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

average_runner

CramCycle wrote: »

Not a cycling story but a near miss. Driving on a rural road, coming upto a bend to my right. Pedestrian out jogging. I was probably doing about 40kmph, around the corner comes a car topping 80kmph. I stood on the brakes as they swerved out. The worse thing is, because no one got hurt, he probably thinks his driving was fine. I even caught the look in his eye, I swear he blamed the pedestrian. If he hit her, he'd probably use her lack of hi Vis as an excuse for not seeing her around a corner, and he'd probably walk as well.

As a runner, you should cross the road to the other side of the bend so can be seen.

We had a runner down by the bends near beehive in wicklow. You cant see them till last second and legal limit is 80k.

CramCycle

average_runner wrote: »

As a runner, you should cross the road to the other side of the bend so can be seen.

We had a runner down by the bends near beehive in wicklow. You cant see them till last second and legal limit is 80k.

The runner was not the issue, if they'd been on my side, 9 out of 10 cars would have overtaken them anyway. 80k is the limit. Going round a blind bend, you should be driving at a speed that you can stop in the distance you see to be clear, which will often half or lower of the speed limit.

I get where your coming from but it's just making poor driving acceptable.

average_runner

CramCycle wrote: »

The runner was not the issue, if they'd been on my side, 9 out of 10 cars would have overtaken them anyway. 80k is the limit. Going round a blind bend, you should be driving at a speed that you can stop in the distance you see to be clear, which will often half or lower of the speed limit.

I get where your coming from but it's just making poor driving acceptable.

Its also poor judgement on the runner. You should not be on the blind side of a bend.
Its pretty simple.


Most cyclists would struggle to safely over take the runner also

AndrewJRenko

average_runner wrote: »

We had a runner down by the bends near beehive in wicklow. You cant see them till last second and legal limit is 80k.

If you can't see them till the last second, you're driving too fast, regardless of whatever the speed limit is. There could be anything around the bend - runner, cyclist, cattle, crashed car whatever.

Eamonnator

average_runner wrote: »

As a runner, you should cross the road to the other side of the bend so can be seen.

We had a runner down by the bends near beehive in wicklow. You cant see them till last second and legal limit is 80k.

Can you tell me, where, in the Road Traffic Acts or the ROTR, it advises or instructs runners to switch sides of the road, please.

micar

average_runner wrote: »

As a runner, you should cross the road to the other side of the bend so can be seen.

We had a runner down by the bends near beehive in wicklow. You cant see them till last second and legal limit is 80k.

Totally agree..... be on the side which makes you most visible to motorists whether it's against the traffic or with the traffic.

CramCycle

average_runner wrote: »

Its also poor judgement on the runner. You should not be on the blind side of a bend.
Its pretty simple.


Most cyclists would struggle to safely over take the runner also

Your missing the point though, firstly, the side of the road, due to the poor driving of many on rural roads, is a red herring. People overtake all the time on bends in this country all the time. The other is that, regardless of where you feel the runner should be, your statement is victim blaming if an accident occurred. Any vehicle operator, be they a motorist or cyclist, must be able to stop, as in fully stop, in the space they can see to be clear ahead. You cannot do that at 80kmph on a winding road with high hedges, you cannot do it at 60kmph, you'd be lucky to be able to do it at 40kmph. 30kmph would, for most corners in rural areas, be the appropriate speed but no one will ever do that, but they should and blaming the runner is inappropriate. What about roads where there are multiple bends over a few 100m, should they simply not walk/run there, or should they dart across the road between bends?

I understand your point, but understand mine, it is one that encourages the propogation of already sh1tty driving behaviour and also reinforces the idea that it would somehow have been the runners fault. What if it was a cow, a stalled tractor, a motor accident, a cyclist/motorcyclist that fell over after having some sort of medical issue.

