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

Lambay island · 03-10-2018 02:57PM

mloc123 wrote: »

Is it?

When I go for a cycle most days I meet 100 cars easily, I rarely have an issue with how they pass me. On average cycling 6 days a week I probably have 1-2 encounters with bad drivers (from a cyclists perspective - poor at over taking, not observant enough etc..)

They represent a pretty small % of the number of drivers I meet each day.

Yeh I cycle 5 days a week and that 1-2 incident would be similar to me. However, you pass so many stationary cars that a lot of drivers don't have a chance to close pass you so its very hard to quantify. The folk who encroach in cycle lanes when stuck in traffic and not moving, you can tell by this behaviour alone, they have no respect for anyone cycling and would dangerously pass you given half the chance.

Wishbone Ash · 03-10-2018 02:57PM

mloc123 wrote: »

Is it?

When I go for a cycle most days I meet 100 cars easily, I rarely have an issue with how they pass me. On average cycling 6 days a week I probably have 1-2 encounters with bad drivers (from a cyclists perspective - poor at over taking, not observant enough etc..)

They represent a pretty small % of the number of drivers I meet each day.

That doesn't mean that they are good drivers. There are very very few good drivers. Most are just average.

mloc123 · 03-10-2018 03:00PM

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

That doesn't mean that they are good drivers. There are very very few good drivers. Most are just average.

What is a 'good' driver? From a cyclist point of view it is simple -

Good drivers do not cause near misses.
Bad drivers cause near misses.

Anything after that, I personally do not care about.

average_runner · 03-10-2018 03:59PM

Seth Brundle wrote: »

That's a massive overestimation of the percentage of "good" drivers!

I was including all road users, some would think its a massive overestimation on cyclists also, but i really do believe the bad lot are low

CramCycle · 03-10-2018 04:08PM

mloc123 wrote: »

My own opinion, you will not change these ones. Bringing in a new minimum passing distance will not change these people.. they already ignore the other rules of the road. New awareness campaigns will not change these people... as they are either oblivious to their mistakes or actively aggressive.

1000%
Enforcement until it becomes culture is really the only way, so long as kids grow up watching this behaviour and it being normalised, the longer we will have this culture permeating our roads.

average_runner · 03-10-2018 04:09PM

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

That doesn't mean that they are good drivers. There are very very few good drivers. Most are just average.

Can say the same for cyclists going by your thinking

CramCycle · 03-10-2018 04:15PM

average_runner wrote: »

Can say the same for cyclists going by your thinking

100% there is very little difference in attitude and action between the two groups as far as I can tell, just depending on which one you are using, the other becomes more obvious.

You cycle in the city, you pass 1000 cars, with a majority on the phone, a number running reds until one stops and so on. Therefore all drivers are awful.

You drive a car, sitting in traffic, all you see is cyclists sailing by. You get to a lights and you notice a cyclist going through the red. Probably the only one there, therefore all cyclists are awful.

The truth is both groups have good, adequate and awful sub groups and it is a good idea not to merge them as labeling people is typically (not always) done with a negative mindset in play.

mloc123 · 03-10-2018 05:37PM

average_runner wrote: »

Can say the same for cyclists going by your thinking

This... and the problem we always fall into is "them vs us" as if all cyclists are right and all drivers are wrong. There are complete assholes on bikes and in cars.

Arcade_Tryer · 03-10-2018 07:34PM

average_runner wrote: »

Can say the same for cyclists going by your thinking

A cyclist is using a bicycle; a driver is using a car. Regardless of similarities in behaviour, the two are completely incomparable in terms of the risk posed to others by both.

mloc123 · 03-10-2018 07:37PM

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

A cyclist is using a bicycle; a driver is using a car. Regardless of similarities in behaviour, the two are completely incomparable in terms of the risk posed to others by both, and the evidence and statistics support this.

Cyclists have killed pedestrians in the past. I do not agree with relaxing the rules for cyclists because they are not as fast or heavy as a car. It is important that the standard of adhering to the rules of the road are consistent between both.

Arcade_Tryer · 03-10-2018 07:47PM

mloc123 wrote: »

Cyclists have killed pedestrians in the past. I do not agree with relaxing the rules for cyclists because they are not as fast or heavy as a car. It is important that the standard of adhering to the rules of the road are consistent between both.

On average, drivers kill a lot more. An awful lot more. A car poses a much greater risk to others than a bicycle on average, and it is absurd to suggest otherwise. Apart from being blindingly obvious, all the evidence and statistics supports this assertion.

Duckjob · 03-10-2018 07:50PM

mloc123 wrote: »

Cyclists have killed pedestrians in the past. I do not agree with relaxing the rules for cyclists because they are not as fast or heavy as a car. It is important that the standard of adhering to the rules of the road are consistent between both.

I don't think relaxing the rules for cyclists has been suggested anywhere.

I think you have to distinguish though between passive and active enforcement. If a Garda is on the beat and sees a cyclist blatantly breaking a light I think he should pull them, just as he /she should for a car.

However, in terms of active enforcement, if you are looking to make a difference to road safety. Then it makes sense to direct 90% of your available resources to the group that is involved in 90% of fatalities/serious injuries.

What Username Guidelines · 03-10-2018 08:05PM

Breezer wrote: »

Indeed. I had one last night, not a near miss, but likely only because I was doing exactly this.

