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

TheChizler

Ray Bloody Purchase wrote: »

http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/dublin-cyclists-head-drivers-windscreen/

Looks like they had a relatively lucky escape. Injured but not killed.

Typical media putting the blame on the cyclist:

Dublin Fire Brigade warning after cyclist’s head hits driver’s windscreen

The windscreen was broken by the cyclist’s head

In all seriousness glad that it sounds not too serious, only taken in the ambulance as a precaution.

rubadub

cdaly_ wrote: »

For the sake of pedantry, was this after 7pm? In that case the bus lane is not in operation and is the correct place for a car to be (the leftmost lane).

google maps shows some stretches I cycle on the N11 are 24hr, unless it is out of date or has changed completely?

As the bus lanes usually have a continuous line does this mean if a car is in it they cannot cross it again (bar emergencies)?


This is in the RoTR

Dual carriageways are roads with two or more lanes of traffic travelling in each direction. The outer or right-hand lane in each direction is the lane nearest to the centre of the dual carriageway.

You must normally drive in the left-hand lane of a dual carriageway. You may use the outer lane of a two-lane or three-lane dual carriageway only:

for overtaking,
and when intending to turn right a short distance ahead.

The "must" is for legal requirements, does this mean it is illegal NOT to be using the bus lane if out of hours? are people meant to carry calibrated watches!?

I expect the actual law says not to be in the outer right lane.

Seth Brundle

rubadub wrote: »

does this mean it is illegal NOT to be using the bus lane if out of hours?

Yes.
But we don't enforce the rules here!

ED E

rubadub wrote: »

This is in the RoTR

RoTR are ropey at best, you should really refer to the nebulous mess of RTAs.

'97:
Save where otherwise required by these Regulations, a vehicle shall be driven on the left hand side of the roadway in such a manner so as to allow, without danger or inconvenience to traffic or pedestrians, approaching traffic to pass on the right and overtaking traffic to overtake on the right.


So if a bus lane is outside its op hours I believe you could receive the 2pts and €40 FCPN for not driving in it save getting into the correct lane at a junction. In theory. Never in practice.

TheChizler

rubadub wrote: »

google maps shows some stretches I cycle on the N11 are 24hr, unless it is out of date or has changed completely?

As the bus lanes usually have a continuous line does this mean if a car is in it they cannot cross it again (bar emergencies)?

Bus lane markings might be described as continuous white lines but the specific "continuous white line" in law has a different meaning. Maybe the driver didn't know that.

CramCycle

TheChizler wrote: »

Bus lane markings might be described as continuous white lines but the specific "continuous white line" in law has a different meaning. Maybe the driver didn't know that.

Driver was in the Bus lame from ages before, and had several points where there was no line.Also the driver wasn't thinking that.

amcalester

Any driver reading and taking notes on a print out is not concerned with single white lines or bus lane hours of operations.

TheChizler

CramCycle wrote: »

Driver was in the Bus lame from ages before, and had several points where there was no line.Also the driver wasn't thinking that.

Didn't think it was likely no... Forgot my rolley eyes :rolleyes:

crisco10

Had a close call last night from the "other side" of the steering wheel....

Was along Clonskeagh Road, out of town, near bird avenue junction. There was a "cyclist" in the cycle lane. I say "cyclist" because it looked like he was on one of those mountain bikes with a climb assist mechanism (i.e. a motor!). He was pedaling and probably doing about 30kph.

I overtook him, then was approaching a normal cyclist in cycle lane a bit on. Just then he caught up with me and undertook me, then weaved and overtook the normal cyclist. I'd to brake (not much), and gave him a beep. He hadn't done any sort of shoulder check, or signaled he was going to change lane out of cycle lane. At this point, it all went crazy, the fella swerved out in front of me and jammed on the brakes, which clearly given he was on a bike, he had no brake lights. I was stunned , brake checking is a brain dead thing to do at the best of times, but to do it when on a bike to car!

Anyways, he continued to hurl abuse at me and be generally intimidating as we rolled along at about 10kph. To the point my wife thought he would smash the car up. I was livid, and probably would have continued the exchange at the next set of lights (which were red) but my wife was actually quite scared and intimidated so I didn't want to drag it on.

What really gets me about this is that this guy was a terrible cyclist, just before and just after the incident, we saw him doing other minor things that were just arsey. He just gives cyclists a bad name, and if all cyclists were like him then some motorists would have a point.

As an aside, it did spark a conversation between my wife (who is also a cyclist on that route) and I. The solid white lanes on the cycle lane; are they mutual? i.e. cars can't enter the cycle lane, but can cyclists cross them to overtake other cyclists? To be clear, the latter is something we both do regularly, the question is more a spirit of the law versus letter of the law one...

TheChizler

Not mutual no. What was the point of the beep?

crisco10

TheChizler wrote: »

Not mutual no. What was the point of the beep?