Chiparus

CramCycle wrote: »

Your missing the point though, firstly, the side of the road, due to the poor driving of many on rural roads, is a red herring. People overtake all the time on bends in this country all the time. The other is that, regardless of where you feel the runner should be, your statement is victim blaming if an accident occurred. Any vehicle operator, be they a motorist or cyclist, must be able to stop, as in fully stop, in the space they can see to be clear ahead. You cannot do that at 80kmph on a winding road with high hedges, you cannot do it at 60kmph, you'd be lucky to be able to do it at 40kmph. 30kmph would, for most corners in rural areas, be the appropriate speed but no one will ever do that, but they should and blaming the runner is inappropriate. What about roads where there are multiple bends over a few 100m, should they simply not walk/run there, or should they dart across the road between bends?

I understand your point, but understand mine, it is one that encourages the propogation of already sh1tty driving behaviour and also reinforces the idea that it would somehow have been the runners fault. What if it was a cow, a stalled tractor, a motor accident, a cyclist/motorcyclist that fell over after having some sort of medical issue.

Much safer to cross to the outside curve of a bend, try running on a country road and you will soon find out why.

Enduro

Chiparus wrote: »

Much safer to cross to the outside curve of a bend, try running on a country road and you will soon find out why.

I do a lot of running on country-ish roads. I'm totally with Cramcycle on this issue. I also take my cycling experience with me when running and "take the lane". Running further from the edge gives better visibility to everyone on bends. Crossing back and forth on bendy roads is often likely to be more dangerous than sticking to one side consistently. (And there is a safety gain from predictability/consistency). Just as with taking the lane cycling, it tends to force drivers to react by slowing or moving out much further since the skimming option is removed.

Chiparus

Enduro wrote: »

I do a lot of running on country-ish roads. I'm totally with Cramcycle on this issue. I also take my cycling experience with me when running and "take the lane". Running further from the edge gives better visibility to everyone on bends. Crossing back and forth on bendy roads is often likely to be more dangerous than sticking to one side consistently. (And there is a safety gain from predictability/consistency). Just as with taking the lane cycling, it tends to force drivers to react by slowing or moving out much further since the skimming option is removed.

Don't agree with you, sorry.

Duckjob

CramCycle wrote: »

Your missing the point though, firstly, the side of the road, due to the poor driving of many on rural roads, is a red herring. People overtake all the time on bends in this country all the time. The other is that, regardless of where you feel the runner should be, your statement is victim blaming if an accident occurred. Any vehicle operator, be they a motorist or cyclist, must be able to stop, as in fully stop, in the space they can see to be clear ahead. You cannot do that at 80kmph on a winding road with high hedges, you cannot do it at 60kmph, you'd be lucky to be able to do it at 40kmph. 30kmph would, for most corners in rural areas, be the appropriate speed but no one will ever do that, but they should and blaming the runner is inappropriate. What about roads where there are multiple bends over a few 100m, should they simply not walk/run there, or should they dart across the road between bends?

I understand your point, but understand mine, it is one that encourages the propogation of already sh1tty driving behaviour and also reinforces the idea that it would somehow have been the runners fault. What if it was a cow, a stalled tractor, a motor accident, a cyclist/motorcyclist that fell over after having some sort of medical issue.

Agree totally, and it reminds me of a rural road local to me:-

There's accidents reported on my local FB group every other week. They always read like "another accident at *THAT* spot, and you get lots of comments saying it's ridiculous and Fingal CC need to do something.

It's ridiculous alright - Driving along that road I've grown so used to meeting cars coming around the bends with their wheels well over the solid white line on the wrong side of the road (and also flying it) that I just expect it and deal with it now.

It astounds me the lengths people will go to to deflect from their sh*tty dangerous driving.

What Username Guidelines

CramCycle wrote: »

The runner was not the issue, if they'd been on my side, 9 out of 10 cars would have overtaken them anyway. 80k is the limit. Going round a blind bend, you should be driving at a speed that you can stop in the distance you see to be clear, which will often half or lower of the speed limit.

I get where your coming from but it's just making poor driving acceptable.

