Cam footage - who is at fault here?!

Sleeper12

Cookie_Monster wrote:

no, it can be seen later in the same clip that the lane continues same as the two driving lanes, it's simply not marked when crossing the junction as there are yellow box markings

What I was getting at isn't it illegal to make a left or right turn from the middle lane? I don't believe that there can be a separate cycle lane at a junction. If it was a separate lane it would have to be controlled by separate traffic lights as you'd see for bus lanes where traffic from another lane has to cross over it.

Rules of the road say that you must get in the correct lane for turning. I believe that the cycle lane is not a separate lane at all. There is nothing in the rules of the road to suggest that it is a separate lane & certainly not at junctions.

There is a junction on the Kilbarrack Road and it has two separate lanes marked out. There is a lane for turning right & a lane for going straight. There is no left turn. The lane for going straight is in the cycle lane or the cycle lane is in the motor lane for going straight. It's the same lane marked as a cycle & motor lane.

I believe that the same rules of the road cover cars and cyclists in situations like the op now as before any cycle lanes were put on Irish roads. I don't believe road markings have changed who has right of way. That's not to claim that the motorist has right of way.

GreeBo

droidus wrote: »

All things being equal, and ignoring the issue of blame, who has the potential to cause most harm and therefore who has duty of care?

If this was a pedestrian crossing in front of the car would the driver be justified in proceeding ahead even if the pedestrian was directly in front of him, in the middle of the road?

Relying on duty of care is exactly my point.

Is the pedestrian obstructing the car because he knows the car won't deliberately hit him? Again, using your frailty to get your own way.

Kaisr Sose

GreeBo wrote: »

Relying on duty of care is exactly my point.

Is the pedestrian obstructing the car because he knows the car won't deliberately hit him? Again, using your frailty to get your own way.

OMG, you don’t think this way, or do you?

dubrov

GreeBo wrote: »

Relying on duty of care is exactly my point.

Is the pedestrian obstructing the car because he knows the car won't deliberately hit him? Again, using your frailty to get your own way.

I would worry if you have a driving licence.

Thinkingaboutit

Can't judge, but the motorist could well be one of the many who don't shoulder check.

I've had more than one situation of a motorist deciding to turn despite my being level or slightly ahead, so now if a car is going somewhat slowly at level with me, or a little ahead, there's a good chance they might turn. Some speed up so they can turn ahead of me, and on one occasion an old lad on a small Japanese commuter motorbike gave the dopey motorist a telling off - I was shock up. Most bad, over-aggressive and inattentive, in their own world drivers, put on indicators when they turn. If the motorist seems likely to be irrational or inattentive, I either keep back or go faster, whichever results in no longer sharing road space with them. These people tend to turn when they put on their indicators, regardless of cyclist or pedestrian.

CramCycle

axer wrote: »

It doesn't look to me that the driver was attempting to injury the the OP - he actually seemed to be aware of the cyclist. He was just pissed off by the dangerous maneuver.

Whatever the original intention, after the car stopped first, it should have stayed in that position until it was clear to proceed. At this point, what happened before is irrelevant and something alot of Irish road users need to understand. Just because someone done something wrong/incorrect/illegal, does not give you the right to return in kind as some sort of "justified" reaction. I am not the Gardai, I presume you are not either, and it is not in our remit to police traffic misdemeanors in a manner we judge to be suitable. In this case the driver repeatedly jumps his clutch in what can only be described as a truly terrifying intimidation tactic.

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

Can't judge, but the motorist could well be one of the many who don't shoulder check.

Quite possibly but that doesn't excuse his behaviour after the original incident, no matter which view you take on who is in the wrong.

axer

CramCycle wrote: »

Whatever the original intention, after the car stopped first, it should have stayed in that position until it was clear to proceed. At this point, what happened before is irrelevant and something alot of Irish road users need to understand. Just because someone done something wrong/incorrect/illegal, does not give you the right to return in kind as some sort of "justified" reaction. I am not the Gardai, I presume you are not either, and it is not in our remit to police traffic misdemeanors in a manner we judge to be suitable. In this case the driver repeatedly jumps his clutch in what can only be described as a truly terrifying intimidation tactic.

