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

AndrewJRenko · 21-08-2019 11:14PM

Weepsie wrote: »

Ah here, they were well through the maneuver before any approaching traffic was nearing them.

You're looking to be offended here

I'm looking for drivers to comply with the Rules of the Road. If they were through the maneuver, how did the cyclist end up in front of them?

magicbastarder · 21-08-2019 11:22PM

you can argue about whether the driver wrong all day long, and i'm not going to.
regardless of whether the driver was wrong, what was happening could not have been clearer and more telegraphed to the cyclist unless it had been tattooed on the back of his hands at birth, but he proceeded anyway.

AndrewJRenko · 21-08-2019 11:22PM

Weepsie wrote: »

They did. In the video you can see them beginning their maneuver from well back. You'd need to have seriously poor observation to not see it.

So the approaching car and two approaching cyclists would have been clearly visible to the u-turner then?

magicbastarder · 21-08-2019 11:23PM

you don't enter a pub that's visibly on fire because you want a pint, and then say 'but the pub shouldn't have been on fire!' when you get burned.

AndrewJRenko · 21-08-2019 11:28PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

you don't enter a pub that's visibly on fire because you want a pint, and then say 'but the pub shouldn't have been on fire!' when you get burned.

You don't set a pub on fire when you've people in the pub.

21-08-2019 11:34PM

For the love of god, I thought you were being sarcastic or tongue in cheek in the op. You can't be for real here fella.

AndrewJRenko · 21-08-2019 11:36PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

For the love of god, I thought you were being sarcastic or tongue in cheek in the op. You can't be for real here fella.

It's amazing how immune we have become to generally sh1t driving.

AndrewJRenko · 21-08-2019 11:40PM

Weepsie wrote: »

Yeah, and they're far enough back for them to safely do it. The road in front of them was clear.

I don't think that's how driving onto the wrong side of the road works. You don't get to do it just because the oncoming traffic has room to stop. ROTR says that the road must be completely clear to do a u-turn. It wasn't completely clear.

21-08-2019 11:43PM

Lets say the driver is 100% in the wrong here, is what the cyclist did 100% right?

AndrewJRenko · 21-08-2019 11:43PM

Weepsie wrote: »

It's amazing you can't see some really sh!try cycling. Both Other cyclists are riding in the door zone too so their road craft is poor all round I'd wager

I didn't make any comment about the cycling being good or bad, other than to note that the cyclist pushed through.

But it's interesting to see that unless I proactively bash the cyclist, everyone runs to defend the motorist who is explicitly breaking at least three provisions of ROTR, here in the cycling forum.

AndrewJRenko · 21-08-2019 11:49PM

Weepsie wrote: »

And that's not even what they say. They say completely safe. You're purposely misquoting the rotr to suit your own point.

My mistake, apologies. Was it completely safe?

magicbastarder · 22-08-2019 07:58AM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

everyone runs to defend the motorist

'everyone'? demonstrably not true.

p15574 · 22-08-2019 09:30AM

One that made me wonder about other cyclists earlier on. This junction of Gardiner St/Talbot St, I'm one of loads of pedestrians waiting on the traffic island to finish crossing and continue towards Amiens St. Traffic very busy, and a fair few pedestrians playing frogger during temporary pauses. Gardiner St lights turn red, pedestrian green comes on and we all continue crossing. Then through the lights, heading towards the Customs House, comes a cyclist - with an 7 or 8 year old child on another little bike! Not a great example to be setting your child, and with the numbers of pedestrians, the child mightn't have been seen. Thankfully, everyone stopped to let them through. I hope the cyclist knows that the pedestrian lights are next in the sequence there and didn't risk their child to the crossways Talbot St traffic.

AndrewJRenko · 22-08-2019 11:02AM

Weepsie wrote: »

Yes, yes it was. At least from the limited video there. Road on front of the was clear, no traffic behind, no parked traffic on that section of road and approaching traffic at a safe enough distance and slow enough speed to do it. You can even make out theyre indicating as far as I can see

Again, I've not set it's great driving or anything, but it's looking to be offended and no more in my opinion.