I recently moved jobs but that was on my commute for years. Awful stretch and may as well have no cycle lane marked, it would be safer without it. I was tailgated the whole way up it one day and when I got to the lights, got the same crap. "You need to move out of my way" etc. When I tried to argue there would be physically no room even if I hugged the wall, due to traffic in other lane, I was told "all you cyclists are dangerous and will kill someone" Eh, ok.

magicbastarder · 03-10-2018 08:08PM

mloc123 wrote: »

Cyclists have killed pedestrians in the past.

the last time was about 2003. since then, over 4,500 people have died on the roads. you say 'we should apply the same standards', which superficially is difficult to disagree with, but what do you mean by applying the same standards? expecting both groups to behave themselves? certainly. apply the same penalties to both groups? this would be nonsense.

ED E · 03-10-2018 08:21PM

mloc123 wrote: »

Cyclists have killed pedestrians in the past.

Less than one a decade isnt statistically significant.

Those bloody cyclists are always on the path Joe. AGS are their own worst enemy.

CramCycle · 03-10-2018 08:24PM

Duckjob wrote: »

I don't think relaxing the rules for cyclists has been suggested anywhere.

I think you have to distinguish though between passive and active enforcement. If a Garda is on the beat and sees a cyclist blatantly breaking a light I think he should pull them, just as he /she should for a car.

However, in terms of active enforcement, if you are looking to make a difference to road safety. Then it makes sense to direct 90% of your available resources to the group that is involved in 90% of fatalities/serious injuries.

Another thing that needs to change (and ask any Garda about this) is the way in which passive tickets carry a huge amount of paperwork. in other countries, if I was pulled over for any offence, I would get a caution, the cop would pull out his handheld device, punch in the offence and the ticket would be issued immediately. There would be no more paperwork. In Ireland, ask new recruits and beat cops, and most of their time is taken up with wasteful paperwork until they decide to stop giving out tickets for the perceived small issues.

I 100% agree if a Garda on walkabouts sees a cyclist breaking the rules, they should fine them, no questions, in all scenarios. In regards targeted campaigns and long term culture change, motorists must be the only target, anyone who suggests otherwise has no experience in the real world.

AndrewJRenko · 03-10-2018 09:24PM

mloc123 wrote: »

This... and the problem we always fall into is "them vs us" as if all cyclists are right and all drivers are wrong. There are complete assholes on bikes and in cars.

That's true, but the assholes on bikes don't kill three or four people each week, like motorists do. In fact, they don't kill three or four people each year. In fact, they don't kill three or four people each decade - just to help you deciding on appropriate allocation of resources.

mloc123 wrote: »

Cyclists have killed pedestrians in the past. I do not agree with relaxing the rules for cyclists because they are not as fast or heavy as a car. It is important that the standard of adhering to the rules of the road are consistent between both.

Pedestrians have killed cyclists (or cyclist) in the past, so presumably, you're equally enthusiastic about enforcing traffic laws on pedestrians too? Gardai should be focusing on making sure pedestrians cross at the right places, at the right time, etc?

Duckjob wrote: »

However, in terms of active enforcement, if you are looking to make a difference to road safety. Then it makes sense to direct 90% of your available resources to the group that is involved in 90% of fatalities/serious injuries.

99% would probably be more accurate. Or 99.99% perhaps.

RacoonQueen · 03-10-2018 10:51PM

Can't see it posted in here....seen on social media today. Holy crapballs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikhga6u9JA4

CramCycle · 03-10-2018 10:54PM

Jaysus

07Lapierre · 03-10-2018 10:55PM

Jesus Christ!

Taltos · 03-10-2018 11:05PM

Bloody hell, damn lucky the car behind him didnt just take you out there, they’d no chance of seeing you.

RacoonQueen · 03-10-2018 11:25PM

Taltos wrote: »

Bloody hell, damn lucky the car behind him didnt just take you out there, they’d no chance of seeing you.

Not me, thankfully. Poster has put the full 10 min video into one of the youtube comments and funny (?) thing is that all the other cars seem to have no trouble seeing him and giving plenty of space. This moron however, will kill someone. I've watched the video so many times tonight and I still jump a little each time.

03-10-2018 11:27PM

F me. You could have put a lump of coal up my bum and I'd have pooped a diamond after that one. Christ.

Seth Brundle · 03-10-2018 11:31PM

Aah now, if the cyclist were wearing their high vis stuff that wouldn't have happened!

CramCycle · 04-10-2018 12:03AM

Deleted User wrote: »

F me. You could have put a lump of coal up my bum and I'd have pooped a diamond after that one. Christ.

Well there is a phrase I am stealing

ED E · 04-10-2018 12:27AM

PMSL at that Enfilade

Taltos · 04-10-2018 07:00AM

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Not me, thankfully. Poster has put the full 10 min video into one of the youtube comments and funny (?) thing is that all the other cars seem to have no trouble seeing him and giving plenty of space. This moron however, will kill someone. I've watched the video so many times tonight and I still jump a little each time.

Wasn’t commenting on the riders visibility, meant that the first car would have hidden the cyclist from the 2nd car. If intentionally done by the first motorist they could have been setting up the 2nd one to hit the cyclist.

Pinch Flat · 04-10-2018 07:17AM

Sleety_Rain wrote: »

Explain?

You’re right actually. Should have hugged the kerb. There’s plenty of space on that road to accommodate a bike, a car overtakibg it and an oncoming car passing safely. Sure what can go wrong? :rolleyes:

RacoonQueen · 04-10-2018 07:17AM

I know you weren't commenting on the visibility. I was just adding that point about the whole video as can't see the behaviour of other drivers from that snippet. I thought the same thing about second car when I first watched it. Pity its so hard to read the licence plate.

Rechuchote · 04-10-2018 08:44AM

We don't know who's behind the wheel of any vehicle, or what state they're in -

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/bus-driver-was-nine-times-over-limit-and-slumped-over-wheel-37383423.html

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

Comments