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

droidus

Pretty sure that would be illegal for a whole host of reasons. It's an endemic problem though. Some of the worst behaviour has been detailed on this board.

Massive increase in penalties and no tolerance enforcement FTW.

Fian

droidus wrote: »

TBH, Im surprised this doesn't happen more often.

Cycled around the outside of 6 cars in a row approaching some lights yesterday morning, every driver on their phone, some of them still moving.

This is why I am always very wary of moving between cars stopped or especially crawling in traffic when changing lanes. Need to cross three lanes as i approach the canal on Leeson street, to turn right down toward fitzwilliam square each morning. The fact that any collision is likely to be in slow motion would be of little comfort if I get crushed between the car of a guy on his phone and the car in front. I get really irritated at these plonkers who think keeping themselves amused/watching cat videos is more important than watching where they are steering two tons of metal. But this is the world we live in, need to adapt to it rather than just wishing it were different.

I have two sons preparing for their tests, taking them out frequently enough to practice atm. I am kind of surprised at myself how much my instructions to them drive along are coloured/informed by my experience on the bike more than my experience behind the wheel of a car.

Garzard

Wish I'd had the helmet cam fitted this morning - in Rathmines a large SUV waiting to exit Leinster Square was poking far too inside the cycle lane; the cyclist right ahead of me made a sort of "WTF" gesture at her, which seemed fair enough. Coming up to Williams Park however, another motorist indicated into the cycle lane right in on top of the above cyclist, almost crushing them against the kerb. He immediately starting thumping the car, which then swerved out of the cycle lane in a panic. To my shock the cyclist sped up out of the cycle lane to get ahead of the car, then jammed the brakes to force the motorist to stop and stall - incredibly dangerous in that he was almost run over trying to pull that move. However the car managed to squeeze through and escape out of sight then into Williams Park, although not before receiving another kick from the guy. I've been cycling in the city for years and have never witnessed anything like that.

Breezer

Garzard wrote: »

Wish I'd had the helmet cam fitted this morning - in Rathmines a large SUV waiting to exit Leinster Square was poking far too inside the cycle lane; the cyclist right ahead of me made a sort of "WTF" gesture at her, which seemed fair enough. Coming up to Williams Park however, another motorist indicated into the cycle lane right in on top of the above cyclist, almost crushing them against the kerb. He immediately starting thumping the car, which then swerved out of the cycle lane in a panic. To my shock the cyclist sped up out of the cycle lane to get ahead of the car, then jammed the brakes to force the motorist to stop and stall - incredibly dangerous in that he was almost run over trying to pull that move. However the car managed to squeeze through and escape out of sight then into Williams Park, although not before receiving another kick from the guy. I've been cycling in the city for years and have never witnessed anything like that.

This sounds like the cycle equivalent of those lads on YouTube who brake check artics in their VW Polos...

Regarding phones, I'd one the other morning. I'm coming around Hart's Corner from the city side heading towards Botanic Road, here. Here's a woman sitting in the bus lane in her car, meaning the bus that should be in the bus lane is sitting in the yellow box and blocking the junction for a full turn of the lights for traffic from the Finglas Road side. As I get the lights, the bus lane starts moving. I'm in the next lane over trying to go left into the bus lane, indicating, but Mrs is now driving her car inches from the back of my wheel, albeit in the lane to my left, and as I slow or speed up so does she.

I thought she was being an asshole deliberately. My mistake. Keeping pace with me was pure coincidence: she was texting and completely unaware of my presence at all. Well, until I roared at her to make her aware of it, waking the dead in Glasnevin cemetery in the process

Rechuchote

Weepsie wrote: »

Yeah, that's a terrible idea. No offence. But it would have a wider knock on than just drivers in cars.

Yeah, it would stop all those people who keep walking out into the road, oblivious usually facing diagonally with their back to oncoming traffic as they stare into their screens, or blank-eyed into mid-air.

Probably a terrible idea, but I for one wouldn't weep if we had to return to the phone being something that sat at home and didn't accompany us all everywhere.

AndrewJRenko

Pair of gobsh1tes at Sam Beckett bridge this evening. The cyclist was moving in anticipation of the green, and the oncoming car was trying to push through after the amber;

https://streamable.com/manor

And thanks to streamable for giving me a real word as the video ID for the first time!

blackwhite

Concert on in the point this evening.

Taxi driver parked in the Port entrance, blocking both pedestrian and cycle lanes, so had to move out into main lane to pass him.

Moron starts to pull out as I’m passing. Me shouting “look out” spurred him to lean on the horn and roar a few expletives, and then accelerate out after me.

