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

ED E

All starts with our licensing process. Would you let a pilot sit a paper exam then fly you to New York? No? Then why let somebody pass a theory test then drive on public streets.

The fact that I could meet a driver who's failed the practical test 10, 20 times legitimately on the road is a scary one.

iwillhtfu

ED E wrote: »

All starts with our licensing process. Would you let a pilot sit a paper exam then fly you to New York? No? Then why let somebody pass a theory test then drive on public streets.

The fact that I could meet a driver who's failed the practical test 10, 20 times legitimately on the road is a scary one.

Or a cyclist who has no idea of the rules of the road either and possibly failed their car theory test more than once. Why would you allow them jump on a bike and use some of our countries main roads? I know I don't allow my kids out on the road alone as they don't appreciate the dangers of traffic or know the ROTR either for that matter. Cyclists are far from faultless and this shouldn't be overlooked either.

ED E

iwillhtfu wrote: »

Or a cyclist who has no idea of the rules of the road either and possibly failed their car theory test more than once. Why would you allow them jump on a bike and use some of our countries main roads? I know I don't allow my kids out on the road alone as they don't appreciate the dangers of traffic or know the ROTR either for that matter. Cyclists are far from faultless and this shouldn't be overlooked either.

Also not ideal, but a bike has not been known to hit a schoolbus and kill a rake of kids so not really comparable.

iwillhtfu

ED E wrote: »

Also not ideal, but a bike has not been known to hit a schoolbus and kill a rake of kids so not really comparable.

I knew you'd come back with that arguement and I ****in hate that answer everytime I hear it and to even bring a bus and kids into makes it more farcical. Have you ever heard of such an accident involving a cyclist and car occurring? I swear it needs to be written out of any safe cycling campaign.

Yes a cyclist wont do that but a motorist swerving to avoid a cyclist that has ran a red light or pulled out blindly from a junction could easily cause a fatal accident.

Much the same as a cyclist running a red light or cycling on a footpath or just generally acting the arse could hit someone resulting in serious injury also.

AndrewJRenko

iwillhtfu wrote: »

I knew you'd come back with that arguement and I ****in hate that answer everytime I hear it and to even bring a bus and kids into makes it more farcical. Have you ever heard of such an accident involving a cyclist and car occurring? I swear it needs to be written out of any safe cycling campaign.

Yes a cyclist wont do that but a motorist swerving to avoid a cyclist that has ran a red light or pulled out blindly from a junction could easily cause a fatal accident.

Much the same as a cyclist running a red light or cycling on a footpath or just generally acting the arse could hit someone resulting in serious injury also.

Yes, these collisions (not accidents) can happen, and can sometimes be the fault of the cyclist (the case of the drunk cyclist who cycled on to the M1 motorway a few years back springs to mind), but in general, they are not. I can't recall any scenario in the past 15 years where a cyclist was responsible for the death of anyone other than themself.

International research shows that by and large, motorists are at fault in the case of motorist/cyclist collisions - in London 70%, in Adelaide 76%, in Vancouver 92%. So the vast majority of collisions on the roads don't involve cyclists, and of those that do, the vast majority of these are the fault of motorists.

If you're looking at cyclist behaviour to reduce our death toll on the roads, you're looking in the wrong place, by and large.

iwillhtfu

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yes, these collisions (not accidents) can happen, and can sometimes be the fault of the cyclist (the case of the drunk cyclist who cycled on to the M1 motorway a few years back springs to mind), but in general, they are not. I can't recall any scenario in the past 15 years where a cyclist was responsible for the death of anyone other than themself.

International research shows that by and large, motorists are at fault in the case of motorist/cyclist collisions - in London 70%, in Adelaide 76%, in Vancouver 92%. So the vast majority of collisions on the roads don't involve cyclists, and of those that do, the vast majority of these are the fault of motorists.

If you're looking at cyclist behaviour to reduce our death toll on the roads, you're looking in the wrong place, by and large.

I'm not looking to disprove accurate data and to be honest you're just another sheep bleeting in so far as you're pointing out the obvious and info that we are already aware of.

My point was that the assumption ED E was trying to make in that all of the motorists are to blame is entirely inaccurate and as with most change it always helps to look at yourself first. To be honest it's comments like his that don't help any attempt at making motorist more cyclist aware. It comes across as self righteous at best.

ED E

Listen, Im all for better cycling. I'll actively ask other cyclists "you're a pedestrian are you" when they RLJ then toot along at 2kph.

But they'll only kill themselves, the stats prove that. Motor vehicles are killing responsible cyclists too though, probably primarily so. Look at what happened to Froome for christs sake. Bad cycling is a public nuisance, bad driving is a national scourge.

