Dash cam thread (car videos only)

Senecio · 11-12-2016 11:39PM

CatFromHue wrote: »

FYP

Incredibly dumb cycling too, and that's from someone who used to do a lot of cycling

Thanks, also corrected my first post.

I cycle a lot too and would never cut up inside a car indicating left at a set of lights. Incredibly stupid. If it wasn't for the guy taking a chance to cross the road I would have taken off faster and possibly taken the cyclist out.

CatFromHue · 11-12-2016 11:44PM

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

I've decided from here on in all my videos shall contain some kick ass techno.

Between yourself and Tedpan we're gonna have a right good battle of the DJ's on here

kirving · 12-12-2016 12:41AM

Armchair Andy wrote: »

Lorry driver had no lights on(or parks), which is worse imo.

Lights on at all times should be mandatory for all vehicles, but that's another story.

For or no fog, if you can't clearly see that the area where you're going to pull back in again, before you commit to the overtake, then it's just dangerous driving.

twin_beacon · 12-12-2016 09:42AM

SHINKICKER wrote: »

https://youtu.be/Xm7fbrj_RYg
One from Friday night silver car spins out of control going round the roundabout in blanchardstown near McDonald's very lucky he didn't hit any other cars!

Must have been a bit of oil on the road, the car before him had a skid in the same spot.

Isambard · 12-12-2016 10:14AM

i suspect the first car braked sharply for some (no good) reason and the second braked but panicked and kept the brake on. Travelling on a right hand curve with the brakes fully locked on a wet surface would be like a hand brake turn in effect.

whippet · 12-12-2016 11:07AM

Deedsie wrote: »

I'm not trying to troll here. I currently both drive and cycle. Bikes going straight and vehicles turning left is a bit of a grey area. There are/were signs along the N11 that gave cyclists going straight the priority overleft turnibg motorists.

As in the motorist is crossing the cycle track to turn left, should the responsibility not be on them to make sure the way is clear?

Many motorists block the bike box at traffic lights not giving cyclists any place to wait except to the left of the cars.

Again not trolling just wondering what opinions are on it here.

If you were driving would you undertake a car that was turning left?

If the car is ahead of the cyclist the cyclist should give way to the motorist .. a cycle lane isn't some sort of magic passageway .. it's part of the road and as such consideration should be given to other traffic.

Also ... some personal responsibility by cyclists should be shown

Isambard · 12-12-2016 11:15AM

I watched again, the car was there first, no sign of the cyclist, there was no cycle box. Assuming the car was indicating left when the cyclist appeared from nowhere (!) then the cyclist was at fault. The pedestrian stepping out didn't help as it made the car driver hesitate allowing the cyclist time to scoot by him

Pinch Flat · 12-12-2016 11:23AM

Isambard wrote: »

I watched again, the car was there first, no sign of the cyclist, there was no cycle box. Assuming the car was indicating left when the cyclist appeared from nowhere (!) then the cyclist was at fault. The pedestrian stepping out didn't help as it made the car driver hesitate allowing the cyclist time to scoot by him

The car arrived first. Then the cycllist arrived. You can see his light reflect in the black railing - he should have considered pushing up into a more prominent position to avoid the drivers blind spot. ROTR state on this scenario:

"When turning left, all drivers, especially drivers of heavy goods vehicles, must watch out for cyclists and motorcyclists going ahead or turning.

On left turns, watch out for cyclists and mopeds close to the kerb in front of you or coming up on your left. Do not overtake a cyclist as you approach a junction if you are turning left; the cyclist might be continuing straight ahead."

Whereas I can't condone cyclist moving up the inside of a moving left turning vehicle that's indicating left, in the scenario above I can't understand why you wouldn't just let the cyclist go then make your turn.

Isambard · 12-12-2016 11:32AM

Deedsie wrote: »

The cyclist didn't appear from nowhere no more than the pedestrian appeared from nowhere. It's just as important to be aware of what's happening behind and around your car as in front especially at a junction.

For all we know the cyclist was beside the car all the while they were at the lights? Traffic travelling straight usually has the right of way over left or right turning traffic, think of turning boxes etc.

