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

cjt156

Just another piece of evidence that there are idiots in all modes of transport; most of whom are completely unaware of their own idiocy.

ThisRegard

NyOmnishambles wrote: »

I have recently enough started cycling to work, through the Phoenix Park and up the quays and then up towards Stephen's green

You'll have a much more pleasant cycle by exiting the park and going through Kilmainham and down the canal until you turn off where you need to head around by the green.

plodder

NyOmnishambles wrote: »

I have recently enough started cycling to work, through the Phoenix Park and up the quays and then up towards Stephen's green

So far thankfully I have nothing major to report in this thread but reading it has been a useful education in how to be safe, I am fairly cautious and happy to let faster people by wherever I can as I always leave myself plenty of time to get where i am going

This morning when approaching the junction with Church street where the buses/cars have to cross the cycle lane to turn left up Church street I was overtaken by another cyclist

There was a car ahead of both of us who was indicating that he was going to turn left and had to cross the cycle lane, he had indicated correctly and in plenty of time and had the right of way as he was ahead of both of us and started his maneuver before we approached

The other cyclist guy continues on up the cycle lane and forces the car to jam on the brakes so as to not knock him off, cyclist proceeds to continue around the car as if he had the right of way

So a near miss all of the other cyclists making, the poor car driver was shocked from nearly knocking someone down and then got blasted off the road by a bus for missing the light

Probably the cyclist's fault all right. But, would you say the motorist was a bit hesitant, after indicating? If they had indicated in good time and were safely ahead of both of you, why didn't they just go for it? How fast was the other cyclist going?

I think the RSA could be doing more to offer guidance on this situation. On street cycle lanes at junctions like that may be creating an impression of absolute right of way, of cyclists over other traffic that needs to turn.

Had a near miss myself yesterday, not involving bikes though. Near head on collision with me coming round a bend to meet a car overtaking on continuous white line, approaching the bend on a bad stretch of the N5. Very hard braking required to avoid collision. I can't remember a shave as close as that ever. Scary stuff.

Tombo2001

NyOmnishambles wrote: »

I have recently enough started cycling to work, through the Phoenix Park and up the quays and then up towards Stephen's green

So far thankfully I have nothing major to report in this thread but reading it has been a useful education in how to be safe, I am fairly cautious and happy to let faster people by wherever I can as I always leave myself plenty of time to get where i am going

This morning when approaching the junction with Church street where the buses/cars have to cross the cycle lane to turn left up Church street I was overtaken by another cyclist

There was a car ahead of both of us who was indicating that he was going to turn left and had to cross the cycle lane, he had indicated correctly and in plenty of time and had the right of way as he was ahead of both of us and started his maneuver before we approached

The other cyclist guy continues on up the cycle lane and forces the car to jam on the brakes so as to not knock him off, cyclist proceeds to continue around the car as if he had the right of way

So a near miss all of the other cyclists making, the poor car driver was shocked from nearly knocking someone down and then got blasted off the road by a bus for missing the light

I'd agree with you that the cyclist was in the wrong here; however it is a bit of a grey area.

For example, if I am on the motorway driving, and I want to move Left from Lane A to Lane B = if there is a Car driving in Lane B beside me - I cant cut across that car.

What you are saying here is that the car is turning left across the cycle lane - it did indicate - but it is saying to the cyclists 'you have to stop now so I can cut across the cycle lane' .....if I understand you correctly.

A lot of cyclists will feel - this is my lane, you are cutting across it, you should wait for me to come through and then cut across it....

So - imho - its a grey area......who is right and who is wrong - I'm not 100% sure.

Danjamin1

plodder wrote: »

Probably the cyclist's fault all right. But, would you say the motorist was a bit hesitant, after indicating? If they had indicated in good time and were safely ahead of both of you, why didn't they just go for it? How fast was the other cyclist going?

I think the RSA could be doing more to offer guidance on this situation. On street cycle lanes at junctions like that may be creating an impression of absolute right of way, of cyclists over other traffic that needs to turn.