In New Zealand they have 80km as the limit on bendy roads but also have varying speeds posted on the yellow/black bend signs which are recommended speeds based on the curve and visible distance. Some as low as 25 if I recall correctly. It makes for a much more relaxed drive, as people adhere to them, rather then trying to get as close to the limit as the road allows.

average_runner

Eamonnator wrote: »

Can you tell me, where, in the Road Traffic Acts or the ROTR, it advises or instructs runners to switch sides of the road, please.

Just because its not in the Road Traffic Act, doesn't mean don't do it. Its about keeping safe and what advice as a runner I was given by other runners that run on rural roads and how to keep safe.

average_runner

CramCycle wrote: »

Your missing the point though, firstly, the side of the road, due to the poor driving of many on rural roads, is a red herring. People overtake all the time on bends in this country all the time. The other is that, regardless of where you feel the runner should be, your statement is victim blaming if an accident occurred. Any vehicle operator, be they a motorist or cyclist, must be able to stop, as in fully stop, in the space they can see to be clear ahead. You cannot do that at 80kmph on a winding road with high hedges, you cannot do it at 60kmph, you'd be lucky to be able to do it at 40kmph. 30kmph would, for most corners in rural areas, be the appropriate speed but no one will ever do that, but they should and blaming the runner is inappropriate. What about roads where there are multiple bends over a few 100m, should they simply not walk/run there, or should they dart across the road between bends?

I understand your point, but understand mine, it is one that encourages the propogation of already sh1tty driving behaviour and also reinforces the idea that it would somehow have been the runners fault. What if it was a cow, a stalled tractor, a motor accident, a cyclist/motorcyclist that fell over after having some sort of medical issue.

While you are right in what you are saying, but as a country we are not in that position you talk about. So until we address these issues properly like in New Zealand etc, then we got to do our best to stay safe on the roads.

I am not victim blaming, I just passing information on that was given to me that kept me safe. So if it saves a life I am happy.

If people want to run the blind bend, that is their choice and I hope nothing ever happens to them and that other road users respect them.

I have now stopped running on rural roads and drive to better places.

CramCycle

average_runner wrote: »

Just because its not in the Road Traffic Act, doesn't mean don't do it. Its about keeping safe and what advice as a runner I was given by other runners that run on rural roads and how to keep safe.

And just because it is the intuitive solution, does not always mean it is the correct one. I mean "common sense" indicates to most people that single file cycling is the safest way to cycle. I am not saying your point is wrong but I am saying there are clear issues with it that mean it is not the correct solution.

Benefits to facing oncoming traffic:
- predictable
- you can hopefully see oncoming traffic and adapt to it in an emergency
- on bends you can step out a bit to get a better vantage viewpoint
- if your in an accident and it goes to court, you can refer to established practice and that you were not in an unexpected position

Benefits to crossing over on bends:
- you can see cars approaching from a slightly greater distance

Negatives to facing oncoming traffic:
- drivers drive to fast and you will get blamed for them not being able to drive to the conditions ie victim blaming

Negatives to crossing over to the opposite side:
- You have to cross over the road multiple times on rural roads
- its not expected, so said sh1tty drivers up above will have their solicitor blame you if another sh1tty driver coming from behind goes for the overtake on the bend
- how far away from the corner do you cross over, how do you deal with roads that do not have enough space between bends to facilitate this distance
- not being able to adapt to the behaviour of motorists approaching from behind

Solution to all these problems: Stop all drivers from speeding and have them pay more attention. This can be done through a variety of paths, including, banning anyone in a motor accident on a bend from driving if an engineer can demonstrate their speed was a factor and in no way refer to the speed limit. Take the car and license from anyone on a phone while driving. Add GPS boxes to cars and have the information being open to all insurers, have county engineers evaluate safe speeds for corners in a locality and send these to insurance companies, safe speeds being defined as the ability to stop in the space that is clearly visible ahead. 1 year ban for anyone caught speeding on rural roads, no excuses. Introduce no fault legislation for pedestrians on rural roads, where regardless of circumstances, the legal fault will always lie with the motorist.

Dr_Colossus

CramCycle wrote: »

Introduce no fault legislation for pedestrians on rural roads, where regardless of circumstances, the legal fault will always lie with the motorist.