I know you're not trying to troll, but it wasn't my car, so as far as the video is concerned the cyclist appeared from nowhere, he was nowhere to be seen on the approach to the lights as far as I could see, so he must have pulled up after the car by enough margin to see the indictor flashing. He was effectively in the same lane as the car but pushed on past it ignoring the left indictor.

as for the drivers observation skills, he did a pretty good job of seeing the errant cyclist and not flattening him.

Pinch Flat · 12-12-2016 11:38AM

Isambard wrote: »

I know you're not trying to troll, but it wasn't my car, so as far as the video is concerned the cyclist appeared from nowhere, he was nowhere to be seen on the approach to the lights as far as I could see, so he must have pulled up after the car by enough margin to see the indictor flashing. He was effectively in the same lane as the car but pushed on past it ignoring the left indictor.

as for the drivers observation skills, he did a pretty good job of seeing the errant cyclist and not flattening him.

No mention of the driver though having to check his blind spot or mirror before moving off, as the rules of the road state. The obligation is on the driver in this scenario.

it was a stationary bike with a light back and front - obeying the stop line as well. He wasn't an errant cyclist.

Pinch Flat · 12-12-2016 11:55AM

twin_beacon wrote: »

As the cyclist wants to drive straight on, he is in the wrong lane, he should be at the right hand side of the car. Also, the car was indicating to the left.

Is this just personal opinion, or is there a link to this that could be posted? So if a cyclist adopts this, he now finds himself being undertaken by a car going straight on.

twin_beacon wrote: »

The driver here did nothing wrong, he didn't begin his turn to the left until the cyclist had passed him.

I agree, but the cyclist was well lit - looks to me like the driver didn't see him as he didn't look over his shoulder or check his mirror. People give out about cyclists that are unlit - in this situation he was well lit, so no excuse for not seeing him.

Pinch Flat · 12-12-2016 12:07PM

Deedsie wrote: »

Again I think it's important to clarify, I'm not trolling I just don't agree that the cyclist or the motorist in that video did anything particularly wrong. I am just highlighting that it is not a black and white scenario.

I don't think the motorist did anything wrong at all in case it's coming across that way, but I also think the cyclist wasn't totally out of order either. As I say I'm both cyclist and motorist so I can see from both points of view and it is a grey area on who is right or wrong.

When I'm driving I'd tend to give the cyclist the right of way in this scenario. As a cyclist, I'm going to be a few feet in front of the car - and never undertake a left turning vehicle that's indicating - conscious though as well of impeding pedestrians crossing as well when moving forward.

twin_beacon · 12-12-2016 12:16PM

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Is this just personal opinion, or is there a link to this that could be posted? So if a cyclist adopts this, he now finds himself being undertaken by a car going straight on.

personal opinion. If the lights stayed red for a few seconds longer, the cyclist would probably have stopped in front of the car with the camera, and continued straight when the lights went green, and merged in the right lane. But, as the lights went green before this could happen, the cyclist is now in the lane that is for left traffic only. If this was a single lane for both turning left, and driving straight on, then the law states that the cyclist actually has right of way. I don't know what the story is with this scenario.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I agree, but the cyclist was well lit - looks to me like the driver didn't see him as he didn't look over his shoulder or check his mirror. People give out about cyclists that are unlit - in this situation he was well lit, so no excuse for not seeing him.

The cyclist is fully lit up, nothing wrong there. However, again this is personal thing, he should have been aware that he is was in the car's blind spot, and there is a possibility that the driver did not see him. Another driver would have kept going there and knocked over the cyclist. If that happened, the driver would have been at fault. I would rather have stopped my bike for a few seconds, than claiming medical bills of the drivers insurance.

Senecio · 12-12-2016 12:58PM

OP here on on the cyclist video.

Let me clarify a few things. The start of the video is sped up so its not that easy to tell but on approaching the lights the cyclist was nowhere to be seen. I did not overtake him on approach to the lights, he joined the road after I'd passed him. Technically he, or I, may have done nothing against the rules but as a cyclist myself I would never have put myself in that position. Had he made it to the front of the intersection before the lights turned it would not have been a problem. I would have allowed him on his merry way before turning in behind him. The problem was that he was caught half way along my car in a blind spot when the lights turned. I filter up the left of stopped traffic all the time on my bike but if caught out when the lights turn I will always stop under the expectation that I had not been seen.