Idiot didn’t seem to realise the Garda standing just before the Eastlink was observing everything, and I was happy to see him getting pulled over as I continued off across the bridge.

No doubt the Garda didn’t do anything other than give him a talking too, because a Garda assigned to crowd supervision is never going to burden himself with unnecessary traffic paperwork, but hopefully it’ll teach the taxi driver to look in his bloody mirrors before pulling out

What Username Guidelines

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Pair of gobsh1tes at Sam Beckett bridge this evening. The cyclist was moving in anticipation of the green, and the oncoming car was trying to push through after the amber;

https://streamable.com/manor

And thanks to streamable for giving me a real word as the video ID for the first time!

Two idiots in that clip, the cyclist wasnt even due a green. But that junction is insane for red light breaking.

gavinoontheweb

What Username Guidelines wrote: »

Two idiots in that clip, the cyclist wasnt even due a green. But that junction is insane for red light breaking.

Cyclists do get a green light with peds on that sequence however they are supposed to be in the dedicated track rather than that general traffic lane. However most people heading northbound coming from Macken Street rightly remain in the general traffic lane.

magicbastarder

CramCycle wrote: »

I took out his mirror, I just snapped.

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/6ee020bf-6182-456a-a43a-98c2e7c6d891

CramCycle

magicbastarder wrote: »

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/6ee020bf-6182-456a-a43a-98c2e7c6d891

Another amateur cyclist drug shock scandal

AndrewJRenko

gavinoontheweb wrote: »

however they are supposed to be in the dedicated track rather than that general traffic lane.

No, they're not. Cyclists can be in whatever lane they choose.

gavinoontheweb

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

No, they're not. Cyclists can be in whatever lane they choose.

A point I which I made in the proceeding sentence. The junction as a whole can be messy with peds and cyclists intersecting from different crossing points.

CramCycle

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

No, they're not. Cyclists can be in whatever lane they choose.

gavinoontheweb wrote: »

A point I which I made in the proceeding sentence. The junction as a whole can be messy with peds and cyclists intersecting from different crossing points.

I think Gavins point is the bike light applies to the cycle track, not the general traffic lane, ie if your in the general traffic lane, the bike light doesn't apply to you at that junction. Not that you have to be in the bike lane. Do I have that right? I always wondered, as there are junctions where this is clearly the case and others where it is ambiguous, does anyone know if there are regs for this or is it just a whatever suits kind of situation?

blackwhite

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

No, they're not. Cyclists can be in whatever lane they choose.

I *think* what he means is that - to be allowed proceed on the green cyclist light (instead of the primary traffic light) then you need to be in the cycling lane.

Not sure what the legal position actually is for those lights - do they cover cyclists in any lane, or just the cycle lane (where present)?

MojoMaker

Gavin, you do realise that the use of the word 'dedicated' in this context means 'only cycle traffic allowed' and not 'must use the cycle path'?

Right??

MojoMaker

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You're going to have to cross the white line to pass one cyclist, so it really doesn't matter whether they are two or three abreast - you're still going to have to cross the line.

The nub of the argument in a majority of debates like this and spot on for (re)posting it AndrewJRenko.

There is a strong belief among motorists that if cyclists are in single file it is ok to pass by without crossing the white line or median of the road. Hence the real reason for motorists' annoyance around 2 or (God forbid) 3 abreast. All overtakes require crossing the central median to a degree, otherwise they are not safe - and if you're crossing the central median then it matters little whether it's 10 cms or 2 metres, it's not as if you can simply 'duck back into the lane if something is coming towards me because it's only a cyclist on my left after all'.

To think that a motorist might believe it's ok to pass a cyclist 'in-lane' on a standard-width road is quite shocking.

Pinch Flat

Yeah that seems to be the main argument about cyclists travelling 2 abreast. Many motorists just want to blast on regardless. Sure aren't they're in a car and we all know it's the most important vehicle on the road anyways.

Utter Consternation

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Yeah that seems to be the main argument about cyclists travelling 2 abreast. Many motorists just want to blast on regardless. Sure aren't they're in a car and we all know it's the most important vehicle on the road anyways.

Heaven forbid that they slow down for a few seconds in their massive rush to whatever pressing appointment that they simply must be at immediately.

CramCycle

MojoMaker wrote: »

Gavin, you do realise that the use of the word 'dedicated' in this context means 'only cycle traffic allowed' and not 'must use the cycle path'?

Right??

I read it that he did get it

average_runner

Nearly got taken out twice yesterday while walking to my bus, 5 min walk only.