Jeez, I hope you've no professional role in safety matters. How can a 'completely safe' manoeuvre result in a near miss, regardless of who else does what? If a near miss results, that it certainly wasn't completely safe in the first place. That's the bar set in ROTR; "completely safe". Not reasonably, or generally, or mostly safe - but completely safe.

The driver certainly didn't "Give way to all other road users" as required by ROTR. They certainly didn't "Check carefully for cyclists and motorcyclists" as required by ROTR. They certainly didn't "Make sure there is sufficient room to complete your manoeuvre safely and smoothly". If that's your definition of 'completely safe', then remind me to stay home whenever you're out driving.

What is this deferential attitude to selfish driving all about? I'm not 'offended' by this. It's just crap, selfish driving. The driver decided to do a u-turn in heavy traffic, probably to go back and grab a free parking space while he went to the RDS gig. He could have waited until the traffic was clear. He could have pulled into a side road and done the u-turn there, in quieter conditions. They could have done a spin round the block, and cost them a few minutes instead of holding up a bunch of other people for a minute.

But no, the driver took their moment and drove across onto the wrong side of the road in front of oncoming traffic.

AndrewJRenko · 22-08-2019 11:03AM

magicbastarder wrote: »

'everyone'? demonstrably not true.

Fair cop. I plead guilty to slight exaggeration. It's my first offence.

Boom_Bap · 22-08-2019 11:09AM

The driver started the maneuver when the oncoming car was about 6 car lengths away. The approaching car was not going at a fast pace.
I reckon they made the judgement call that they would be finished the turn by the time they oncoming traffic arrived.
They maybe got that a little wrong. But not dangerous.

The approaching cyclist seen this, had ample amount of time and space to stop and let the maneuver to complete, ie, acknowledge the judgement error and be courteous to a fellow user of the road. The cyclist is not rading and reacting to what is ahead of them in this case.

Idiot driver, no. Driver who mis timed a turn and put nobody in danger, yes.

Mickiemcfist · 22-08-2019 11:10AM

We as cyclists give out when we hear drivers say "you MADE me overtake on a blind bend" etc. This is the exact same thing, if the cyclist had just slowed down, it was a non event, he'd have got to the next set of traffic lights at the same time & got to where he was going safely. The car would have turned around & nobody was in any way disrupted, traffic moves slowly enough on that road for it not to be an issue or any danger. But no, you're saying a car making a slow legal maneuver somehow forced the cyclist to endanger himself. However the driver was still alert enough to stop & not hit the cyclist.

magicbastarder · 22-08-2019 11:24AM

there is an onus on road users not to place themselves into dangerous situations. it does not matter who caused the situaiton, once it's dangerous, you avoid exacerbating it.
a 'mammy mammy, he started it' approach does not work.
to cycle in front of a car which was doing something quite clear to the cyclist was stupid on a level way above what you might ascribe to the driver.

Stark · 22-08-2019 11:26AM

Yeah there was plenty of space when the car started the manoeuvre. Creating an annoyance, probably, but I wouldn't say it was dangerous.

Reminds me of people coming along and driving right up your arse when you're in the middle of trying to parallel park, rather than backing off a bit and letting you finish.

Type 17 · 22-08-2019 12:04PM

Snore...

brocbrocach · 22-08-2019 12:57PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What is this deferential attitude to selfish driving all about?

Understanding.

CramCycle · 22-08-2019 01:02PM

p15574 wrote: »

One that made me wonder about other cyclists earlier on. This junction of Gardiner St/Talbot St, I'm one of loads of pedestrians waiting on the traffic island to finish crossing and continue towards Amiens St. Traffic very busy, and a fair few pedestrians playing frogger during temporary pauses. Gardiner St lights turn red, pedestrian green comes on and we all continue crossing. Then through the lights, heading towards the Customs House, comes a cyclist - with an 7 or 8 year old child on another little bike! Not a great example to be setting your child, and with the numbers of pedestrians, the child mightn't have been seen. Thankfully, everyone stopped to let them through. I hope the cyclist knows that the pedestrian lights are next in the sequence there and didn't risk their child to the crossways Talbot St traffic.

What a muppet.