Seve OB · 12-12-2016 01:43PM

With some of the attitude on here I'm not surprised at the number of accidents on our roads.

Hammer Archer · 12-12-2016 02:09PM

I believe that the following is quite relevant:

(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,

Senecio had his indicator on to turn left which means that, in my opinion, the cyclist should not have undertaken them.

Caliden · 12-12-2016 02:12PM

Hammer Archer wrote: »

I believe that the following is quite relevant:

Senecio had his indicator on to turn left which means that, in my opinion, the cyclist should not have undertaken them.

I was about to quote this to the poster claiming the need for some rule on it.

There already is one and it's been posted many time before in this thread.

chewed · 12-12-2016 02:41PM

potty mouth!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd9Z3NxaIb8

Seve OB · 12-12-2016 03:02PM

LMAO

josip · 12-12-2016 03:05PM

Hammer Archer wrote: »

I believe that the following is quite relevant:

(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,

Senecio had his indicator on to turn left which means that, in my opinion, the cyclist should not have undertaken them.

How can you believe the quoted part is quite relevant and then selectively bolden a part of the text that is incomplete and meaningless in isolation?

Let me have a go.

(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,

twin_beacon · 12-12-2016 03:15PM

this exact argument has been repeated a few times in this thread

stecleary · 12-12-2016 04:04PM

Deedsie wrote: »

I'm not trying to troll here. I currently both drive and cycle. Bikes going straight and vehicles turning left is a bit of a grey area.

no grey area here, the left lane at that junction is for left turns only. stupid road craft from the cyclist, and thats from a cyclist too

K.Flyer · 12-12-2016 10:03PM

OldMrBrennan83 · 12-12-2016 10:05PM

This post has been deleted.

12-12-2016 10:19PM

K.Flyer wrote: »

30 seconds after the van passed...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48H5wtB_F7Q

Atlantic Dawn · 12-12-2016 10:24PM

chewed wrote: »

potty mouth!

I can see now why there's so many shootings in the US

Mycroft H · 12-12-2016 11:51PM

Welcome to Manchester. It's crap here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvG0xTYZDQE

Sam Quentin · 13-12-2016 04:05AM

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

An absolute prick of a driver on the M50 yesterday in an A6

Disclaimer (because there are so many heroes on this thread);
I was at (or slightly above the speed limit the whole time).
I was only in lanes 2 & 3 for overtaking purposes.
I indicate every lane change (even on an empty motorway).
When dickhead passed me, I remained in lane 2 as I was approaching slower moving traffic in lane 1 as well as the upcoming merging junction and wanted to be courteous to those merging (see the previous 2 pages).
I probably also could have undertaken a lot of traffic, as I'll sometimes do with middle lane hogger on the M1, but not on the M50 as it's just too dangerous.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFyZkurj5qg

So lets assume the guy was in a hurry ok... I see nothing wrong with his driving at all... You were well aware of him from the word 'get go'.. he's indicating, he's keeping a fair distance in his manoeuvres! he hasn't flashed at you(even tho you were acting cool bordering on obstructive)also the road seems pretty free flowing and not in any way jammed or clogged!? tho you did seem to enjoy sitting in the over-taking fast lane much to much long.. That's my view on your vid.

AndyBoBandy · 13-12-2016 07:19AM

Sam Quentin wrote: »

So lets assume the guy was in a hurry ok... I see nothing wrong with his driving at all... You were well aware of him from the word 'get go'.. he's indicating, he's keeping a fair distance in his manoeuvres! he hasn't flashed at you(even tho you were acting cool bordering on obstructive)also the road seems pretty free flowing and not in any way jammed or clogged!? tho you did seem to enjoy sitting in the over-taking fast lane much to much long.. That's my view on your vid.

.

You said he's keeping a fair distance?? At that point I stopped reading your post as I didn't want to waste anymore time reading utter bollocks

Edit: I've read the rest of the post and I'll bite

What was I doing in the overtaking lane?

Edit: you said fast lane..... which proves my original reply to be true & valid, that you are talking utter bollocks.

OldMrBrennan83 · 13-12-2016 07:30AM

This post has been deleted.

Dash cam thread (car videos only)

Comments