Idleater

CramCycle wrote: »

Am I the only one who sees the issue with the reasons for staying close to the ditch and segregated infrastructure. People are using the roads with no care or regard for others, ignoring the basic tenants of good driving. Able to stop in the space you see to be clear, giving space to other road users, giving your self good time to get where you are going. Instead of trying to change culture and hammer in enforcement, we are looking at making allowances for people who should not be allowed on the roads in a vehicle capable of such damage.

Interesting post, and while I agree with your sentiments in Ireland, segregation can work combined with driver discipline to an even greater extent.
This morning I was in a bus to Eindhoven airport, 5 lanes with grass and trees between each. Two vehicle lanes each side, two bus lanes, and one two way "cycle highway ". Lights changed automatically for the bus and cyclists.
The other day I cycled 50km at reasonable speed purely on dedicated cycling tracks, through towns, villages roundabouts and junctions. Every driver gave right of way.
So it can work but without greenfield planning it will in all likelihood be compromises.

iwillhtfu

ED E wrote: »

Bad cycling is a public nuisance, bad driving is a national scourge.

Neither are acceptable and to ignore one in favour of another is not the way to tackle the issue and implement change. There are far to many cyclists out there who could honestly take a look at their own habits and I'm not just refering to RLJ's a lot of club cyclists could also take a minute and have a quiet word with themselves. I'm well aware of the issues with motorists also but if this 1.5 law is to be passed not addressing the cyclist issue with only provide a stick to beat the cycling campaign.

AndrewJRenko

iwillhtfu wrote: »

My point was that the assumption ED E was trying to make in that all of the motorists are to blame is entirely inaccurate and as with most change it always helps to look at yourself first. To be honest it's comments like his that don't help any attempt at making motorist more cyclist aware. It comes across as self righteous at best.

Eh no, his claim is largely accurate, though perhaps not 100% accurate - maybe something like 98% or 99%.

And no, it doesn't always help to look at yourself first. It always helps to look at where the real problem arises first. It always helps to focus on the low-hanging fruit first, the big wins.

You can call it self-righteous if you like, but that doesn't make it wrong. The idea that cyclists have to reach some mythical standard far and above the standard that applies to the vast majority of motorists to avoid being killed by those motorists is not acceptable to me.

iwillhtfu

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Eh no, his claim is largely accurate, though perhaps not 100% accurate - maybe something like 98% or 99%.

Please don't start pulling figures out of your hole it lessens you credibility.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Eh no, his claim is largely accurate, though perhaps not 100% accurate - maybe something like 98% or 99%.

And no, it doesn't always help to look at yourself first. It always helps to look at where the real problem arises first. It always helps to focus on the low-hanging fruit first, the big wins.

You can call it self-righteous if you like, but that doesn't make it wrong. The idea that cyclists have to reach some mythical standard far and above the standard that applies to the vast majority of motorists to avoid being killed by those motorists is not acceptable to me.

Nobody is asking cyclists to reach any mythical standards. I would expect all road users to understand and have an appreciation for the rules of the road and other road users.

Care to explain what the low hanging fruit wold be in this instance as the only possibility of 100% change would be in changing a mindset and that would be a long feckin way from low hanging fruit.

AndrewJRenko

iwillhtfu wrote: »

Please don't start pulling figures out of your hole it lessens you credibility.

I'm happy to work out the exact numbers if necessary, based on the small number of cyclist deaths as a percentage of overall road deaths, and the tiny number of those cyclist deaths that result from lawbreaking by cyclists. Do you really want the numbers?

iwillhtfu wrote: »

Care to explain what the low hanging fruit wold be in this instance as the only possibility of 100% change would be in changing a mindset and that would be a long feckin way from low hanging fruit.

Sure - here's the low-hanging fruit:

1) Start enforcing the laws on speeding, so that 82% of motorists aren't breaking the speed limits
2) Start enforcing the laws on mobile phone use, so that we don't see a bunch of drivers with their heads and/or fingers on their phones while driving

Start with that low-hanging fruit and see how that impacts road deaths.

Arcade_Tryer

The false equivalency on show here would put US Presidential elections to shame.

randomname2005

iwillhtfu wrote: »

Please don't start pulling figures out of your hole it lessens you credibility.



Nobody is asking cyclists to reach any mythical standards. I would expect all road users to understand and have an appreciation for the rules of the road and other road users.

Care to explain what the low hanging fruit wold be in this instance as the only possibility of 100% change would be in changing a mindset and that would be a long feckin way from low hanging fruit.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Sure - here's the low-hanging fruit:

1) Start enforcing the laws on speeding, so that 82% of motorists aren't breaking the speed limits
2) Start enforcing the laws on mobile phone use, so that we don't see a bunch of drivers with their heads and/or fingers on their phones while driving

Start with that low-hanging fruit and see how that impacts road deaths.