Ah come on, cyclists are at fault some of the time, from reading the post this fella sounded like a total d**k on a bike. No sense in passing some of the blame on to the driver by reading more in to the story than what was posted.

jive

Tombo2001 wrote: »

So - imho - its a grey area......who is right and who is wrong - I'm not 100% sure.

It's not, if the car is indicating and there in good time it's legally entitled to cross the cycle 'track'. It's not perceived as crossing a proper pane although it probably should be.

The thing is nobody knows this rule, even people with a full drivers licence. I constantly yield to cars who indicate left to turn across the cycle lane but some of them you can see watching you in the wing mirror and you have to have a bit of a staring contest until they see you wave them on.

Tombo2001

jive wrote: »

It's not, if the car is indicating and there in good time it's legally entitled to cross the cycle 'track'. It's not perceived as crossing a proper pane although it probably should be.

The thing is nobody knows this rule, even people with a full drivers licence. I constantly yield to cars who indicate left to turn across the cycle lane but some of them you can see watching you in the wing mirror and you have to have a bit of a staring contest until they see you wave them on.

That sounds like a grey area to me.

cython

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I'd agree with you that the cyclist was in the wrong here; however it is a bit of a grey area.

For example, if I am on the motorway driving, and I want to move Left from Lane A to Lane B = if there is a Car driving in Lane B beside me - I cant cut across that car.

What you are saying here is that the car is turning left across the cycle lane - it did indicate - but it is saying to the cyclists 'you have to stop now so I can cut across the cycle lane' .....if I understand you correctly.

A lot of cyclists will feel - this is my lane, you are cutting across it, you should wait for me to come through and then cut across it....

So - imho - its a grey area......who is right and who is wrong - I'm not 100% sure.

jive wrote: »

It's not, if the car is indicating and there in good time it's legally entitled to cross the cycle 'track'. It's not perceived as crossing a proper pane although it probably should be.

The thing is nobody knows this rule, even people with a full drivers licence. I constantly yield to cars who indicate left to turn across the cycle lane but some of them you can see watching you in the wing mirror and you have to have a bit of a staring contest until they see you wave them on.

Tombo2001 wrote: »

That sounds like a grey area to me.

Well here it is in black and white (my emphasis):

SI 332/2012 wrote:

(b) A pedal cyclist may overtake on the left where vehicles to the pedal cyclist’s right are stationary or are moving more slowly than the overtaking pedal cycle, except where the vehicle to be overtaken—

(i) has signalled an intention to turn to the left and there is a reasonable expectation that the vehicle in which the driver has signalled an intention to turn to the left will execute a movement to the left before the cycle overtakes the vehicle,

(ii) is stationary for the purposes of permitting a passenger or passengers to alight or board the vehicle, or

(iii) is stationary for the purposes of loading or unloading.”,

Tombo2001

On the subject of cyclists acting the d**k...

I was on the Sutton bike path the other day.

Cyclist coming towards me swerves in my direction.

Gentleman was a 'no hands' merchant, reading his phone.... I am normally a defender of cyclists.....however the 'no hands' thing is where I draw the line....

Tombo2001

Grey area

(b) A pedal cyclist may overtake on the left where vehicles to the pedal cyclist’s right are stationary or are moving more slowly than the overtaking pedal cycle, except where the vehicle to be overtaken—

(i) has signalled an intention to turn to the left and there is a reasonable expectation that the vehicle in which the driver has signalled an intention to turn to the left will execute a movement to the left before the cycle overtakes the vehicle,

So again - is a cyclist expected to stop to avoid a collision here? As the car cuts across?

plodder

Danjamin1 wrote: »

Ah come on, cyclists are at fault some of the time, from reading the post this fella sounded like a total d**k on a bike. No sense in passing some of the blame on to the driver by reading more in to the story than what was posted.