I don't agree. The op makes an illegal move. The car driver sees the cyclist's position so stops. Then the cyclist stops so it looks like the car goes again because of this but for some reason the op also goes again once the car starts moving and proceeded to cut in front of the car. I don't know if the driver was trying to intimidate the op but with the limited viewpoint of the camera it looks like the op was 100% wrong resulting in him being in a position he should not have been in which created confusion as to who was proceeding or not. No idea why the op didn't just stop and stay stopped and communicate to the driver that he apologises for the mistake and for the car to continue the turn left.

GreeBo

CramCycle wrote: »

Whatever the original intention, after the bicycle stopped first, it should have stayed in that position until it was clear to proceed. At this point, what happened before is irrelevant and something alot of Irish road users need to understand. Just because someone done something wrong/incorrect/illegal, does not give you the right to return in kind as some sort of "justified" reaction.

An alternative view.

The OP was stopped, in the junction with a car indicating and trying to turn left. The OP should have stayed stopped, let the car turn left and then everyone continues on their way.

Trying to complete the overtake at that point coupled with the car drivers anger turned it into a dangerous situation that didnt need to happen.

GreeBo

dubrov wrote: »

I would worry if you have a driving licence.

Is there a point buried deep in your post or is it just a personal attack?

amcalester

GreeBo wrote: »

An alternative view.

The OP was stopped, in the junction with a car indicating and trying to turn left. The OP should have stayed stopped, let the car turn left and then everyone continues on their way.

Trying to complete the overtake at that point coupled with the car drivers anger turned it into a dangerous situation that didnt need to happen.

Once the OP made the mistake of passing the motorist on the left, both the OP and the motorist compounded the mistake further but I'd put more blame on the motorist at that point.

He should have just stopped and waited for the OP to continue on his way but it looks like he just wanted to enforce his right of way.

CramCycle

axer wrote: »

I don't agree. The op makes an illegal move. The car driver sees the cyclist's position so stops. Then the cyclist stops so it looks like the car goes again because of this but for some reason the op also goes again once the car starts moving and proceeded to cut in front of the car. I don't know if the driver was trying to intimidate the op but with the limited viewpoint of the camera it looks like the op was 100% wrong resulting in him being in a position he should not have been in which created confusion as to who was proceeding or not. No idea why the op didn't just stop and stay stopped and communicate to the driver that he apologises for the mistake and for the car to continue the turn left.

The camera is a rear one, be it an error in judgement on either road user, at this point, the bike is in front of the car. If he stops and does not move, the car cannot complete the turn without hitting the cyclist. The driver tries to and the cyclist then has to move off to the left.

GreeBo wrote: »

An alternative view.

The OP was stopped, in the junction with a car indicating and trying to turn left. The OP should have stayed stopped, let the car turn left and then everyone continues on their way.

Trying to complete the overtake at that point coupled with the car drivers anger turned it into a dangerous situation that didnt need to happen.

Indeed, the car drivers anger (middle finger up, clutch jumping etc.) really escalates a minor incident into a potentially major one. There are a range of ways this could have played out better. Now whoever you think is at fault at the beginning (and without a front camera, I don't think anyone can call it as definitively as we all seem to be), at one point the bike is ahead of the car, and on the junction. At this point, no matter how this arose, there is now a situation where the bike progressing is a minor inconvenience and actually, is unlikely to add any time on to the motorists journey, whereas the car progressing could have serious consequences.

GreeBo

amcalester wrote: »

Once the OP made the mistake of passing the motorist on the left, both the OP and the motorist compounded the mistake further but I'd put more blame on the motorist at that point.

He should have just stopped and waited for the OP to continue on his way but it looks like he just wanted to enforce his right of way.