Fair question, I could argue that given he hadn't looked at all, I was alerting him to my presence.

I could also say that I was a little irritated and wanted to let him know that he had been a c*ck.

being honest, probably 40/60 between the 2 above.

RE the white line thing, is the ROTR not that white lines shouldn't be crossed? (i.e. no "direction" is specified)

What Username Guidelines

As much as I like to preach that you can't generalise or treat cyclists like one big homogenous group, it does piss me off seeing cyclists like that. I cant help but agree that people like that dont help the image of cyclists.

crisco10 wrote: »

As an aside, it did spark a conversation between my wife (who is also a cyclist on that route) and I. The solid white lanes on the cycle lane; are they mutual? i.e. cars can't enter the cycle lane, but can cyclists cross them to overtake other cyclists? To be clear, the latter is something we both do regularly, the question is more a spirit of the law versus letter of the law one...

The solid line means vehicles cannot drive or park on them during hours of operation, but doesnt mean you cannot leave them. Most of the time, the former is not enforced so it has to be done, but no cycle lane is mandatory so leaving the lane to overtake, take the lane, etc, is all fine, obviously with the usual shoulder checks, etc.

Pinch Flat

I'm wondering now am I cyclist or a normal cyclist.

amcalester

crisco10 wrote: »

Fair question, I could argue that given he hadn't looked at all, I was alerting him to my presence.

I could also say that I was a little irritated and wanted to let him know that he had been a c*ck.

being honest, probably 40/60 between the 2 above.

RE the white line thing, is the ROTR not that white lines shouldn't be crossed? (i.e. no "direction" is specified)

Maybe he was shouting at you to tell you that he was aware of your presence and that you too had been a c*ck. He not having the advantage of a car horn can only use the tools at his disposal.

I'd call that one a draw. - Edit Forgot about the brake check, he was more of a c*ck.

TheChizler

crisco10 wrote: »

RE the white line thing, is the ROTR not that white lines shouldn't be crossed? (i.e. no "direction" is specified)

I appreciate your honesty! A few years ago I made a conscious decision not to beep after the fact when someone did something dangerous or stupid when it wouldn't help avoid the situation, and I've never looked back. It's a much more relaxing experience, almost forgiving them. Only had to beep to avoid an accident once since, when someone started drifting into my lane as I was overtaking them while being overtaken on the N40.

That rule only applies to the specific continuous white line in the middle of a road, lots of road markings could be described as that but only one has the meaning. Lines marking cycle lanes or bus lanes for instance don't have such a rule associated with them.

CramCycle

TheChizler wrote: »

A few years ago I made a conscious decision not to beep after the fact when someone did something dangerous or stupid when it wouldn't help avoid the situation, and I've never looked back. It's a much more relaxing experience

I started leaving way earlier than necessary on the few occasions that I have to drive. It makes such a difference.

jjpep

TheChizler wrote: »

I appreciate your honesty! A few years ago I made a conscious decision not to beep after the fact when someone did something dangerous or stupid when it wouldn't help avoid the situation, and I've never looked back. It's a much more relaxing experience, almost forgiving them. Only had to beep to avoid an accident once since, when someone started drifting into my lane as I was overtaking them while being overtaken on the N40.

That rule only applies to the specific continuous white line in the middle of a road, lots of road markings could be described as that but only one has the meaning. Lines marking cycle lanes or bus lanes for instance don't have such a rule tassociated with them.

This is something I decided to do as well a few years ago. And last year my car failed the nct because the horn wasn't working. The tester was a bit incredulous when I said I never noticed because I don't find myself needing to use it...

ED E

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I'm wondering now am I cyclist or a normal cyclist.

Are you 90* from true?

rubadub

crisco10 wrote: »

He was pedaling and probably doing about 30kph.

He just gives cyclists a bad name, and if all cyclists were like him then some motorists would have a point.

except he was a motorcyclist, if they all went about uninsured untaxed etc, then yeah, people would have a fair point to moan about all motorcyclists. Just like if the only car drivers were joyriders.

Chiparus

crisco10 wrote: »

Had a close call last night from the "other side" of the steering wheel....

Was along Clonskeagh Road, out of town, near bird avenue junction. There was a "cyclist" in the cycle lane. I say "cyclist" because it looked like he was on one of those mountain bikes with a climb assist mechanism (i.e. a motor!). He was pedaling and probably doing about 30kph.

I overtook him, then was approaching a normal cyclist in cycle lane a bit on. Just then he caught up with me and undertook me, then weaved and overtook the normal cyclist. I'd to brake (not much), and gave him a beep. He hadn't done any sort of shoulder check, or signaled he was going to change lane out of cycle lane. At this point, it all went crazy, the fella swerved out in front of me and jammed on the brakes, which clearly given he was on a bike, he had no brake lights. I was stunned , brake checking is a brain dead thing to do at the best of times, but to do it when on a bike to car!

