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

check_six

CramCycle wrote: »

Which ironically gave rise to some of the worst infrastructure I have ever seen, the bike path that is dissected by staggered kerbing was a masterpiece in explaining why road engineers should not be allowed drink on the job.

Wow, where's that track?

ChrisJ84

Hurrache wrote: »

The No Bikes paint was a piss take, here's a selection from a familiar name
https://twitter.com/SpucklerMr/status/1143790678515884033

Ah, that makes sense now. Shouldn't have assumed it was a disgruntled motorist, seems it was a disgruntled cyclist!

magicbastarder

check_six wrote: »

Wow, where's that track?

https://twitter.com/lennartnout/status/1143532010234896385

Weepsie

Also, saw 2 near misses today near Hart's corner in Phibsboro. 1 was a moped the other a cyclist and were within 30 seconds of each other. Both were holding their lane, (the bus lane, which becomes a left turning lane). 2 cars decided they'd leave their lane without indicating, in heavy traffic and both came within inches of hitting the moped and cyclists.

It's a relatively common occurence on that stretch, unless there is a bus at the stop.

Seth Brundle

magicbastarder wrote: »

https://twitter.com/lennartnout/status/1143532010234896385

Is that a velocity sign at the bottom of that traffic sign?

check_six

magicbastarder wrote: »

https://twitter.com/lennartnout/status/1143532010234896385

Yeah, that's about the level we're operating at. World Class Shambles.

You'd think that this whole modern world where you are terrified of being sued couldn't let something as ridiculously hazardous as that exist, but there you go. Is there some different standard for roads and footpaths? There used to be a thing where people would claim for tripping on paths, but there was some change to how that system worked. Maybe the path had to be 'broken' for a period of time. Could it be that this 'facility' is not technically a hazard because all of its various dangerous components are 100% intact and presented as intended?

CramCycle

The issue has to be reported to the council and they have to have made no attempt to fix or resolve it. You can still sue but there is negligence on the part of the council if they knew there was an issue and the person could prove that . So my memory says but maybe more legally wise minds could clarify.

Type 17

Presumably, the Good Room graffiti is a reference to this Guardian article, where the Irish concept of The Good Room is used to explain Irish local authorities’ attitude to cycling infrastructure:

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jun/25/dublin-disappoints-what-happened-to-city-cyclings-great-hope

mr spuckler

Type 17 wrote: »

Presumably, the Good Room graffiti is a reference to this Guardian article, where the Irish concept of The Good Room is used to explain Irish local authorities’ attitude to cycling infrastructure:

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jun/25/dublin-disappoints-what-happened-to-city-cyclings-great-hope

The recent rush to achieve some quick wins in an attempt to convince our visitors that we really care about cycling infrastructure have been referred to for at least the last couple of weeks on Twitter as "The Good Room". The Guardian picked up on it from speaking to the same people who've been calling it that on Twitter of late.

Type 17

Fair enough. Hopefully, it might wake a few people up.

AndrewJRenko

Hurrache wrote: »

Your traditional granny had the 'good room', or parlour to be posh, to show off to their visitors. Good Room in this context refers to DCC rolling out the good paint or the few good pieces of cycling infrastructure to the visitors coming for Velo City.

And the good room would get a lick of paint before the visitors from America arrived

Pinch Flat

Coming towards Castleknock gate this morning, indicating right to the park. Despite indicating to go right, I'm overtaken by some clown in a skoda, who proceeds to left hook me to get to the queue to red light for the traffic going straight ahead. Tapped on her window and gave her a slow hand clap, but she gave that catatonic stare ahead when motorists realize they've something not so clever (or perhaps just don't give a ****e)

purple hands

Not a near miss, but had a lovely encounter with a bus driver who decided to park in the cycle lane along North Wall Quay while dropping a tour group off to the Boat/Cill Airne pub. Blocking the bus lane too while he was at it.

Stopped and asked if he realized where he was parked. "You tell me where should I park so?" he says before telling me to f*ck off, mumbling something about "cyclists taking over". I'd say I wasn't the first to have a go at him

tnegun

Same happens opposite the bus terminus in Maynooth buses can't get in to the terminus as it's shared with Dublin bus, Bus Eireann and the airport hopper so regularly full so they pull onto the bike lane to unload/wait to enter service. I can empathize with the drivers somewhat as its all brand new infrastructure and completely in adequate for what's needed

the.red.baron

CramCycle wrote: »

The issue has to be reported to the council and they have to have made no attempt to fix or resolve it. You can still sue but there is negligence on the part of the council if they knew there was an issue and the person could prove that . So my memory says but maybe more legally wise minds could clarify.

is that not for road surface issues, for instance the road network is large and can be damaged by weather or heavy use. So its fair that the council cant be held accountable for going around checking its ok every second of the day


but for that ****, dangerous crappy design, i doubt that's the case


I mean you can easily avoid it by using your eyes during the day but at night maybe it's not so obvious who knows.

magicbastarder

i remember a case many years ago where there was a fatality on aston quay; a cyclist hit a manhole cover (one of the ones which had wooden inserts, IIRC, and the inserts had come out) and was struck by a HGV.
a day later the council replaced it; and were hauled over the coals by the coroner, who claimed that it amounted to hiding crucial evidence in an inquest.
(that was years ago, so i probably have some/many details wrong).

however, from the council's point of view, it puts them between a rock and a hard place, how can they not act to fix something implicated in a road death?