But if, as you say, the car has right of way and the OP is stopped, why would the OP put himself into a dangerous position by starting up again?

amcalester

GreeBo wrote: »

But if, as you say, the car has right of way and the OP is stopped, why would the OP put himself into a dangerous position by starting up again?

Nerves, adrenaline, self-preservation, it's not always easy to think so clearly after a fright like that.

It's happened me that immediately after a frightening experience I cycled through a pedestrian crossing (which I never normally do) because I just wasn't thinking straight.

That's why I think the motorist, who you would expect to be the calmer of the two, should have just stopped and waited for the OP to carry on.

GreeBo

amcalester wrote: »

Nerves, adrenaline, self-preservation, it's not always easy to think so clearly after a fright like that.

It's happened me that immediately after a frightening experience I cycled through a pedestrian crossing (which I never normally do) because I just wasn't thinking straight.

That's why I think the motorist, who you would expect to be the calmer of the two, should have just stopped and waited for the OP to carry on.

They are both just humans though, I dont think someone suddenly gains powers of calmness just by being behind the wheel.

For me, the cyclist as the more vulnerable user needs to be doing all they can to not get squished.
I dont see how passing a turning car on the left is self-preservation, especially when you are already stopped and safe. It would be different if both vehicles were still moving and the OP was desperately trying to get out of the way, but I feel there is a large element of "Fúck you, I'm allowed to be here", on both sides.

amcalester

GreeBo wrote: »

They are both just humans though, I dont think someone suddenly gains powers of calmness just by being behind the wheel.

I'm not saying that, what I'm saying is that the cyclist has more excuse for seeming to behave erratically than the motorist.

For me, the cyclist as the more vulnerable user needs to be doing all they can to not get squished.

That's what he was doing, it's just that with the benefit of hindsight we can see that he probably made the wrong decision.

I dont see how passing a turning car on the left is self-preservation, especially when you are already stopped and safe. It would be different if both vehicles were still moving and the OP was desperately trying to get out of the way, but I feel there is a large element of "Fúck you, I'm allowed to be here", on both sides.

Again, with the benefit of hindsight etc etc, but I agree with the second part.

Lumen

There does seem to be some sort of correlation between the fitting of cameras and the frequency of incidents worthy of recording.

I've done about 60,000km of commuting by bicycle into Dublin city centre over the last few years, and there is only one occasion I wish I'd had a camera mounted on my bike. So for me it just doesn't make any sense to bother.

CramCycle

Lumen wrote: »

There does seem to be some sort of correlation between the fitting of cameras and the frequency of incidents worthy of recording.

I've done about 60,000km of commuting by bicycle into Dublin city centre over the last few years, and there is only one occasion I wish I'd had a camera mounted on my bike. So for me it just doesn't make any sense to bother.

It hasn't gotten any worse for me fitting a camera. over the years I have had a few occasions where I think fitting a camera would have possibly led to a criminal conviction.

This said, since getting a camera, most of the incidents I come across are so minor, it is not even worth my energy getting annoyed about, with only one being serious enough that I felt it would be irresponsible not to call the gardai. Needless to say, nothing ever happened about that one, despite the driver admitting that he had intentionally tried to hit me, on camera. So is there a point, it is hard to tell. I don't load mine on youtube, I don't put together "best bits" for conversation, but I can see a few on youtube, cyclists and motorists alike, who put themselves in easily avoidable positions just so they can make a video out of it.

This said the temptation to put up a thread on Friday with a "Criticise my commute" tag line is tempting, if purely to keep all the sh1t in one thread for a day.

knucklehead6

CramCycle wrote: »

This said the temptation to put up a thread on Friday with a "Criticise my commute" tag line is tempting, if purely to keep all the sh1t in one thread for a day.

Think of the poor hamsters!!

jive

CramCycle wrote: »

II can see a few on youtube, cyclists and motorists alike, who put themselves in easily avoidable positions just so they can make a video out of it.