Boom_Bap wrote: »

The driver started the maneuver when the oncoming car was about 6 car lengths away. The approaching car was not going at a fast pace.
I reckon they made the judgement call that they would be finished the turn by the time they oncoming traffic arrived.
They maybe got that a little wrong. But not dangerous.

The approaching cyclist seen this, had ample amount of time and space to stop and let the maneuver to complete, ie, acknowledge the judgement error and be courteous to a fellow user of the road. The cyclist is not rading and reacting to what is ahead of them in this case.

Idiot driver, no. Driver who mis timed a turn and put nobody in danger, yes.

They were both wrong, in the end. Te driver was perfectly safe and correct in starting the maneuver. The cyclist was in the wrong for barreling through when it was easy to see and allow it to finish. The driver is in the wrong for continuing (although they slammed on when they realised the cyclist was being a muppet) when the cyclist was coming through and just presuming the cyclist would stop. Both are wrong in different ways and for different things, the driver should have stopped when the cyclist got that close to insure it had stopped. the cyclist is wrong for continuing like a prat. The cyclist is worse than the motorist by a huge margin but neither were without fault.

Captain Havoc · 22-08-2019 07:12PM

How is this a near miss? He brakes from about 1km an hour when he sees the cyclist isn't stopping. I reckon he kept his eye out for the cyclist. This reminds me of that prat in Scotland who used to go out looking for situations to get him and his go pro into.

magicbastarder · 22-08-2019 08:20PM

not a near miss - i was hit today. by a conker. fair startled me, it did.

AndrewJRenko · 22-08-2019 10:17PM

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

We as cyclists give out when we hear drivers say "you MADE me overtake on a blind bend" etc. This is the exact same thing, if the cyclist had just slowed down, it was a non event, he'd have got to the next set of traffic lights at the same time & got to where he was going safely. The car would have turned around & nobody was in any way disrupted, traffic moves slowly enough on that road for it not to be an issue or any danger. But no, you're saying a car making a slow legal maneuver somehow forced the cyclist to endanger himself. However the driver was still alert enough to stop & not hit the cyclist.

The driver hadn't a snowball's chance in hell of completing the turn without blocking the oncoming traffic. And he presumably was well aware of this, and explicitly decided to inconvenience other people instead of putting himself to the inconvenience of doing this safely and legally. Driving onto the opposite carriageway to do a u-turn is not normal, routine business driving. If he had driven along the opposite carriageway to do an overtake, he would have been lambasted here, and rightly so. But for some reason, because he's doing a u-turn, we're supposed to be 'understanding' of how his convenience is more important that other people's convenience. Nah, not gonna happen.

BoardsMember · 22-08-2019 10:23PM

Make it stop. Please!

22-08-2019 11:04PM

This is some real off the meds stuff now ffs. I encounter this both in the car and on the bike every week, someone who needs to do a U or back out of a space, or drive way or what ever I sit up or slow down or flash / wave them out and we're on our way again and it works in reverse I'm looking to turn right maybe to home I get a car slow and let me cross.

There are things to be outraged by on our roads and this doesn't even register. To pretend otherwise is just trolling Andrew and a piss poor effort at that.

CramCycle · 23-08-2019 12:27AM

I agree with the frog, I'm out

Chiparus · 23-08-2019 07:02AM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The driver hadn't a snowball's chance in hell of completing the turn without blocking the oncoming traffic. And he presumably was well aware of this, and explicitly decided to inconvenience other people instead of putting himself to the inconvenience of doing this safely and legally. Driving onto the opposite carriageway to do a u-turn is not normal, routine business driving. If he had driven along the opposite carriageway to do an overtake, he would have been lambasted here, and rightly so. But for some reason, because he's doing a u-turn, we're supposed to be 'understanding' of how his convenience is more important that other people's convenience. Nah, not gonna happen.

The driver could have reversed into the entrance, instead decided to pull a u turn when the road was not clear, the road was clear for the cyclist to proceed.
I see lots of people injured ( and one cyclist killed ) when people pull uturns when it is not safe to do so. Taxis are the worst.

Odyssey 2005 · 23-08-2019 07:39AM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's one option. Or the driver could not have done an illegal u-turn in the first place. Or the driver could have given way to the cyclist and not blocked cycle traffic.

What u-turn ?

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

Comments