Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Near Misses Thread Volume 2 (So close you can feel it)

1…3132343637…69

Comments

  • #992
    hesker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,569 ✭✭✭hesker


    a_squirrelman wrote: »
    I think the lesson here is just don't be nice and move in to let someone pas.

    That’s a personal choice. You can move over but you need to realise you have changed your situation and merge back safely, conceding priority if necessary.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #993
    hesker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,569 ✭✭✭hesker


    Paul Kiernan wrote: »

    My main argument here is that the road layout should not put the cyclist in this position in the first place!

    The road layout didn’t put the cyclist in that position. The cyclist put himself in that position.

    What would you change in the road layout.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #994
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,146 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    hesker wrote: »
    The road layout didn’t put the cyclist in that position. The cyclist put himself in that position.

    What would you change in the road layout.

    End the right hand lane rather than the left hand one and make the vehicles from that lane merge into the left.

    Edit: not as many instances of it in Ireland as the UK, but motorways with changes from 2/3/4/5 lanes it will be the right hand lane which is removed when the number of lanes are reduced. Depending on the junctions and such like extra lanes such as on going up hill may be added to either the left or right, but the left lane is never the one removed.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #995
    cletus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,375 ✭✭✭cletus


    robinph wrote: »
    End the right hand lane rather than the left hand one and make the vehicles from that lane merge into the left.

    Is that based on knowing the the road? I don't personally know the road he was on, so I don't know whether your suggestion would help improve the road there.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #996
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,146 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    cletus wrote: »
    Is that based on knowing the the road? I don't personally know the road he was on, so I don't know whether your suggestion would help improve the road there.

    Don't know the road, and there may be issues with merging right into left and visibility for right hand drive vehicles, but roads should always be designed with priority given to the more vulnerable and usually slower vehicles.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • Advertisement
  • #997
    cletus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,375 ✭✭✭cletus


    breezy1985 wrote: »
    He did move back safely. No one except the completely biased would say that wasnt a perfectly normal lane change. Loads of room for a bike or car or whatever to change lane and you would see similar every day without incident

    I don't see myself as being biased in this instance (although maybe that's part of my bias...), and I think you'd be hard pressed to go through my posts on this forum and find any inherent biases towards (or would that be against) cyclists.

    I've already said I wouldn't have merged there on a bike, and from the video footage, probably wouldn't have done it in a car either
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #998
    cletus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,375 ✭✭✭cletus


    robinph wrote: »
    Don't know the road, and there may be issues with merging right into left and visibility for right hand drive vehicles, but roads should always be designed with priority given to the more vulnerable and usually slower vehicles.

    The reason I asked is because I don't know why its a merging lane. It could literally be that, a lane leading off a junction, allowing traffic to get up to speed before merging.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #999
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,146 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    cletus wrote: »
    The reason I asked is because I don't know why its a merging lane. It could literally be that, a lane leading off a junction, allowing traffic to get up to speed before merging.

    True, but the road markings didn't seem to be for a junction merging lane and it would be a bit of a long one for anywhere other than a motorway for how long they were cycling along it. None of that would help the van drivers case, and I don't see how it would effect the cyclist case either.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1000
    cletus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,375 ✭✭✭cletus


    robinph wrote: »
    True, but the road markings didn't seem to be for a junction merging lane and it would be a bit of a long one for anywhere other than a motorway for how long they were cycling along it. None of that would help the van drivers case, and I don't see how it would effect the cyclist case either.

    No, you're right. I was just following the conversation regarding changing the layout of the road, and musing on some of the replies
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1001
    cletus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,375 ✭✭✭cletus


    breezy1985 wrote: »
    You're be waiting an awful long time on a city road to change lane if that's too short a distance

    Grand, you may or may not be be right. I'm basing it off the space there seems to be in a video clip, which can be misleading. It was my inital reaction that it was tight, and I haven't changed from that in subsequent viewings.

