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

Chuchote · 12-04-2017 09:04AM

Good point, Lumen. I've been near-missed by (to name a few):

Red-faced screaming moustachioed (male) taxi drivers
Harrumphing U-turning black (male) taxi drivers
Shouty cigarette-smoking-and-simultaneous-mobile-phone-using (female) driver turning a corner against me as I went straight
Aged ladies (both sexes) who could scarcely see over the wheel
Boy racers (mostly male), some with no number plates or clearly fake number plates

Oh, and I left out the many coach drivers, and the occasional bus drivers, and the drivers of big trucks, sitting up high and staring into space (all male) who've succeeded in catching me despite my efforts to avoid their presence.

I love Sean nos · 12-04-2017 09:37AM

Chuchote wrote: »

Aged ladies (both sexes)

ED E · 12-04-2017 09:46AM

Supervalue Churchtown of a Friday is a hive of pensioners who cannot see 5m ahead of themselves. Its lunacy how reliable it is.

We've a serious issue with unfit drivers in my experience, AGS should be doing roadside sight tests like the brits do.

I love Sean nos · 12-04-2017 09:50AM

ED E wrote: »

AGS should be doing roadside sight tests like the brits do.

The ones that you want disbanded?

Chuchote · 12-04-2017 12:05PM

I love Sean nos wrote: »

I mean the quavering, quivering kind of person who is an aged lady no matter what his or her age or sex.

Here's a beauty: a London copper demanding a cyclist give him room to drive faster than the speed limit :eek:

eeeee · 12-04-2017 12:10PM

Chuchote wrote: »

I mean the quavering, quivering kind of person who is an aged lady no matter what his or her age or sex.
]

So you're equivocating 'a quavering, quivering kind of person' with being an older women? That these are traits of aged womanhood?
This is not a gendered trait.

Chuchote · 12-04-2017 12:14PM

nee wrote: »

So you're equivocating 'a quavering, quivering kind of person' with being an older women? That these are traits of aged womanhood?
This is not a gendered trait.

No, I'm not equivocating, I'm saying that this is a trope.

eeeee · 12-04-2017 12:33PM

Chuchote wrote: »

No, I'm not equivocating, I'm saying that this is a trope.

Not a gendered one.

ETA this is off topic. I'll say no more.

brocbrocach · 12-04-2017 12:49PM

Hoist and petard come to mind...

hesker · 12-04-2017 01:04PM

Chuchote wrote: »

I mean the quavering, quivering kind of person who is an aged lady no matter what his or her age or sex.

Here's a beauty: a London copper demanding a cyclist give him room to drive faster than the speed limit :eek:

Had a similar experience with a driver last week where he proceeded to beep me, squeeze past and wave his fist at me. I was keeping out about 3 feet more than I normally would as I was approaching a repair garage entrance that usually has cars encroaching on to the road from behind a line of parked cars.

I wasn't fully up to date with my rights but was taking up that amount of road space to ensure my safety. Not sure of the speeds I was doing but probably about 25mph.

RobertFoster · 12-04-2017 01:05PM

brocbrocach wrote: »

Hoist and petard come to mind...

"Petard comes from the Middle French peter, to break wind..."

*Giggles like a schoolgirl* (both sexes)

Am I doing this right? I've lost the thread slightly

ThisRegard · 12-04-2017 01:10PM

So what's the conclusion now, do we just say we had an incident with a homo sapien in a 4 wheeled motor vehicle of some form, and that's as descriptive as we go?

07Lapierre · 12-04-2017 01:18PM

ThisRegard wrote: »

So what's the conclusion now, do we just say we had an incident with a homo sapien in a 4 wheeled motor vehicle of some form, and that's as descriptive as we go?

Whats the relevance of the number of wheels? :P

josip · 12-04-2017 01:23PM

07Lapierre wrote: »

Whats the relevance of the number of wheels? :P

Discrimination against Robin Reliants.

howyegettinon1 · 12-04-2017 01:26PM

Jack the Stripper wrote: »

The amount of people using phones at lights is definitely a common thing. Why people can't put the phone away while making a journey is mind boggling.

ya get bored in traffic....

Peterx · 12-04-2017 01:32PM

Weepsie wrote: »

Nope, other than the van driver who was (I am convinced) trying to knock me down the other day, I've found it better lately for the most part. I've been taking the lane more too though, and waiting til I think it's safe for people to pass, or pulling in somewhere if I feel that I'm at a stage where I'm going to slow.

I'm getting a lot more waves, thank you beeps and flashes of the light too as I think they see me as behaving more typically like a car. Waiting in the queue of traffic at lights rather than squeezing up if it's too tight is a big one for some I think. A bit of give and take is needed.

That's not to say I'm not seeing 100% perfect behaviour, but I'm mostly feeling safer as I am managing it better and being courteous etc. I am seeing an alarming amount of RLJing at busy junctions by cars though. It's definitely on the increase.

