nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Dash cam videos thread 3.4 (embedded car dash-cams only)

biko

Car dash cam only. Any motorbike, helmet cam, traffic cam videos will be deleted without warning

Only embedded videos if you can't embed you video the post here >> https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057975477

Let's keep it civil and keep the ramblings to a minimum

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

josip

Must have thought he was back in Germany for a while.

Isambard

Deleted User wrote: »

This is the kind of indecisiveness that causes a large number of crashes!

Indeed, I'd say he was on phone, took an age to go at the green arrow. Definitely not concentrating.

It wasnt me123

Might be a stranger to the area - frustrating though

honda boi

AirBiscuit wrote: »

I've been sitting on this one for a few months trying to understand it, but I still can't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NVAePh59mc

The commentary alone is brilliant

Hurrache

They were too focused on the other clown that they didn't even contemplate having to stop from 42 seconds on when the pedestrian was obviously about to cross.

RosieJoe

Hurrache wrote: »

They were too focused on the other clown that they didn't even contemplate having to stop from 42 seconds on when the pedestrian was obviously about to cross.

Not a zebra crossing though, so no requirement to stop

iwillhtfu

Hurrache wrote: »

They were too focused on the other clown that they didn't even contemplate having to stop from 42 seconds on when the pedestrian was obviously about to cross.

Those path markings are a disgrace, a councils attempt to put the onus on drivers to allow people to cross when they have no right of way but some assume they have.

RosieJoe

iwillhtfu wrote: »

Those path markings are a disgrace, a councils attempt to put the onus on drivers to allow people to cross when they have no right of way but some assume they have.

100% agree, the only thing they are good at is causing confusion and contributing to accidents.

Isambard

RosieJoe wrote: »

Not a zebra crossing though, so no requirement to stop

I don't know that's true. If the pedestrian was there first you should give them precedence . They're a road user too.

Hurrache

RosieJoe wrote: »

Not a zebra crossing though, so no requirement to stop

iwillhtfu wrote: »

Those path markings are a disgrace, a councils attempt to put the onus on drivers to allow people to cross when they have no right of way but some assume they have.

There's a yield sign right before it, but either way, it's shows a lack of courtesy and foresight.

iwillhtfu

Hurrache wrote: »

There's a yield sign right before it, but either way, it's shows a lack of courtesy and foresight.

It's nothing to do with courtesy. I've seen those lines on two lane roundabouts, so what happens if the first driver feels all courteous and the second lane driver doesn't realise he's a courteous kind of guy. Those markings are an accident waiting to happen and you can be sure the council will be very quiet when asked about them.

Hurrache

It has everything to do with courtesy, there's a yield sign for the car driving towards where the pedestrian was about to cross, but the driver was more concerned at beeping at the car.

Isambard

the lines are for the guidance of the pedestrian as to the optimum place to cross.

AirBiscuit

Hurrache wrote: »

It has everything to do with courtesy, there's a yield sign for the car driving towards where the pedestrian was about to cross, but the driver was more concerned at beeping at the car.

A few things:

As others have correctly pointed out, it's not a zebra crossing. The very next exit on that roundabout has a full zebra crossing so it would be different there.
The next roundabout in the sequence also has a full pedestrian crossing, where even traffic currently on the roundabout has to stop.
There is enough of a car length at that entrance for the pedestrian to cross behind a yielding car
Yield signs relate to vehicles and juctions, not pedestrians. No other pedestrian crossings in the town have yield signs, even though you do need to "yield" to pedestrians at the proper crossings. This is closer to a courtesy crossing.
Finally, The white Audi was the one that beeped, not us (also shouts "bitch" out his open window, which causes the pedestrian to hesitate and look around)

Hurrache

You wasted your time with that post, i know what a pedestrian crossing is indicated by.

It's amazing how all of a sudden people are extremely anal to official road markings when they try exempt themselves from a bit of courtesy when they're approaching a pedestrian obviously trying to cross and they'll have to either yield or stop anyway.

Some of yis are a gas lot all the same. The roads would be a lot more pleasant for everyone if the attitude was relaxed a little.

cpoh1

Hurrache wrote: »

You wasted your time with that post, i know what a pedestrian crossing is indicated by.

It's amazing how all of a sudden people are extremely anal to official road markings when they try exempt themselves from a bit of courtesy when they're approaching a pedestrian obviously trying to cross and they'll have to either yield or stop anyway.

Some of yis are a gas lot all the same. The roads would be a lot more pleasant for everyone if the attitude was relaxed a little.

Give it up man, the problem in that clip is clearly the guy driving towards a roundabout on the wrong side of the road against oncoming traffic oblivious to it all.