I don't see the problem with teasing out the incident a bit more with a few questions about it to the poster. People don't usually set out to be dicks on bikes or cars for that matter. Maybe he thought he had right of way. I'm absolutely serious as well that the RSA should be doing information videos about situations like this.

cython

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Grey area

(b) A pedal cyclist may overtake on the left where vehicles to the pedal cyclist’s right are stationary or are moving more slowly than the overtaking pedal cycle, except where the vehicle to be overtaken—

(i) has signalled an intention to turn to the left and there is a reasonable expectation that the vehicle in which the driver has signalled an intention to turn to the left will execute a movement to the left before the cycle overtakes the vehicle,

So again - is a cyclist expected to stop to avoid a collision here? As the car cuts across?

In a word, yes. After all, there is no longer a concept of a cycle lane in law (the same SI only refers to cycle tracks), so the cyclist is overtaking in the same lane, and the obligation on traffic to yield to traffic already in a lane they are crossing/entering thus does not exist.

If you want to look for an equivalence, a driver should not pass on the right of a vehicle that has indicated an intention to turn right, so why should a cyclist be permitted to do virtually the same thing on the left?

Tombo2001

Again - is there an equivalent rule for motorists cutting across cycle lanes?

By the definition above, a motorist is perfectly entitled to cut across a cycle lane and expect any cyclist coming along it to jam on the brakes to avoid a collision.....

Danjamin1

plodder wrote: »

I don't see the problem with teasing out the incident a bit more with a few questions about it to the poster. People don't usually set out to be dicks on bikes or cars for that matter. Maybe he thought he had right of way. I'm absolutely serious as well that the RSA should be doing information videos about situations like this.

Might not set out to be a d**k but some people are d**ks through ignorance of the rules. I was guilty of it myself years back when I was cycling on a footpath until an off-duty Garda politely educated me. Haven't done it since.

You're right though, in what seems like a poorly understood area of rules of the road/etiquette there should be should be a campaign around expanding people's understanding.

Tombo2001

cython wrote: »

In a word, yes. After all, there is no longer a concept of a cycle lane in law (the same SI only refers to cycle tracks), so the cyclist is overtaking in the same lane, and the obligation on traffic to yield to traffic already in a lane they are crossing/entering thus does not exist.

Understood.

So you are saying that in Law, the cycle lane and the motor lane are the same lane.....and that a cyclist should treat a motorist in front of it as being in the same lane.....even though in practice the cycle lane is a separate lane marked out on the LHS of the car lane.

Not being smart......but I would say not many cyclists are aware of that, or motorists...and its a concept that really doesn't protect cyclists at all.....

..which all brings it back again to being a grey area.

and because (I) in practice a cycle lane is distinct from the motor lane
and because (II) cyclists are told to be on the left hand side of cars.....thereby creating the impression of two separate lanes.

Tombo2001

cython wrote: »

In a word, yes. After all, there is no longer a concept of a cycle lane in law (the same SI only refers to cycle tracks), so the cyclist is overtaking in the same lane, and the obligation on traffic to yield to traffic already in a lane they are crossing/entering thus does not exist.

Also....in practice, the lane encourages cyclists to Undertake, not Overtake.

cython

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Understood.

So you are saying that in Law, the cycle lane and the motor lane are the same lane.....and that a cyclist should treat a motorist in front of it as being in the same lane.....even though in practice the cycle lane is a separate lane marked out on the LHS of the car lane.

Not being smart......but I would say not many cyclists are aware of that, or motorists...and its a concept that really doesn't protect cyclists at all.....

..which all brings it back again to being a grey area.

and because (I) in practice a cycle lane is distinct from the motor lane
and because (II) cyclists are told to be on the left hand side of cars.....thereby creating the impression of two separate lanes.

There you go again, using the word lane, when the track is simply a section of the lane, not a lane of its own. And frankly ignorance of the law does not a grey area make. While arguably there is a need for greater publicity (though all road users have a responsibility to inform themselves and keep current on traffic laws), there is no grey area in the law.