I haven't read this thread so apologies for not being up to date with my petard but yesterday I came across a very common occurrence, a white van turning left and taking down a cyclist travelling straight on. Neither party were damaged, in fact the white van was so untroubled he just kept driving. This did pique my interest so I followed him to his next place of stoppedness and asked him (very politely) did he realise he'd just caused a cyclist to deck.
He hadn't, he didn't, in fact the only cyclist he had seen was me. And he had indicated. The van was full of noisy cargo and heard nothing out of the ordinary.

He was also polite and there was no blaming of anyone going on (mostly as I wasn't actually enraged at being knocked down myself). I pointed out that a cyclist had hit the ground and perhaps his second curved mirror could have helped him see the cyclist.

Rewinding a bit.....About 40m before the left turn I was pedalling behind the faller cyclist, I stopped pedalling as a white van was outside me. I glanced across and sure enough he was indicating left, I drifted behind and outside him as he turned left. The other cyclist never looked at anything and in near slow motion continued cycling into the side of the van ( I do know the other way of saying that is that the van knocked him down)

Near misses and actual collisions are frequently caused by lack of awareness of your immediate surroundings. A two tonne van is always going to win against a 90kg bikeman. Nobody was on the phone.

AndrewJRenko · 12-04-2017 01:53PM

ThisRegard wrote: »

So what's the conclusion now, do we just say we had an incident with a homo sapien in a 4 wheeled motor vehicle of some form, and that's as descriptive as we go?

He said homo.

*Giggles like a schoolgirl* (both sexes)

07Lapierre · 12-04-2017 02:01PM

josip wrote: »

Discrimination against Robin Reliants.

And motorbikes, coaches, buses and trucks! Why single out 4 wheel vehicles? It's a disgrace Joe!

shootermacg · 12-04-2017 03:13PM

Peterx wrote: »

I haven't read this thread so apologies for not being up to date with my petard but yesterday I came across a very common occurrence, a white van turning left and taking down a cyclist travelling straight on. Neither party were damaged, in fact the white van was so untroubled he just kept driving. This did pique my interest so I followed him to his next place of stoppedness and asked him (very politely) did he realise he'd just caused a cyclist to deck.
He hadn't, he didn't, in fact the only cyclist he had seen was me. And he had indicated. The van was full of noisy cargo and heard nothing out of the ordinary.

He was also polite and there was no blaming of anyone going on (mostly as I wasn't actually enraged at being knocked down myself). I pointed out that a cyclist had hit the ground and perhaps his second curved mirror could have helped him see the cyclist.

Rewinding a bit.....About 40m before the left turn I was pedalling behind the faller cyclist, I stopped pedalling as a white van was outside me. I glanced across and sure enough he was indicating left, I drifted behind and outside him as he turned left. The other cyclist never looked at anything and in near slow motion continued cycling into the side of the van ( I do know the other way of saying that is that the van knocked him down)

Near misses and actual collisions are frequently caused by lack of awareness of your immediate surroundings. A two tonne van is always going to win against a 90kg bikeman. Nobody was on the phone.

So you were saying the van was level with you and that you were behind the cyclist. The van is not allowed to overtake the lead cyclist and then turn in causing collision. On the other hand, if the van was always in front and looking to turn, the cyclist should have given way.

The amount of times I've seen vehicles speed up, overtake the cyclist and then swerve in front dangerously.

Drivers want to eat their cake and have yours too. The cycle lane is considered another lane, when it comes to not allowing cyclists to turn right and not considered a lane when they want to barge in front of the cyclist and turn left.

Peterx · 12-04-2017 03:53PM

shootermacg wrote: »

So you were saying the van was level with you and that you were behind the cyclist. The van is not allowed to overtake the lead cyclist and then turn in causing collision. On the other hand, if the van was always in front and looking to turn, the cyclist should have given way.

The amount of times I've seen vehicles speed up, overtake the cyclist and then swerve in front dangerously.

Drivers want to eat their cake and have yours too. The cycle lane is considered another lane, when it comes to not allowing cyclists to turn right and not considered a lane when they want to barge in front of the cyclist and turn left.

I am saying be aware of and give way to the 2 tonne white vans when they are turning left on top of you.

The driver was just "proceeding with the traffic" as my old driving instructor liked to say. Yes he could have seen the first cyclist and yielded but he never looked like stopping his turn. This happens so regularly that cyclists should allow for it, despite the rights and wrongs of the who should yield to who bit.

With the cake eating, you can safely substitute the word people for drivers.
I routinely ignore many poor cycle lanes on my commute, I can hardly claim this particular stretch of red paint is sacred.

mr spuckler · 12-04-2017 04:01PM

Peterx wrote: »

I am saying be aware of and give way to the 2 tonne white vans when they are turning left on top of you.

