Near Misses Volume 2 (So close you can feel it)

BoardsMember

I'd have slowed too given I was always behind. Presumably u knew what was happening and likely to happen and still let a roar like it was actually a near hit. Its all very well being in the right (possibly) but why not just be safe and decent? There are sh1t cyclists, pedestrians, and drivers everywhere, I don't see the point taking things to this point when easily avoided, unless looking for good clips to share maybe?

It's been said many a time here, no point in being right and dead.

5uspect

I was in control of my speed at all times. I came to a stop easily when they started to come in on me. The driver must take care in this situation and they simply didn’t look.

km991148

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119611506#Comment_119611506

I'd also considering adjusting your position in general. Hard to tell for sure* but you seemed to be sitting right in their blind spot. Doesn't excuse someone not checking their blind spot of course, but it does increase your chances of impact. Especially when (based on that clip) there were clues to at least a novice or incompetent driver (L plates- either a learner or someone who is incompetent or lazy to remove them).

These clues and techniques are what will keep you alive, not being technically "correct".

*On second viewing, using the distance between the bollards as a guide, I'd say you were too close/in the blind spot for sure.

If you were in the same lane you'd be tailgating.

5uspect

But I'm not tailgating— I'm in a segregated cycle lane right up to the junction so that makes absolutely no sense.

I have right of way to continue in my lane and I intend do so while keeping an eye on the car (and the UPS van parked illegally ahead). The driver, which came past me at the previous junction (so should know I'm there) is responsible for watching out when they turn. I am in control of my bike and do not need to slam on the brakes. This is a classic left hook by a driver that is clearly not paying attention.

buffalo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119612484#Comment_119612484

You're not in a traffic lane, you're on a cycle track. The driver shouldn't have turned across you, but you don't have the right to overtake on the left if someone:

"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," (https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2057136579/irish-cycling-legislation/p10)

I've been on the lookout anywhere where a cycle track is defined as a lane in legislation, but I have yet to find one.

Dr_Colossus

There was no expectation of the driver completing the movement to the left (never mind a reasonable expectation) before the cyclist. They were of similar speed so driver should have waited a few seconds.

Good question with regards a cycle track being defined as a lane in terms of legislation. They are more commonly known as cycle lanes with a track to me being more something off road or on a greenway. I don't know an answer but if not then they should just close all cycle lanes since they offer no legal protection to cyclists and thus make them a danger as in the video above.

Had no cycle lane existed then the cyclist would have been in the driving lane and have flexibility to overtake on the right once the driver started to indicate and veer left.

km991148

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119612484#Comment_119612484

I didn't say you were tailgating 🤷🏻‍♀️I used it as an example to point out how close you were to the vehicle. I'm not excusing the vehicle driver for not looking but we can't have a word with the driver, only point out what you could have done better to avoid the situation (assuming you wanted to). To me that would be to take up a better position that was not potentially in a blind spot (as well as don't assume that they know you are there because they passed you earlier..).

If you aren't interested in such opinion then fair enough it's your funeral (hopefully figuratively of course).

Really as far as I'm concerned there was no need for any interaction with the driver at all. Hang back when you see someone indicate and don't assume they know you are there. Anything else is just asking for trouble.

km991148

Yeah and tbh, those last two paragraphs are why I don't really like these segregated cycle lanes. I tend not to use them if I can avoid them and keep up with the other traffic.

bazermc

Defo would have hung back once I saw indicator flashing. Not worth the hassle.

Mimon

As a motorist find it hard to understand this phenomenon of motorists who think it is OK to cross the centre line into oncoming traffic.

Regularly meet cars heading for me whether they are passing cyclists, parked cars, trucks parked to deliver. Holy ****, just wait until it is clear not expect the oncoming traffic to move to avoid a crash. Definitely has got worse in the last few years.

Don't cycle very often but don't know how anyone does regularly with the amount of numpties behind the wheel these days

Allinall

Any cyclist that keeps going when they can see a car indicating to turn left is an idiot.

Some people just look for trouble and an argument.

standardg60

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119614729#Comment_119614729

So they should just come to a halt every time they see one?

magicbastarder

the indicator is on for 7 seconds before the car makes the turn. both the motorist and cyclist should have shown more caution.

km991148

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119614846#Comment_119614846

Just ease off for like 3 seconds. People make road use needlessly complicated.

It's not an entitlement race.

Allinall

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119614846#Comment_119614846

Who said anything about coming to a halt, except you?

Slow down a little, let the car make it’s turn, and carry on.

No shouting necessary, and no danger to anyone..