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Also....in practice, the lane encourages cyclists to Undertake, not Overtake.

Overtake on the left, perhaps. I don't believe there is any encouragement in the law for them to organise funerals, however, nor to make any formal pledges.

Tombo2001

cython wrote: »

There you go again, using the word lane, when the track is simply a section of the lane, not a lane of its own. And frankly ignorance of the law does not a grey area make. While arguably there is a need for greater publicity (though all road users have a responsibility to inform themselves and keep current on traffic laws), there is no grey area in the law.


Overtake on the left, perhaps. I don't believe there is any encouragement in the law for them to organise funerals, however, nor to make any formal pledges.

Silly me calling them cycle lanes. Dublin city council also call them cycle lanes, you might enlighten them....

http://www.cycledublin.ie/cycling-facilities/cycle-lanes-and-facilities

NyOmnishambles

ThisRegard wrote: »

You'll have a much more pleasant cycle by exiting the park and going through Kilmainham and down the canal until you turn off where you need to head around by the green.

I will have to give that a go at some stage, though to be honest as I try to come in early there isn't too much traffic so I have had no major issues so far

plodder wrote: »

Probably the cyclist's fault all right. But, would you say the motorist was a bit hesitant, after indicating? If they had indicated in good time and were safely ahead of both of you, why didn't they just go for it? How fast was the other cyclist going?

They were safely ahead of both of us, but there was a bus pulled in at the stop to the left of the lane so i guess they were making sure it wasn't pulling out and then spotted us in the mirror and were making sure we would let them in, which gobsh!te ahead of me didn't
Neither of us were going that fast and had plenty of time to stop

Tombo2001 wrote: »

What you are saying here is that the car is turning left across the cycle lane - it did indicate - but it is saying to the cyclists 'you have to stop now so I can cut across the cycle lane' .....if I understand you correctly.

A lot of cyclists will feel - this is my lane, you are cutting across it, you should wait for me to come through and then cut across it....

So - imho - its a grey area......who is right and who is wrong - I'm not 100% sure.

jive wrote: »

It's not, if the car is indicating and there in good time it's legally entitled to cross the cycle 'track'. It's not perceived as crossing a proper pane although it probably should be.

I would be of the opinion that the person ahead in the traffic has the right to make the maneuver if they are a safe distance ahead, they would have been if other cyclist had shown a bit of cop on

plodder

cython wrote: »

In a word, yes. After all, there is no longer a concept of a cycle lane in law (the same SI only refers to cycle tracks), so the cyclist is overtaking in the same lane, and the obligation on traffic to yield to traffic already in a lane they are crossing/entering thus does not exist.

Rules of the road

A cycle track or lane is a reserved part of a roadway for bicycles (not
motorcycles).
Some cycle tracks are bordered by a continuous white line on the right-hand
side. These are only for bicycles and motorised wheelchairs, so no other drivers
may use them or park in them.
Other cycle tracks have a broken white line on the right-hand side. Other drivers
may make temporary use of this type of track if it is not occupied.

If anything, that implies that cyclists do have absolute right of way. Though I realise it could just be wrong.

nyOmnishambles wrote:

They were safely ahead of both of us, but there was a bus pulled in at the stop to the left of the lane so i guess they were making sure it wasn't pulling out and then spotted us in the mirror and were making sure we would let them in, which gobsh!te ahead of me didn't
Neither of us were going that fast and had plenty of time to stop

Fair enough. Cyclist's fault then.

buffalo

Tombo2001 wrote: »

So again - is a cyclist expected to stop to avoid a collision here? As the car cuts across?

No, a cyclist is expected to be looking ahead of them and note the indicators in operation on the vehicle ahead, and adjust speed as necessary if they have a "reasonable expectation" that "the vehicle will execute a movement to the left before the cycle overtakes the vehicle".

If the driver does not use the indicators properly of course, then collision avoidance measures should be taken.