    I suppose, just to point out, I don't think the merging lane needed to be longer, just that at the speed the van was travelling, and the distance between it and the car in front, I'd be inclined to let the van bass before merging, even if that requires me to slow down until the van is gone by

    I still don't see any bias in my posts
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • Advertisement
  • #1002
    cletus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,375 ✭✭✭cletus


    So it's after a junction, and there's a relatively long lane to allow the left turning traffic from that junction to get up to speed and merge. It wouldn't make sense to alter that to have the traffic already on the road merge with traffic joining the road

    It's a regional road, so I assume the speed limit is 80kph. Not exactly the same as merging in that gap on a city road
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1003
    hesker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,569 ✭✭✭hesker


    cletus wrote: »
    The reason I asked is because I don't know why its a merging lane. It could literally be that, a lane leading off a junction, allowing traffic to get up to speed before merging.

    It's a newly built filter lane to service access/egress from a new estate.

    It's this road here R611 soutbound, just after the entrance to Janeville.


    Like you I don't think I'm biased either. I've had this done to me when signalling to move over to take a right turn off a road. Sh**ty behaviour by the driver but I can't disagree with the Garda position on it. You don't have absolute right of way and putting your hand out doesn't give you any rights.

    https://goo.gl/maps/hXTJtgmQdGLQxjL2A
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1004
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,146 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    hesker wrote: »
    You don't have absolute right of way and putting your hand out doesn't give you any rights.

    The cyclist doesn't need any additional rights over the one that says don't other vehicles don't have any right to kill them. OK so that isn't actually written down anywhere, but it doesn't need to be. Being in a motorised vehicle does not give you any right of way over the cyclist, and if they are in front of the car/ van the priority is to the cyclist.

    The only road where a car/ van/ etc has a legitimate claim to say "but I didn't expect that to happen" as a defense for hitting a cyclist would be on a motorway where the cyclist has no right to be. All other roads if the motorised vehicle didn't leave enough room for the cyclists in front of them then the motorist is doing it wrong.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1005
    cletus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,375 ✭✭✭cletus


    robinph wrote: »
    The cyclist doesn't need any additional rights over the one that says don't other vehicles don't have any right to kill them. OK so that isn't actually written down anywhere, but it doesn't need to be. Being in a motorised vehicle does not give you any right of way over the cyclist, and if they are in front of the car/ van the priority is to the cyclist.

    The only road where a car/ van/ etc has a legitimate claim to say "but I didn't expect that to happen" as a defense for hitting a cyclist would be on a motorway where the cyclist has no right to be. All other roads if the motorised vehicle didn't leave enough room for the cyclists in front of them then the motorist is doing it wrong.

    That's true, and nobody, I don't think, is arguing that the driver was in the right. My issue, and I think others here are the same, was with the merging manoeuvre made by the cyclist.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1006
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,146 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    cletus wrote: »
    That's true, and nobody, I don't think, is arguing that the driver was in the right. My issue, and I think others here are the same, was with the merging manoeuvre made by the cyclist.

    The indicated, they waited for the first vehicle to pass, they moved into the gap following that vehicle.

    Next vehicle tried to run them off the road.

    Don't see what the cyclist did wrong.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1007
    cletus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,375 ✭✭✭cletus


    robinph wrote: »
    The indicated, they waited for the first vehicle to pass, they moved into the gap following that vehicle.

    Next vehicle tried to run them off the road.

    Don't see what the cyclist did wrong.

    In my opinion, he merged poorly. He indicated and merged, which, if the driver had responded correctly, would have caused the van to slow down. That's poor merging. You are not entitled to join a lane just because you want to. It's up to you to ensure it is safe to do so.

    Just to be clear, the driver's reaction subsequent to the merge was wrong, and very poor driving, but the initial merge was poor.

    In other words, the cyclist is not blameless in what was all round, a ****ty road interaction
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1008
    hesker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,569 ✭✭✭hesker


    tnegun wrote: »
    This is why we need the merge like a zip principal to be applied here, it's common sense to allow someone ahead of you to merge if their lane is ending abruptly. We're not talking about someone cutting in ahead on a motorway here but a bike in an urban setting as can be seen with this driver allowances need to be made and enforced by law as common sense doesn't prevail.