Kaisr Sose

An indicator does not give an automatic right to manoeuvre. Cyclist had time to hang back and should have. At the same time, the driver could have given the cyclist priority and let them pass.

In my view a lack of respect is shown to the cyclist, who has an established position on the road.

7 seconds is not a lot of notice. A cyclist could be distracted or just not notice indication for say 3 seconds or more. Does driver still plough on even if they don't observe cyclist slowing? Or wait for cyclist to pass junction which is not unreasonable. What is 3 seconds with a vulnerable road user approaching...

Wildly Boaring

L plate.

Give them space and time.

Weepsie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119615211#Comment_119615211

While I'd agree with your first point, if we said the distracted and not noticing thing in the case of a driver as an excuse then we'd be rightly up in arms

AndrewJRenko

Not a huge surprise that Gardai won’t act on a punishment pass

https://twitter.com/ukwrightphil/status/1569803083403739136?s=46&t=fC5-LuL3fhR00GiFbi4VGw

km991148

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119615576#Comment_119615576

Wtf there are multiple offences in that one clip..

seanino

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119612733#Comment_119612733

The driver has not an expectation of turning before the cyclist has overtaken the vehicle. Cyclist is practically at the vehicle which means the car will hit the cyclist if they turn. If the cycle lane segregation was not there that lad driving would have been in the cycle lane before the left turn. If Im turning left in a car unless Im well ahead of the cyclist I wait for them to go past otherwise you risk hitting them.

Shotser

This morning coming back from dropping the kids to school I am sitting at the lights in front of an Audi Q7. It is a cross roads and I am turning right. In fairness I was listening to two pedestrians having an interesting conversation and wasn't paying particular attention to the lights. The car opposite me was turning left so I would have had to wait for them anyway. Next thing I know the Audi blares the horn as the lights have turned green. The car opposite has yet to move. I turn around to look at the driver as I can't really go anyway and she pulls around me and almost crashes into the car opposite, who has to slam the breaks to let her squeeze past. She then speeds up the road, pulling around a delivery van blocking her side of the road almost crashing head on into the oncoming car. About 500mtrs after this she does a u-turn and heads back to the scene of the crime! I don't have a camera and if I did I'm not sure I even have it on escorting the kids to school, but maybe I should.

standardg60

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119614937#Comment_119614937

It was absolutely necessary to alert the driver to a situation they were oblivious to, and also in the hope that they would be more aware in the future.

So what you're effectively saying is that cyclists should cede their right of way when travelling straight on to every car turning left? What if they eased off and the following car was also turning left? Should they let that one turn too?

As someone said above turning left is no different to turning right, you check that your way is clear. That driver would have failed their driving test for that, it's a basic part of the rules of the road.

What makes that incident worse for me is the fact there is a segregated cycle lane, which should make the driver even more conscious of checking for a cyclist. It's just completely blinkered driving, not a clue of what's happening around them, that's the issue here, nothing to do with the cyclist.

buffalo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119615886#Comment_119615886

I don't know why any of that is relevant?

Imagine you're driving behind someone, and you move out - still behind them - to overtake them (on the right). They put on the right hand indicator - do you proceed with the overtake?

The onus is on the overtaker - whether on the left or right - to ensure they do so safely and legally. The overtaken should of course be wary about not causing an accident particularly to a more vulnerable road user, but the primary responsibility lies with the person overtaking. Read the law I linked, it's very clear that the cyclist should not have overtaken on the left in this situation.

I'm of the belief that the law is an ass in this situation, but that's what it says.

buffalo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119612913#Comment_119612913

The law doesn't say anything about 'completing' a movement to the left, it says 'executing'. To me, that's the start of the turn, not the end.

seanino

They are not driving behind them, they are cycling to the left in a separate cycle lane. Maybe if no segregated cycle lane there you could possibly argue that point.

buffalo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119617700#Comment_119617700

Show me the law that says that cycle track is a separate traffic lane. As I said above, I've looked and I can't find it. It's not a traffic lane in the eyes of the law as far as I can see.

seanino

Im sure there is none otherwise you would have found it but its irrelevant to the original point of whether the cyclist could drive on left of car before it overtook. Read the highlighted part below, that car could not move to the left before the bike overtook it unless its ok to drive into cyclists 😂

However as a cyclist you cannot overtake on the inside if the vehicle you intend to overtake:

• Is signalling an intention to turn to the left and will move to the left before you overtake it
• Is stationary for the purpose of allowing a passenger to alight or board the vehicle
• Is stationary for the purposes of loading or unloading

DaveyDave

Regardless of who's right or wrong it's it's a good example of why it's important for motorists to be especially vigilant when making a left turn across a bike lane.