Enforce possibly the easiest to understand of all rules of the road - red means stop. Low hanging fruit that only needs a garda with a video camera on each exit from a junction to enforce*. And the garda can also stop the cyclists who are breaking the light too.

(*It should only need this, and if there is more legislation needed to be put through so that a recording made by a garda at a junction can't be used to issue fines/penalty points for breaking a red light then it should be put through quickly)

amcalester

Aaaaaand back to near misses.

Nearly taken out of it on a roundabout this morning, driver in an i30 didn't slow down while approaching the roundabout and had to slam on to avoid hitting me as I was exiting.

I had entered the roundabout at 6 o'clock and was passing the entrance at 9 o'clock when this clown failed to yield.

papu

Absolutely infuriating.

Chuchote

papu wrote: »

Absolutely infuriating.

It is. But I would ring my bell while going along the inside of a bus, so anyone crossing can here that there's a bike coming. (In fact, I'll normally ting-ting on my bell all the way along O'Connell Street.)

AndrewJRenko

papu wrote: »

Absolutely infuriating.

How long before he hits boards.ie or the Irish TImes letters page to complain about his near-murdering by the crazed cyclist on O'Connell St?

Rogue-Trooper

papu wrote: »

Absolutely infuriating.

Yes it is, especially considering the light for traffic had been green for a while. That said, I'm always paranoid clearing larger vehicles in slow moving traffic in the city, so would always be ready to haul anchor.

Also, I reckon that guy was a nifty dancer in his day - that was some fancy footwork!

Idleater

Chuchote wrote: »

It is. But I would ring my bell while going along the inside of a bus, so anyone crossing can here that there's a bike coming.

Actually, the dead giveaway (re killer cyclists :-)) that there are still pedestrians crossing is the fact that the bus is not moving. This is quite a useful indicator in city centre traffic.

Advanced driving (applicable to riding/cycling etc) says that there is probably a good reason why people are doing what they are doing and to read the indicators that might signal a danger. In this case the bus driver is not moving in the ~6 seconds since the lights have changed to green, and the cyclist ahead is only slowly moving off, yet he also sees the remaining pedestrian running to complete his crossing (in his case as quickly as possible as he knows his error).

@Papu, learn from these signals, yes it isn't your fault, but you can avoid these types of incidents occurring in the first place.

helimachoptor

yeah its annoying, but i would always expect that to happen.

Coming along the rock road this morning and a white van man was turning right to go up booterstown avenue, i was going slow enough given the rain, but i had to slam on the breaks and he stopped mid-junction, blocking the now on coming traffic

i feel the last couple of months have been very **** for these things

loyatemu

I always expect the worst from pedestrians and drivers (and other cyclists) - I'd rather not hit any of of them even if they're in the wrong.

PaulieC

amcalester wrote: »

I had entered the roundabout at 6 o'clock and was passing the entrance at 9 o'clock when this clown failed to yield.

That is one huge motherfckin' roundabout...

I love Sean nos

iwillhtfu wrote: »

Or a cyclist who has no idea of the rules of the road either and possibly failed their car theory test more than once.

How is this relevant?

amcalester

Another one on the way home, I was traveling straight and a van coming the opposite direction turned right across my path.

I was able to stop in time, stopping about a foot from the side panel of the van.

Van driver drive off oblivious to what happened.

Luckily there was a Garda car, with 2 Gardai in it, stopped at the junction who on hearing my roar took off after the van and pulled him over.

I followed and gave my details and the Garda said she'd be in touch.

ED E

Nothing like a little bit of karmic justice of a monday

amcalester

ED E wrote: »

Nothing like a little bit of karmic justice of a monday

Yeah, but to be honest I wish he'd just been more observant and waited until I had passed through the junction.

He told the Garda that he didn't see me but I was wearing hi-vis so not sure how that's possible.

Kaisr Sose

amcalester wrote: »

Yeah, but to be honest I wish he'd just been more observant and waited until I had passed through the junction.

He told the Garda that he didn't see me but I was wearing hi-vis so not sure how that's possible.

Of course he seen you, but he is not going to admit he was driving without due care and attention. Nothing like a Garda in the right place at the right time. It just shows you that the staffing cut backs have resulted in less chance of getting caught.

ED E

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Of course he seen you, but he is not going to admit he was driving without due care and attention. Nothing like a Garda in the right place at the right time. It just shows you that the staffing cut backs have resulted in less chance of getting caught.

He just did. Either his vision isnt good enough to drive or he wasnt looking which is easily a charge of DC&A.

amcalester

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Of course he seen you, but he is not going to admit he was driving without due care and attention. Nothing like a Garda in the right place at the right time. It just shows you that the staffing cut backs have resulted in less chance of getting caught.

I actually believe that he didn't see me, 2 other vehicles turned right just before him, but they had the time to do so, and I think he just followed along like a lemming.