    Yes, the driver acted very badly here and he got fined. Maybe he should have received a harsher treatment but that’s another debate.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1009
    cletus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,375 ✭✭✭cletus


    tnegun wrote: »
    This is why we need the merge like a zip principal to be applied here, it's common sense to allow someone ahead of you to merge if their lane is ending abruptly. We're not talking about someone cutting in ahead on a motorway here but a bike in an urban setting as can be seen with this driver allowances need to be made and enforced by law as common sense doesn't prevail.

    It mightn't be a motorway, but it's a regional road with a speed limit of (I assume) 80kph, not exactly urban driving.

    If your lane is ending abruptly, it's up to you to find a safe time and space to merge. If the traffic you merge into has to brake because of your merge. You've done it badly.

    Even if the driver had reacted well, brakes, and allowed the cyclist into the lane, the merge itself was still a poor one
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1010
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,146 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    lawrencesummers wrote: »
    A lot of posters here can’t accept any criticism of cyclists. I think your correct, no road user has a right to just join another lane of traffic, but every road user should be considerate and allow people to merge, every road user should be extra considerate to the more vulnerable road users.

    As far as I’m concerned the cyclist didn’t make any signal to move, what he did amounted to pointing at the ground when the standard for signalling is far different. His hand movement is easy to understand for fellow cyclists but it’s not the correct signal and it’s a bit rich complaining about other road users when your own behaviour isn’t correct.

    If he'd put his hand out directly then he could have been hit by the car (although there would be separate issues regarding road positioning then) but also the car could have taken it as a sign of him about to pull out in front of the car, I'd have read it as an intention not to pull out before the car but behind them and either way the van should have anticipated the move and left a space regardless of any indication. If there was a pot hole in the road and the bike needed both hand to avoid it and so didn't signal at all then the van should still be expecting them to be merging into their lane at that point.

    Which takes priority for a cyclist? Holding onto the handlebars, or putting your arm out to indicate?
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1011
    cletus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,375 ✭✭✭cletus


    robinph wrote: »
    .either way the van should have anticipated the move and left a space regardless of any indication....

    This is the crux of the matter. The van driver is not obliged to allow the cyclist into the lane. The cyclist is obliged to merge safely and appropriately.

    If it was a car trying to merge, it's the same story. The van driver doesn't have to allow any vehicle to merge there.

    What happened after the merge is the fault of the driver
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • Advertisement
  • #1012
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,146 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    cletus wrote: »
    This is the crux of the matter. The van driver is not obliged to allow the cyclist into the lane. The cyclist is obliged to merge safely and appropriately.

    If it was a car trying to merge, it's the same story. The van driver doesn't have to allow any vehicle to merge there.

    What happened after the merge is the fault of the driver

    The van is obliged to not deliberately crash into the vehicle in front of them though. If they see another vehicle infront, travelling at a similar speed and the road narrowing then they are obliged to do everything possible not to crash into them and leave room for the vehicle infront, regardless of any paint on the road. The lane markings don't really matter. If the van couldn't anticipate that the road was narrowing and the vehicle in front would need to move over then they are at fault.

    If it was a car then the van would 100% of left the space as they would have feared more for their paintwork and bumper, as it was a cyclist they figured they could intimidate the more vulnerable road user.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1013
    cletus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,375 ✭✭✭cletus


    I've said repeatedly, the driver's actions after the merge are wrong.

    But, and for the last time, the merge itself was poor. If the driver had slowed and allowed the cyclist in, it doesn't make the merge any better. The cyclist is still in the wrong, the driver just wouldn't have been an asshole.

    As Weepsie says above, if the cyclist was in the lane, then there's no issue. He was not, and changed lanes poorly
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1014
    cletus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,375 ✭✭✭cletus


    tnegun wrote: »
    If he was in the lane the traffic would still have had to slow so having to slow because he merged is a mute[sic] point. If this was a 60 or 80 zone I might look at it differently but the van driver is overwhelmingly at fault here.

    It's absolutely not a moot point regarding whether he was in the lane or not. There are very definite rules of the road regarding traffic in your lane, or traffic merging with your lane. Those rules are completely different.

    The cyclist having to slow down in order to re-merge with the lane is of no legal consequence to any traffic in the other lane. It is up to the cyclist to merge safely and appropriately.

