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

micar wrote: »

Holy sh1t......that was so close.....so lucky not to get injured.

Surely some can identify the company the lorry belongs to.

Injured? no way, I'm sure the driver was wearing a seat belt!

griffdaddy wrote: »

Not as dramatic as some of the near misses here but still incredibly irritating. I was waiting at the lights in a queue of bikes on the cycle path at the Barge pub this morning heading east towards Leeson street. The usual impatient cyclists arrived and skipped the queue by waiting on the wrong side of the path alongside those of us who were queuing. When the lights went green we set off across the road and down the path at the hilton. At some point near the luas bridge one of the cyclists who skipped the queue starts trying to pull in on top of me and starts roaring at me about undertaking him. When I raised the fact that he'd skipped the queue by going on the wrong side of the path at the lights he started arguing that he was entitled to do this and that if I wanted to wait that was my business

Have to say that I'm not a fan of that lane at rush hour. Far too many cyclists of mixed ability and very limited opportunities to overtake if someone's a bit slower than your normal pace.

On my commute home yesterday cycling up kimmage road lower heading out of the city and the cars are backed up as always - 3 cyclists in front of me travelling around 25kmh. I seen a van indicating to go into one of the petrol stations, I could see it blinking for about 5 seconds or so before he made a move into the station and into a cyclist who looked like he got a bit of a scare but didn't want help.

Both were to blame to be honest, the cyclist for not avoiding the accident by letting the van in (humans are squishy, there is no point in trying to fight a metal object - even if you're in the right) and the van for not looking what he was doing (and having two dogs bark like fook in his cabin probably distracting him)

Anyway, if it was you and you're reading this - you're a lucky man, but next time it might be wise to slow down and let the car through, it might slow you down but it'll hurt less

magicbastarder wrote: »

did the cyclist attempt to undertake the van, or did the van overtake and swing left?

both lanes were moving similar speeds, van potentially moving slightly slower

today I witnessed 3 (or 4) near misses, all caused by some nutcase cyclist: as I was cycling myself towards the Eastlink tollbridge, a cyclist passes me, but not really overtaking me, just pedaling at my speed, well on the wrong side of the road. A few seconds later, a car turns from the opposite direction, narrowly missing said cyclist.
She then goes onto the bridge, first tries to cycle on the sidewalk, which is almost impossible: it's very narrow, and at this time of day there are always people there. So she first almost knocks down a couple of people, wobbles and almost swings on the bridge which is FULL of trucks and cars.. then tries to go on the road, cannot get through fast enough on the left hand side of the road, so goes between the 2 lanes. I saw a massive truck just about stopping from the opposite direction, driver shaking his had. Last I saw of her, she positioned herself at the side of an articulate lorry, which was about to turn left. For goodness sake. this was all within the space of about 3 minutes!

Danbo! wrote: »

Does the cycle lane count as a lane I wonder - technically they may be indicating in front of you but if the cycle lane is considered a lane, then those already in the lane have right of way.

I have never been able to find the answer to this. From what I can see it is not a traffic lane but it seems very unclear in law. If it wasn't a traffic lane (and was part of the adjoining lane) then cars would be able to legally drive on it but I think it is defined as a cycle track in law which means when lanes are being talked about in law they are not referring to cycle tracks so none of those rules about right of way apply to the cycle tracks. I asked the department of transport before but no reply. But either way, like you said, better to be safe and always stay back.

Danbo! wrote: »

Does the cycle lane count as a lane I wonder - technically they may be indicating in front of you but if the cycle lane is considered a lane, then those already in the lane have right of way. This is kind of contradictory, because cars aren't allowed to first change lanes and then turn off the road, considering they're not allowed use the lane.

Either way, I'll always hang back and allow them to complete the move if they're indicating. In my experience, a lot dont check mirrors and those that do end up waiting and there's this awkward "who is gonna go" moment so I'll sometimes wave them on, or else slip in behind them to give them a clear indication I'm not about to pass. Although I got a bit of guff here the last time I mentioned I'll wave them on :rolleyes:

axer wrote: »

I have never been able to find the answer to this. From what I can see it is not a traffic lane but it seems very unclear in law. If it wasn't a traffic lane (and was part of the adjoining lane) then cars would be able to legally drive on it but I think it is defined as a cycle track in law which means when lanes are being talked about in law they are not referring to cycle tracks so none of those rules about right of way apply to the cycle tracks. I asked the department of transport before but no reply. But either way, like you said, better to be safe and always stay back.

I've posted this a few times, but since SI 332/2012 was implemented, there is no concept of a "cycle lane" in law, rather the term is "cycle track", which may arguably remove the concept of it being any sort of traffic lane, per axer's comment. The same SI clearly states that:

(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.”,

So this would also suggest that regardless of the presence or absence of a cycle track if the cyclist is behind the left turning/indicating vehicle then they should wait there, unless they are sure of passing before the vehicle turns. It's less clear cut if they are alongside the vehicle when the indicator comes on, but in that case while legally the onus is probably on the vehicle to yield, it's one of those instances where self-preservation should prevail.

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Where you are along side a vehicle that has given no early indication of turning left, the assumption must be that it is also proceeding straight on. The whole concept of early indication is to clearly signal intent on advance of the junction, and thus avoid any confusion by other road users. Self - preservation, while apt to deploy, should not come into it if the motorist indicated intent in sufficient time.

Whilst what you've quoted is 100% correct from a legal standing perspective, it is 100% wrong from a self preservation point of view.
I prefer the "everything out there is trying to kill me" approach and rely heavily on paranoid checking, peripheral vision and jungle instincts to stay alive.
No point being in the right and dead.

It does not count as near miss but.....

Charlemont bridge this morning.
Big truck stopped halfway the turn and lots of police.
All the marks of another cyclist down....

But in this case the truck broke down.
Thank goodness