That's already in existence as per the settlement of this case:
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/man-who-suffered-brain-injury-in-road-accident-settles-for-2-6m-38301921.html

ganmo

CramCycle wrote: »

And just because it is the intuitive solution, does not always mean it is the correct one. I mean "common sense" indicates to most people that single file cycling is the safest way to cycle. I am not saying your point is wrong but I am saying there are clear issues with it that mean it is not the correct solution.

Benefits to facing oncoming traffic:
- predictable
- you can hopefully see oncoming traffic and adapt to it in an emergency
- on bends you can step out a bit to get a better vantage viewpoint
- if your in an accident and it goes to court, you can refer to established practice and that you were not in an unexpected position

Benefits to crossing over on bends:
- you can see cars approaching from a slightly greater distance

Negatives to facing oncoming traffic:
- drivers drive to fast and you will get blamed for them not being able to drive to the conditions ie victim blaming

Negatives to crossing over to the opposite side:
- You have to cross over the road multiple times on rural roads
- its not expected, so said sh1tty drivers up above will have their solicitor blame you if another sh1tty driver coming from behind goes for the overtake on the bend
- how far away from the corner do you cross over, how do you deal with roads that do not have enough space between bends to facilitate this distance
- not being able to adapt to the behaviour of motorists approaching from behind

Solution to all these problems: Stop all drivers from speeding and have them pay more attention. This can be done through a variety of paths, including, banning anyone in a motor accident on a bend from driving if an engineer can demonstrate their speed was a factor and in no way refer to the speed limit. Take the car and license from anyone on a phone while driving. Add GPS boxes to cars and have the information being open to all insurers, have county engineers evaluate safe speeds for corners in a locality and send these to insurance companies, safe speeds being defined as the ability to stop in the space that is clearly visible ahead. 1 year ban for anyone caught speeding on rural roads, no excuses. Introduce no fault legislation for pedestrians on rural roads, where regardless of circumstances, the legal fault will always lie with the motorist.

Speed is always a factor in crashes, you can't hit something if you're not moving.

Use your ears and you'll be able to know when theres cars coming, crossing over where it's suitable. there can be no one rule to cover country roads because they're so different but if you maintain the longest lines of sight possible and if necessary pausing your walk to let traffic pass safely.

I nearly crossed an elderly pair's toes over the weekend. They were walking on the inside of a bend, I was keeping in due to the possibility of a car coming against me, they heard me coming(i was in a tractor) I was going slowly so luckily i could swerve out and avoid them

CramCycle

ganmo wrote: »

Use your ears and you'll be able to know when theres cars coming, crossing over where it's suitable. there can be no one rule to cover country roads because they're so different but if you maintain the longest lines of sight possible and if necessary pausing your walk to let traffic pass safely.

Lots of modern cars are quite quiet, and you don't hear them until they are right on top of you

I nearly crossed an elderly pair's toes over the weekend. They were walking on the inside of a bend, I was keeping in due to the possibility of a car coming against me, they heard me coming(i was in a tractor) I was going slowly so luckily i could swerve out and avoid them

How come you couldn't stop? Just saying, you say it was lucky you were able to swerve out, but the reason you were so tight was due to the risk of oncoming traffic. Was there any reason you could not have come to a dead stop. Any reason an oncoming car could not have come to a complete stop when you did swerve out? How do you know they heard you, there cold be hearing problems for either of them or anyone you meet on the roads.

Long story short, people in general don't like the fact that the only way you get zero road deaths caused by motorists is by people driving in a manner in which they are not used too and most of them, myself included, feel entitled (although we would never phrase it like that) to go at a speed that is not appropriate because that is how everyone else behaves.

Duckjob

ganmo wrote: »

I nearly crossed an elderly pair's toes over the weekend. They were walking on the inside of a bend, I was keeping in due to the possibility of a car coming against me, they heard me coming(i was in a tractor) I was going slowly so luckily i could swerve out and avoid them

The question has to be asked - why on earth could you not wait 10 or 20 secs or whatever small amount of time until you had the visibility to move out and pass them safely ?