The driver was just "proceeding with the traffic" as my old driving instructor liked to say. Yes he could have seen the first cyclist and yielded but he never looked like stopping his turn. This happens so regularly that cyclists should allow for it, despite the rights and wrongs of the who should yield to who bit.

With the cake eating, you can safely substitute the word people for drivers.
I routinely ignore many poor cycle lanes on my commute, I can hardly claim this particular stretch of red paint is sacred.

but the cyclists life is! i agree that once the van driver has decided that's what he's doing then you hammer on the brakes and evade as best you can but to suggest that the cycle lane should not be respected by motorists because you don't always use it is way off the mark.

substitute the same scenario for a motorway where the van is in the outside lane and decides to cut off a car in the inside lane in order to take a junction. is that just proceeding with the traffic? because in law both scenarios are the same.

CramCycle · 12-04-2017 04:26PM

He also wouldn't have been so calm had it been a car he hit or had it been the gardai who pulled him over.

The truth is, he overtook two cyclists coming upto a turn he planned to take. He should have stayed behind. Just because you acted appropriately, does not absolve him of being a poor and unobservant driver.

Should the cyclists have seen what he was doing and drop anchor, possibly but by the sounds of it, he did not have much time to if the van managed to hit him.

I have noticed this more and more, with several incidences in the last week on the N11 where i have had to haul on the brakes because a car sped up just short of a junction to make the turn in front rather than behind. This said, a few have stopped short of the junction to let me through, but they always seem to do it in good time, which is great. These are generally observant and rational drivers who realise that a) I am there and b) they don't make time on the N11 tributaries by rushing so what is the point.

shootermacg · 12-04-2017 04:39PM

Peterx wrote: »

I am saying be aware of and give way to the 2 tonne white vans when they are turning left on top of you.

The driver was just "proceeding with the traffic" as my old driving instructor liked to say. Yes he could have seen the first cyclist and yielded but he never looked like stopping his turn. This happens so regularly that cyclists should allow for it, despite the rights and wrongs of the who should yield to who bit.

With the cake eating, you can safely substitute the word people for drivers.
I routinely ignore many poor cycle lanes on my commute, I can hardly claim this particular stretch of red paint is sacred.

The only option left to the cyclist is to cycle in the middle of the road whenever there's a left turn so, just in case some van decides to turn in on top of him. OOps where's that sarcasm smiley?

Wishbone Ash · 12-04-2017 05:23PM

josip wrote: »

Discrimination against Robin Reliants.

Apologies for going off topic but it's a Reliant Robin (Reliant being the maker, Robin the model).

(It's amazing how many say it back to front yet they wouldn't say 'Escort Ford' or Corolla Toyota'.)

Chiparus · 12-04-2017 05:32PM

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Apologies for going off topic but it's a Reliant Robin (Reliant being the maker, Robin the model).

(It's amazing how many say it back to front yet they wouldn't say 'Escort Ford' or Corolla Toyota'.)

To be doubly pedantic.
You would say 5 series BMW , or e class mercedes:rolleyes:

CramCycle · 12-04-2017 08:53PM

Chiparus wrote: »

To be doubly pedantic.
You would say 5 series BMW , or e class mercedes:rolleyes:

I am not sure your right, the ads say BMW 5 series IIRC

magicbastarder · 12-04-2017 10:25PM

i reckon i'd say mercedes E class too.
or 'mercedes E220'. 'mercedes E class' (or 'E class mercedes') isn't a model as such anyway, it's a range. same for 5 series.

V-man · 13-04-2017 09:58AM

Pedestrian focused on his phone decided to cross the main road straight into my path.
All that saved us from a serious impact where my over sized Magura Disc brakes, we touched but don't think it was a nice feeling because bike including rider is still 120+ Kilo.
Told him he was not looking on which he replied he did. Some people are just eejots.

(FYI I was wearing high-Vis, had my Lumotec light on (bonus) and he still did not see me despite watching)

buffalo · 13-04-2017 10:07AM

V-man wrote: »

(FYI I was wearing high-Vis, had my Lumotec light on (bonus) and he still did not see me despite watching)

But were you wearing a helmet? Had you earphones in? One of those was probably the cause.

tomasrojo · 13-04-2017 10:14AM

"Robin Reliant" is just slightly easier to say and has a nicer rhythm than "Reliant Robin". Starts with a stress, two unstressed, then a stressed then an unstressed

Compare:
-UU -U: dactyl, then a trochee. Very satisfying.
U- U-U: iamb, then an amphibrach. Who among us even uses an amphibrach when we're writing verse? As Wikipedia says, "In English accentual-syllabic poetry, an amphibrach is a stressed syllable surrounded by two unstressed syllables. It is rarely used as the overall meter of a poem"

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

Comments