

I'll stop engaging after this because I sense a blind spot.

endangering other road users is an offence - you've acknowledged that she endangered me but refuse to call it an offence for some reason.

I did not endanger myself. I passed her safely, she then had an obligation to not endanger me. nothing I did caused risk to me, the only person that acted in such a way as to put me in danger was the motorist.

the fact that the road ahead was busy or clear makes no difference whatsoever to the standard of her behaviour or what she should or shouldn't have done. there simply wasn't space to pass me safely and she shouldn't have tried to do so.

it's not just that "she could have done things differently too" as you say, it's that she had a legal obligation to do so. your refusal to call out the sh1tty & dangerous standard of her driving combined with focusing moreso on my behaviour is striking.

in case of any doubt the rules of the road state

I've looked at the vid, I think that the driver was keeping up with the traffic in front of her and maybe didn't see you.

Which i think is worse than a close overtake

Duffryman

buffalo wrote: »

Are you suggesting that cyclists should consider whether a driver is going to be a malicious prick before deciding to overtake on the left? What factors do we use to make this decision? What are the indicators of the future behaviour when a driver is sitting in near-stationary traffic?

Ammm.....neither that driver nor any other driver was sitting in near-stationary traffic in that instance. The traffic was moving at a pretty uniform speed for the duration of the clip.

Again, what you have here is a cyclist deciding to go up the inside of a car, just so he can cut across the front of that car a short distance later in order to turn right. Since that distance is so short and the potential time saving so small (two seconds? three?), I'm merely wondering what was the point of that manouevre at all, and if the wiser move might have been to just take up position in front of the second car.

And again, I repeat that if a motorist were to pass a cyclist, only to then cut back across them to turn off the road a short distance later, that cyclist would be rightly annoyed. I don't accept it's a false equivalence.

Overall, what I see here is two people who could each have acted differently to prevent the situation from ever arising in the first place.

Others may see it differently, and of course are quite free to say so. To me, that's the whole idea of a discussion forum in the first place.

Duffryman

Okay Mod, sorry about that. Just brought it up since ROTR had already been mentioned. Didn't mean to cross any boundaries or break any rules.

Yellow card accepted.

Chips Lovell

Mod Note

Please pay heed to the charter:

8. Negativity
There are lots of places on the internet where you can have a rant about cyclists. This isn't one of them. This is a place for people with an interest in cycling to discuss cycling. If you treat it as a venue for holding all cyclists to account for perceived or actual misbehaviour by some, you can expect to find your access swiftly removed. In short, we are not your punching bag. If you really do want do want an answer to your gripe, do a search. The usual topics, such as cycle lanes, cycling two abreast etc. have been discussed, ad nauseam, many, many times before

If you don't have a genuine interest in cycling, don't post here.

buffalo

Duffryman wrote: »

Ammm.....neither that driver nor any other driver was sitting in near-stationary traffic in that instance. The traffic was moving at a pretty uniform speed for the duration of the clip.

I didn't say that clip, I asked a general question. Because this is the sort of situation which can arise after you've overtaken a stationary line of traffic - somebody is agitated by your progress, and tries to squeeze past you again (usually despite the fact that's a line of traffic about 100m up the road).

I'm wondering in what situations - other than when somebody is indicating across me - should I not proceed to make a perfectly safe and legal overtake?

Duffryman wrote: »

Again, what you have here is a cyclist deciding to go up the inside of a car, just so he can cut across the front of that car a short distance later in order to turn right. Since that distance is so short and the potential time saving so small (two seconds? three?), I'm merely wondering what was the point of that manouevre at all, and if the wiser move might have been to just take up position in front of the second car.

The OP proceeded forward where it was safe to do so. He does not 'cut across' the front of the car, he has taken the lane and indicated (or at least so he says). If he had cut across the front of that driver, he would've ended up under the bumper with amount of space left!

How many cars further back do you think he should have stopped moving? Just behind the driver who was an arsehole, or behind the one behind that too? Or maybe the one behind that?

Duffryman wrote: »

Overall, what I see here is two people who could each have acted differently to prevent the situation from ever arising in the first place.

I love the use of the passive voice, as though the situation just magically happened, and wasn't caused by one person's behaviour.

site_owner

no one said its only for active cyclists...

people are saying you dont seem to have a clue but are still lecturing everyone else, and your post confirms that... (dont cycle much, only cycle in rural areas)
maybe admit to yourself that you have no experience to try lecture everyone esle and people wont get their backs up

Duffryman

Ah here. I'm not lecturing. I'm posing questions. Part of the reason why is to try get a greater understanding of certain actions by cyclists sometimes. If you want to take that as me saying I haven't a clue why they do those things, then fair enough.

I may live 'down the country', but I drive in Dublin city almost every week. On just about every trip there, I see what I consider reckless or dangerous or generally just unsensible behaviour by both motorists and cyclists. Sometimes pedestrians too.

I’ve some idea what must be going through the motorists’ minds (or not going through them, as the case may be), even if I don’t agree with it, since I regularly drive in the city myself. I’m more often left wondering what a cyclist might have been thinking, since I don’t cycle there.

Again, take this whatever way you want. You could see it as a driver who’s trying to get a better understanding of cyclists. Or you could continue to see it as somebody lecturing others when he hasn’t got a clue. I didn’t intend anything that way, but if that’s how you want to see it, that’s up to yourself.

buffalo

Duffryman wrote: »

I'm on a yellow card here for talking generally and not confining things to specifics, so forgive me for not answering the first part of your post.

As regards other things....'cut across' was probably a bad choice of words. It implies a sudden and maybe sharp movement. Is ‘move across’ better?

On your next point, I’ve already clearly suggested he could have dropped back into the space behind that first car (the “problem” car), and in front of the second car, whose driver seems to have been driving reasonably at all times and maybe even leaving room specifically to allow this happen.

As for my voice…will resolve to be more active in future.

I'm still not seeing what's wrong with what the cyclist did, or how they contributed to the situation other than by simply being on the road?

Are you suggesting the cyclists should've known that the driver in front was going to have no regard for their safety by the position of their car on the road relative to other traffic?

Effects

mr spuckler wrote: »

and here is the lovely lady...

Sorry, but I have to generalise here.
I find Nissan Tiida drivers usually drive badly. Very little regard for other traffic, no sense of what's around them on the road. Turning and changing lanes without indicating. I just think it's a certain type of person who drives that kind of car, generally.

John_Rambo

Saw two lads on road bikes almost get squashed by a CN reg SUV as the driver tried to overtake them on the left off the Alfie Byrne road to Clontarf road in between the traffic island and the footpath. 100 malicious move, she was tailgating and intimidating them for about 200 metres.

Yesterday at 5.30pm

CramCycle

MOD VOICE: There is a report post button, use it, the next person to backseat mod gets a holiday, there are a few of ye at it, I will edit posts in a few minutes

mr spuckler

John_Rambo wrote: »

Saw two lads on road bikes almost get squashed by a CN reg SUV as the driver tried to overtake them on the left off the Alfie Byrne road to Clontarf road in between the traffic island and the footpath. 100 malicious move, she was tailgating and intimidating them for about 200 metres.

Yesterday at 5.30pm

it's a horrible stretch of road for cyclists, one which is dangerous by design really. the 'cycle track' on the left hand side as you go up the hill before the lights is awful, I end up cycling on the stripes in the middle of the road until I can get onto the proper track on the right hand side at the junction to the business park.