    This does not excuse the actions of the driver subsequent to the merge, but in this specific incidence, the cyclist is not blameless
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1015
    cletus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,375 ✭✭✭cletus


    Weepsie wrote: »
    Oh and on this, rules of the road are not statue. Plenty of times I've witnessed road users have to break them because someone has put them at risk, or poor road design, etc etc.

    True, but they are a practical application of the laws on the statute book
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1016
    cletus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,375 ✭✭✭cletus


    Look, this is going round in circles. I can't honestly look at that video and say the cyclists actions are good, or that the merge was appropriate or safe. I don't think any opinion here will change my mind.

    Equally, there are posters here who see no issue whatsoever with the cyclists actions, who won't have their mind changed by anything I say, so I'm out.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1017
    hesker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,569 ✭✭✭hesker


    Seaswimmer wrote: »
    Now I enjoy my cycling, cycle defensively, acknowledge courtesies and rarely if ever have any motorist interactions.

    I try to do the same now. I don’t have a camera and feel It’s just not worth engaging. But you have to admit this approach does nothing to reduce the number of incidents. One is not related to the other.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1018
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 52,316 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    cnocbui wrote: »
    I have encountered a cyclist dominating the road on an R road. When passing him, I couldn't provide a 1m gap because there was a stone wall to the right and the cyclist was almost cycling down the middle of the road and to the right of the center line of the lane.
    sounds like he or she was taking primary position, which cyclists are advised to do at times.

    would you have been able to overtake the cyclist in this context, if the cyclist had been in secondary position, given him or her 1.5m clearance (the guidance is 1.5m above 50km/h), and *not* have to place your wheels into the oncoming lane?

    that'd require a 4.5m wide lane, give or take, which is very wide.

    if it was narrower than 4.5m, you'd have had to place your wheels into the oncoming lane, which you'd only do when there was no oncoming traffic (and quite visibly no oncoming traffic), so you'd have to wait for a safe overtaking spot anyway, surely? so if you have a safe overtaking manouevre it doesn't matter what position the cyclist takes in the lane, unless he or she is riding right in the centre of the road, really.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1019
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,146 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    The best thing to improve road safety for those not driving cars would be to require everyone to pass a test for a motorbike licence before they could gain a car licence, or get some exemption from that if you can show years of riding bicycles on roads. Car drivers will remain oblivious to other road users for as long as they don't think of themselves in the same vulnerable position.

    In the absence of anything like that ever being brought in before anyone can gain a car licence the only other form of re-education available is to capture videos of the incidents and show car drivers what they are doing to put others at risk... And hope that it make some tiny difference.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1020
    cletus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,375 ✭✭✭cletus


    robinph wrote: »
    The best thing to improve road safety for those not driving cars would be to require everyone to pass a test for a motorbike licence before they could gain a car licence, or get some exemption from that if you can show years of riding bicycles on roads. Car drivers will remain oblivious to other road users for as long as they don't think of themselves in the same vulnerable position.

    In the absence of anything like that ever being brought in before anyone can gain a car licence the only other form of re-education available is to capture videos of the incidents and show car drivers what they are doing to put others at risk... And hope that it make some tiny difference.

    Putting everyone that drives a car through the pointless beuracracy of obtaining a separate licence that they don't want or won't use doesn't seem to me to be the most sensible idea, quite apart from the fact that it makes the assumption that every car driver is poor/unaware/whatever. It's also dangerously close to calls for cyclists to have to do some sort of licence/test.

    Perhaps a long term (multiple year/ongoing) media campaign in the same vein as the drink driving and speeding campaigns, along with enforcement and improved infrastructure would seem like a better option
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • Advertisement
  • #1021
    buffalo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,161 ✭✭✭buffalo


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    Not having a camera wont make his daily cycling safer, but ive viewed a lot of his footage on Twitter and a lot of the roads he cycles on look very cyclist unfriendly. I often wonder if their are safer routes he could use, but he chooses these routes as they offer more opportunities for "Good footage".

    I would say they are the most direct routes, and his cycling them is an effort to assert a cyclist's right to be on the road and take the most direct route, even if it's not the most safe or pleasant.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


Advertisement