Tombo2001

buffalo wrote: »

No, a cyclist is expected to be looking ahead of them and note the indicators in operation on the vehicle ahead, and adjust speed as necessary if they have a "reasonable expectation" that "the vehicle will execute a movement to the left before the cycle overtakes the vehicle".

If the driver does not use the indicators properly of course, then collision avoidance measures should be taken.

Yes - and what I am reading here is that car was well ahead......fine......indicated .......fine......

If the car had cut across the lane, with the cyclist well behind it.....then again fine.....cyclist should adjust speed....

However what I am reading is that the car indicated....and then stopped.....and then finally turned at a time when the cyclist was beside it rather than behind it....hence the potential collision.

To me, the car is sending out a mixed signal here - it is stopping as if to say - I will wait until you have passed until I turn......but then the car doesn't wait.

Again, I agree its the cyclists fault, but I can also see how this (potential) collision could happen....and that the driver has some responsibility for not being more decisive on the road.

buffalo

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Yes - and what I am reading here is that car was well ahead......fine......indicated .......fine......

If the car had cut across the lane, with the cyclist well behind it.....then again fine.....cyclist should adjust speed....

However what I am reading is that the car indicated....and then stopped.....and then finally turned at a time when the cyclist was beside it rather than behind it....hence the potential collision.

Where are you reading that?

There was a car ahead of both of us who was indicating that he was going to turn left and had to cross the cycle lane, he had indicated correctly and in plenty of time and had the right of way as he was ahead of both of us and started his maneuver before we approached

The other cyclist guy continues on up the cycle lane and forces the car to jam on the brakes so as to not knock him off

Danjamin1

I love how these stories get embellished, why can't the story just be taken as fact without people adding their assumptions to it?

Tombo2001

Danjamin1 wrote: »

I love how these stories get embellished, why can't the story just be taken as fact without people adding their assumptions to it?

I'll bow out of the conversation here.

Danjamin1

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I'll bow out of the conversation here.

I'm not having a go, I just don't get why people automatically assume the driver MUST have done something to encourage the stupid manoeuvre when turning. Some people are just d**ks no matter their mode of transport.

shootermacg

Clear cut case. The cyclist showed no consideration for the driver ahead. He is clearly in the wrong. The driver should have went for the turn, though I'll always forgive the driver in cases where this becomes a stale-mate because they cared enough for my safety to not make the turn even when they're in the right.

TheChizler

The opposite happened to me last week. I was driving and turning left up ahead and passed a guy cycling just as I was coming to the turn. I was indicating and stopped waiting for him since I'd have cut him off if I went for it, but he stopped too and let out a torrent of abuse for me being so slow to make the turn.

cython

TheChizler wrote: »

The opposite happened to me last week. I was driving and turning left up ahead and passed a guy cycling just as I was coming to the turn. I was indicating and stopped waiting for him since I'd have cut him off if I went for it, but he stopped too and let out a torrent of abuse for me being so slow to make the turn.

Fair play for stopping to let him through, but would you not have just waited behind him and made the turn then? While the RSA have their shortcomings, that is one message (not to overtake a cyclist only to turn/indicate left immediately after) that they are very right in pushing.

Ultimately what you did sends very mixed messages to other road users (not just the cyclist), and he may have assumed (reasonably enough, since if were going to wait for him to pass anyway the question has to be asked of why overtake in the first place?) that if you overtook you were going to turn across him anyway.

Sorry, but while the cyclist's reaction does sound a bit OTT, your own driving did leave scope for improvement.

TheChizler

Nobody should ever be congratulated for not doing something dangerous i think, it should be the standard course of action! Definitely in hindsight I should have hung back, when I made the decision to pass he was going fairly slow up a hill and I would have had plenty of room, but in the meantime he got to the crest (which I didn't anticipate and maybe should have, used to cycle that hill all the time before I disassembled my bike to service it 2 years ago...) and put the foot down which made it borderline. If I'd gone for it I should have ended up on this thread from his point of view! So my intention was ambiguous but didn't warrant the abuse.