CramCycle

magicbastarder wrote: »

i remember a case many years ago where there was a fatality on aston quay; a cyclist hit a manhole cover (one of the ones which had wooden inserts, IIRC, and the inserts had come out) and was struck by a HGV.
a day later the council replaced it; and were hauled over the coals by the coroner, who claimed that it amounted to hiding crucial evidence in an inquest.
(that was years ago, so i probably have some/many details wrong).

however, from the council's point of view, it puts them between a rock and a hard place, how can they not act to fix something implicated in a road death?

Surely the Gardai would have taken all the relevant details, photos etc. The forensics team etc. should have taken all the relevant info etc. and if they hadn't , they shouldn't ahve released the scene.

Sounds like, dare I say it, the council were right and the coroner was a muppet. If it did indeed happen the way you described.

magicbastarder

i'm reasonably certain this was the incident:
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/cyclist-crushed-by-truck-in-city-rushhour-accident-26072104.html

that said, my memories are obviously 17 years old; but i do remember the council taking flak over the hasty replacement.

edit: more detail here:

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/an-irishman-s-diary-1.1096051

CramCycle

the.red.baron wrote: »

is that not for road surface issues, for instance the road network is large and can be damaged by weather or heavy use. So its fair that the council cant be held accountable for going around checking its ok every second of the day


but for that ****, dangerous crappy design, i doubt that's the case


I mean you can easily avoid it by using your eyes during the day but at night maybe it's not so obvious who knows.

I was referring to checksixs post, but yes, just because that is the way it is done, there is nothing to stop someone who has an accident here taking the council to court for negligence or endangering them for clearly substandard or unsafe design. I was referring to the tripping on a pavement or pothole etc. style issues

AndrewJRenko

magicbastarder wrote: »

however, from the council's point of view, it puts them between a rock and a hard place, how can they not act to fix something implicated in a road death?

They could fix the problem and still hold onto the evidence - get proper engineer's report and photos of the situation before the fix.

What Username Guidelines

This is wonderful

https://twitter.com/Ollie_Cycles/status/1144407508854988800

homer911

What Username Guidelines wrote: »

This is wonderful

https://twitter.com/Ollie_Cycles/status/1144407508854988800

Car went through an amber light, it was red when the cyclist went through

Hurrache

homer911 wrote: »

Car went through an amber light, it was red when the cyclist went through

Don't know what state that's from, but some parts of America apply the "Idaho Stop" allowing cyclists to treat a red light as a yield so they can go through it if it's safe to do so, with many more about to legislate for it.

If I was to guess I'd say it may be New York and they either already have, or are currently legislating for it.

amcalester

homer911 wrote: »

Car went through an amber light, it was red when the cyclist went through

To be fair if the vehicle hadn’t delayed the cyclist it would have been green.

The vehicle forced the cyclist into running the red.

mistermaster

amcalester wrote: »

The vehicle forced the cyclist into running the red.

Sorry, but is that not like saying that a couple of two-abreast cyclists "forced" a driver to cross a continuous white line, or that a single cyclist taking up primary position "forced" a driver to do a close pass?

Nobody "forces" somebody else to do something like that. The drivers in the examples I give would be choosing to do those things. Just as the guy here ended up choosing to go through a red light.

I'm wondering why he didn't just go round the car when it was stopped and when the light was still green?

blackwhite

Neither party comes out of that video looking particularly well.

magicbastarder

mistermaster wrote: »

Sorry, but is that not like saying that a couple of two-abreast cyclists "forced" a driver to cross a continuous white line

without watching the video again, i am guessing from the above that the cyclist was behind the car? if so, i don't know how you can say the motorist would be any way responsible.

amcalester

mistermaster wrote: »

Sorry, but is that not like saying that a couple of two-abreast cyclists "forced" a driver to cross a continuous white line, or that a single cyclist taking up primary position "forced" a driver to do a close pass?

Nobody "forces" somebody else to do something like that. The drivers in the examples I give would be choosing to do those things. Just as the guy here ended up choosing to go through a red light.

I'm wondering why he didn't just go round the car when it was stopped and when the light was still green?

Your sarcasm detector might need new batteries.

Steoller

mistermaster wrote: »

Sorry, but is that not like saying that a couple of two-abreast cyclists "forced" a driver to cross a continuous white line, or that a single cyclist taking up primary position "forced" a driver to do a close pass?

That is exactly the point.
amcalester is being very droll

mistermaster

amcalester wrote: »

Your sarcasm detector might need new batteries.

Okay, sorry, I'm new here. Looks like I need to tune up the sarcasm sensors a bit more. Thanks for setting me right