Seth Brundle

ganmo wrote: »

I was going slowly so luckily i could swerve out and avoid them

If you had to swerve then you weren't driving at an appropriate speed!

average_runner

Seth Brundle wrote: »

If you had to swerve then you weren't driving at an appropriate speed!

That's not true. Most people naturally swerve. For example, if you are out for a walk and someone walks in front of you, you will swerve to avoid them.

On a blind bend someone can be on top of you within 2 ft before you see them, bike or car, you will swerve no matter the speed.

You very rarely see a cyclists stop in the city, they usually swerve. Are cyclists going too fast?

CramCycle

average_runner wrote: »

That's not true. Most people naturally swerve. For example, if you are out for a walk and someone walks in front of you, you will swerve to avoid them.

On a blind bend someone can be on top of you within 2 ft before you see them, bike or car, you will swerve no matter the speed.

You very rarely see a cyclists stop in the city, they usually swerve. Are cyclists going too fast?

The very obvious and subtle difference here is that the poster nearly ran over their toes, indicating the swerve was last second, ie too fast for the conditions. The other regarding people walking or cycling, pretty obvious that bar those being tools, that in most cases you have clear sight lines and safe paths around the person to take. Imagine the tractor was on a straight stretch of road when he encountered the walkers and there was no oncoming traffic. "Swerving" or simply moving around the pedestrians is fine, doing it on a bend, where there was the "possibility" of meeting an oncoming car i.e. no clear sight lines as the poster couldn't seem to tell.

ganmo

Seth Brundle wrote: »

If you had to swerve then you weren't driving at an appropriate speed!

I can run faster than I was travelling. Could I of stopped? Possibly but it would of been more dangerous to the walkers.
I had less than 5ft from the front wheel when I saw them, if theyd been the other side of the road I'd of seen them from 20 yards back with loads of time to decide what to do.

When walking country roads myself I always feel safer when I know I can be seen from as far as possible

Seth Brundle

ganmo wrote: »

I can run faster than I was travelling. Could I of stopped? Possibly but it would of been more dangerous to the walkers.
I had less than 5ft from the front wheel when I saw them, if theyd been the other side of the road I'd of seen them from 20 yards back with loads of time to decide what to do.

When walking country roads myself I always feel safer when I know I can be seen from as far as possible

You had a 5 feet line of sight? Where in Ireland is this?
I'm calling shenanigans!

ganmo

PM me if you want to know where exactly.
By 5 ft I mean when I saw them they were 5 ft from the front wheel, bear in mind where the driver is in a tractor

Seth Brundle

ganmo wrote: »

PM me if you want to know where exactly.
By 5 ft I mean when I saw them they were 5 ft from the front wheel, bear in mind where the driver is in a tractor

I learned to drive on a tractor.
I've driven tractors of varying heights and lengths.
I've never been in a position where I had a view of only 5 feet ahead of me.

Why not just post a link to the bend on google maps?

ganmo

I'm happy to send such a link to anyone via pm but I'm not going to post one in public

Seth Brundle

ok send it to me please

CramCycle

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I learned to drive on a tractor.
I've driven tractors of varying heights and lengths.
I've never been in a position where I had a view of only 5 feet ahead of me.

Why not just post a link to the bend on google maps?

The first 5 feet ahead of you is about the only place you don't have a view of in most modern tractors, bring back the good auld 135s, none of these fancy yolks :pac:

DaveyDave

Cycling down the north quays, a rare tailwind behind me. Approaching Capel St junction where the bus lane splits into two lanes, convenient I thought, as it would make it easier for me to get to the right lane to turn at the bridge. Suddenly a Range Rover cuts into the bus lane across the solid white and I have to drop the anchor. Not the closest call I've had but wheel skidded and damp conditions weren't ideal. Garda van probably 4 cars ahead too.

Lezyne 800 on flashing, in the middle of the lane. Couldn't be any more obvious. Traffic wasn't even that bad considering it was around 3:30. I've sat in worst at 11am!