Anyways, he continued to hurl abuse at me and be generally intimidating as we rolled along at about 10kph. To the point my wife thought he would smash the car up. I was livid, and probably would have continued the exchange at the next set of lights (which were red) but my wife was actually quite scared and intimidated so I didn't want to drag it on.

What really gets me about this is that this guy was a terrible cyclist, just before and just after the incident, we saw him doing other minor things that were just arsey. He just gives cyclists a bad name, and if all cyclists were like him then some motorists would have a point.

As an aside, it did spark a conversation between my wife (who is also a cyclist on that route) and I. The solid white lanes on the cycle lane; are they mutual? i.e. cars can't enter the cycle lane, but can cyclists cross them to overtake other cyclists? To be clear, the latter is something we both do regularly, the question is more a spirit of the law versus letter of the law one...

You beeped at him to give out because you had to break?

crisco10

Chiparus wrote: »

You beeped at him to give out because you had to break?

No because he was cycling ignorantly, and had squeezed through a gap that wasn't really there. I'm not 100% sure but fairly sure he also pushed the other cyclist in toward the kerb.

A little surprised at the reaction here that by far the most noteworthy thing was my beeping. How's and ever, live and learn. (And I do take chizlers point re chilling out)

site_owner

rubadub wrote: »

except he was a motorcyclist.

How did you come to that conclusion?

magicbastarder

crisco10 said the bike had a motor, so i assume it was that.

rubadub

site_owner wrote: »

How did you come to that conclusion?

I should have used the term "likely" in my post. I admit I could well be wrong.

from his post it sounded like it was one of these conversion jobs, as a regular "off the shelf" MTB pedelec is actually not that easy to spot. I had a very experienced MTBer looking at a proper "off the shelf" pedelec and it took him a while to even cop it had a motor!. Most of the conversions are not road legal.

A road legal one would cut out at 25kph, he said it was about 30kph. Now of course he might well have been on a road legal pedelec and able to get up to 30kph under his own steam, but form the tone of his post I highly doubted it.

Chiparus

crisco10 wrote: »

No because he was cycling ignorantly, and had squeezed through a gap that wasn't really there. I'm not 100% sure but fairly sure he also pushed the other cyclist in toward the kerb.

A little surprised at the reaction here that by far the most noteworthy thing was my beeping. How's and ever, live and learn. (And I do take chizlers point re chilling out)

I dont think it is legal to beep at someone because you believe they are ignorant.

crisco10

Chiparus wrote: »

I dont think it is legal to beep at someone because you believe someone is ignorant.

Fine. Not sure it is. But as I said earlier I could argue that I was beeping him to alert him to my presence since he hadn't checked over his shoulder as to my position, which is a stronger legal position. But I'm also being honest here.

OT but Im really confused as to why the beeping (and by beep i really mean 'toot') is the worst thing here. I've been beeped on my bike by motorists about twice (I can actually only remember 1 but sure it's probably happened another time) in the last 4 years of 2000km a year commuting and the "beep" has never been my primary concern, or indeed an irritant, in the situation.

Chiparus

crisco10 wrote: »

Fine. Not sure it is. But as I said earlier I could argue that I was beeping him to alert him to my presence since he hadn't checked over his shoulder as to my position, which is a stronger legal position. But I'm also being honest here.

OT but Im really confused as to why the beeping (and by beep i really mean 'toot') is the worst thing here. I've been beeped on my bike by motorists about twice (I can actually only remember 1 but sure it's probably happened another time) in the last 4 years of 2000km a year commuting and the "beep" has never been my primary concern, or indeed an irritant, in the situation.

Had he not just overtaken you? He knew where you were , or did you speed up to "get in front of him"?
And yes, Beeping sat someone because you believe them to be ignorant is not legal, but you as you admit are "not sure" ie ignorant.

CramCycle

I've been beeped at, sometimes justified, giving me warning about something they are unsure if I noticed. Other times, it's just being an impatient pr1ck .Here it sounds like a fair warning. The bike rider sounds like a tosspot, I would have hopefully realiSed why you beeped and gave awkward wave. Engaging any further once you got a negative response was a bad call and your wife thankfully got you to do the right thing, neither of you would have come out heroes if it escalated further. I don't think you done anything wrong up until you continued to engage.

Chiparus

I was beeped at twice because I wasn't in the cycle lane , even though the lane was blocked by a parked car! Clearly the driver felt I was ignorant of the rules and felt I had to stay in the cycle lane. The second beep was for turning right at a roundabout - I think

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xc5Sh-Y9uPo

What Username Guidelines

Chiparus wrote: »

I was beeped at twice because I wasn't in the cycle lane , even though the lane was blocked by a parked car! Clearly the driver felt I was ignorant of the rules and felt I had to stay in the cycle lane. The second beep was for turning right at a roundabout - I think

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xc5Sh-Y9uPo

Why aren’t you bunny hopping the parked car? Duh...