One was a cyclist cycling with one hand on the handle bar and the other texting on his phone.


2 mins later similar again but this time a driver on the phone in the car!!!


Can we not put the phones down for a few mins!!!

gavinoontheweb

blackwhite wrote: »

I *think* what he means is that - to be allowed proceed on the green cyclist light (instead of the primary traffic light) then you need to be in the cycling lane.

Not sure what the legal position actually is for those lights - do they cover cyclists in any lane, or just the cycle lane (where present)?

MojoMaker wrote: »

Gavin, you do realise that the use of the word 'dedicated' in this context means 'only cycle traffic allowed' and not 'must use the cycle path'?

Right??

Exactly, perhaps the terminology I used was a bit misleading. The point I'm getting is can a cyclist legally proceed on a green bike/ped crossing light if they are not exactly 'in line' with that light. Per the example going North on S.Beckett bridge.

Utter Consternation

average_runner wrote: »

Nearly got taken out twice yesterday while walking to my bus, 5 min walk only.


One was a cyclist cycling with one hand on the handle bar and the other texting on his phone.


2 mins later similar again but this time a driver on the phone in the car!!!


Can we not put the phones down for a few mins!!!

No, we cannot. My office looks out onto a busy junction in Dublin CC. I'd say that on balance, more people use their phones when their cars are stopped at lights, than those that do not.

Utter Consternation

I don't know how the cops haven't lifted this lad yet. He was flying it. He went through a red light just around the corner from here after that.

https://streamable.com/4204v

average_runner

Utter Consternation wrote: »

I don't know how the cops haven't lifted this lad yet. He was flying it. He went through a red light just around the corner from here after that.

https://streamable.com/4204v

There seems to be rules to for those things. At that speed he should have a helmet on him like motor cyclists do.


Also to me they are a lazy form of cycling, getting the benefit of getting to a place quicker but no exercise.

RobertFoster

CramCycle wrote: »

I think Gavins point is the bike light applies to the cycle track, not the general traffic lane, ie if your in the general traffic lane, the bike light doesn't apply to you at that junction. Not that you have to be in the bike lane. Do I have that right? I always wondered, as there are junctions where this is clearly the case and others where it is ambiguous, does anyone know if there are regs for this or is it just a whatever suits kind of situation?

I think you'd have to be in the cycle lane in order to proceed with the cycle lights, at least personally I err on the side of caution if there's any ambiguity.

Ignoring bicycles for a moment, how would a bus in the driving lane proceed at this light on the Templeogue Rd? I think the light refers to the lane rather than the vehicle.

blackwhite

RobertFoster wrote: »

I think you'd have to be in the cycle lane in order to proceed with the cycle lights, at least personally I err on the side of caution if there's any ambiguity.

Ignoring bicycles for a moment, how would a bus in the driving lane proceed at this light on the Templeogue Rd? I think the light refers to the lane rather than the vehicle.

Badly constructed light anyway - the "Bus" light should really be on left hand side of the light (matching the lane position) - like on N11

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.2943173,-6.2026886,3a,61y,160.18h,99.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sN7baGOUYW5I7NECnfMt70Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

What Username Guidelines

RobertFoster wrote: »

I think you'd have to be in the cycle lane in order to proceed with the cycle lights, at least personally I err on the side of caution if there's any ambiguity.

Ignoring bicycles for a moment, how would a bus in the driving lane proceed at this light on the Templeogue Rd? I think the light refers to the lane rather than the vehicle.

I think that light is sensored so busses trigger a red light for traffic, but oddly it still goes red when there aren't busses around, resulting in lots of people ignoring it, in the mornings anyway.

A couple of years back I was at the top of the queue one morning and the guy behind started beeping and waving for me to just go through. I almost never drive in rush hour so I considered maybe I didnt know something he did, was it broken maybe? I erred on the side of caution and moved forward a few feet, allowing him to undertake. He flipped me the middle finger as he passed straight through the red, followed by 3 or 4 others, all irate. Well except the last car, he looked quite smug, and he had these little flashy blue lights. Up there as one of the best days of my life.

CramCycle

My understanding is that when its just the green, the bus lane treats it as a yield, hence the triangle, and then the bus lane has priority when only the green bus sign is illuminated. It applies to the lane though, not just for buses, so taxis and cyclists can also proceed on it. The N11 one s funny because alot of cyclists sit under the light and don't see it, looking across the junction, so think you are breaking a light when you go through.

ED E

CramCycle wrote: »

and then the bus lane has priority when only the green bus sign is illuminated.

I think its just an exclusive filter. Just like a red light with a green left filter.