Very true. Many youtubers, while in the eyes of the law are correct, put themselves in scenarios where they will inevitably be in an incident. For the most part if you concentrate on the road ahead you can avoid the vast majority of incidents.

I fitted a cam on my bike this week as I'd rather have footage in case any incident were to occur but I won't be actively creating content

droidus

Sorry to revive this thread, but thought it might be worth comparing this much less ambiguous case which is getting some press at the moment:

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/watch-dash-cam-footage-shows-14311278

GreeBo

I'd say the cyclist, the car is indicating and always in the process of turning left, so it had right of way.
My suspicion is that the cyclist caught up with the left turning car and just kept going.

However, its also possible that the car *just* overtook the cyclist and then tried to turn left across it.

Hard to be definitive with the footage available. I presume the undercover car would also have a cam fitted?

CramCycle

The camera is just that bit to far forward to be certain of a few details but for the most part, if the car was indicating, the front wheel was turned and it had begun moving, it is hard to see how it would be technically at fault.

We can argue about it should have observed the cyclist in the rear view mirror and held back, as you would if you were a risk adverse driver.

Basically they are both in the wrong but the car, if indicating, was there well ahead of the cyclist, had started the turn etc. Should have observed the cyclist but the cyclist equally should have slowed up as a precautionary measure.

Also, not an undercover cop car, according to Sundrive Station.

CramCycle

GreeBo wrote: »

However, its also possible that the car *just* overtook the cyclist and then tried to turn left across it.

The speed of the cyclist and the few seconds the car was waiting, hard to see it just being overtaken. Hope the guy is alright regardless of who is at fault.

ford2600

That cyclist is getting paid all day in a civil court, with some contrib; motorist turned across path of a vunerable road user who would clearly have been visible before he indicated and before he turned. An indicator doesn't confer a right of way

In saying that I'd be awful disappointed in my awareness if I had an accident like that

droidus

The cyclist hits about 5 seconds after the car starts to turn and the car is moving slowly which suggests that this wasnt an overtake => left hook. Ideally the driver should have looked and seen a cyclist moving at speed in their mirror but it seems to me that this was almost entirely down to lack of awareness by the cyclist, he should looked ahead and stopped.

buffalo

ford2600 wrote: »

That cyclist is getting paid all day in a civil court, with some contrib; motorist turned across path of a vunerable road user who would clearly have been visible before he indicated and before he turned. An indicator doesn't confer a right of way

In saying that I'd be awful disappointed in my awareness if I had an accident like that

An indicator doesn't confer right of way, but an indicator and an executing manoeuvre does make it unlawful for a cyclist to overtake on the left though:

SI 332/2012 wrote:

(b) A pedal cyclist may overtake on the left ...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,

ford2600

droidus wrote: »

The cyclist hits about 5 seconds after the car starts to turn and the car is moving slowly which suggests that this wasnt an overtake => left hook. Ideally the driver should have looked and seen a cyclist moving at speed in their mirror but it seems to me that this was almost entirely down to lack of awareness by the cyclist, he should looked ahead and stopped.

Car starts to turn at about 17 and impact is at 19. That's 2 secs.

He couldn't but have been in view

ford2600

buffalo wrote: »

An indicator doesn't confer right of way, but an indicator and an executing manoeuvre does make it unlawful for a cyclist to overtake on the left though:

Did you check your mirror immediately before you turned?


SI's won't matter a sh1te in a civil court irrespective of the answer to the above question.

GreeBo

In the slow-mo you can see the cars brake lights only light up after the crash, so the driver was either oblivious to the cyclist or (rightly!) assumed the cyclist was well aware the car was turning left and had right of way.

Looks like a sore one.

ted1

droidus wrote: »

Sorry to revive this thread, but thought it might be worth comparing this much less ambiguous case which is getting some press at the moment:

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/watch-dash-cam-footage-shows-14311278

Honestly have no idea. Impossible to tell from that angle