Nothing wrong with not stopping for a pedestrian who has no right of way and has just arrived at the side of the road as the cam car approaches, its not like the pedestrian is waiting there with a stream of traffic holding them stopping them crossing.

Vic_08

Hurrache wrote: »

You wasted your time with that post, i know what a pedestrian crossing is indicated by.

It's amazing how all of a sudden people are extremely anal to official road markings when they try exempt themselves from a bit of courtesy when they're approaching a pedestrian obviously trying to cross and they'll have to either yield or stop anyway.

Some of yis are a gas lot all the same. The roads would be a lot more pleasant for everyone if the attitude was relaxed a little.

And yet another video picked apart so some imagined slight from the cammer can be criticised to a ridiculous level.

AirBiscuit did nothing wrong in that clip, NOTHING.

It's because of the likes of gas lads such as yourself that less and less posters are willing to upload their own clips to boards. Why bother when you know you'll be dragged into some ridiculous discussion involving google maps clips and ROTR regs to defend the most trivially stupid accusations.

Enjoy your whinge over the boring Brit compilations and Russian lunatics because user submitted clips are basically dead here.

chooseusername

Hurrache wrote: »

You wasted your time with that post, i know what a pedestrian crossing is indicated by.

It's amazing how all of a sudden people are extremely anal to official road markings when they try exempt themselves from a bit of courtesy when they're approaching a pedestrian obviously trying to cross and they'll have to either yield or stop anyway.

Some of yis are a gas lot all the same. The roads would be a lot more pleasant for everyone if the attitude was relaxed a little.

Courtesy in this case might well cause a serious accident.
Unless you get out of the car and stop the traffic in the right-hand lane for
the pedestrian.

AirBiscuit

Hurrache wrote: »

It's amazing how all of a sudden people are extremely anal to official road markings when they try exempt themselves from a bit of courtesy when they're approaching two yield signs and a pedestrian obviously trying to cross.

Right, a few things to clear up that armchair driver view: Courtesy is something you have the choice to show, not some moral obligation.
Let's review here. Steep downhill, blocked view by bus, adverse traffic event taking place, and it isn't obvious the pedestrian is about to cross until they turn, because there are 3 ways you can proceed on that pavement (straight ahead, left into the car park through the fence, right to cross the road)
Pedestrians aren't as stupid as you're making out. They know they need to see to the right before they cross, and the bus was blocking their view as well.
If we were coming down the hill and could see them, in usual circumstances we would let them cross because it wouldn't worsen an already unsafe situation to stop for them.

Hurrache wrote: »

And yet the strict adherence and posting the SI on horn usage is conveniently ignored.

I already told you we weren't the ones that used the horn there, and the horn alerted the pedestrian to nearby danger at an uncontrolled crossing so in this case it was the correct course of action. So are horns good or bad?

Hurrache wrote: »

You wasted your time with that post

True, but only for you, because you didn't read it

I'll leave you with this. If there was a cyclist coming down that hill, pedestrians would know to wait because it would cause adverse braking.

McCrack

Vic_08 wrote: »

And yet another video picked apart so some imagined slight from the cammer can be criticised to a ridiculous level.

AirBiscuit did nothing wrong in that clip, NOTHING.

It's because of the likes of gas lads such as yourself that less and less posters are willing to upload their own clips to boards. Why bother when you know you'll be dragged into some ridiculous discussion involving google maps clips and ROTR regs to defend the most trivially stupid accusations.

Enjoy your whinge over the boring Brit compilations and Russian lunatics because user submitted clips are basically dead here.

Get over yourself, it's a public discussion forum. Anyone who chooses to post a dash cam video can expect any comment or opinions

Dr_Colossus

AirBiscuit wrote: »

Pedestrians aren't as stupid as you're making out. They know they need to see to the right before they cross, and the bus was blocking their view as well.

I'll leave you with this. If there was a cyclist coming down that hill, pedestrians would know to wait because it would cause adverse braking.

Not disputing your post apart from pedestrians and people in general being stupid. Take this recent case and subsequent Court of Appeals process that apportioned 80% liability to the motorist for progressing through a controlled junction where the motorist had a green light and the pedestrian light was red.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/award-to-woman-knocked-down-crossing-dublin-street-increased-to-372-000-1.4502453

Perhaps if it had been an uncontrolled junction the motorist would have less liability but in that case what's the point of controlled junctions if motorists take the majority of liability regardless of the light sequence.
No wonder jaywalking is rife.

bazz26

Anyone remember when dashcam videos used to be posted in this thread?

Anyway here we go:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bakVhl1VfQE

You might want to put it on mute though as Ozzy Man's British cousin gives too much live commentary.

AndyBoBandy

bazz26 wrote: »

You might want to put it on mute though as Ozzy Man's British cousin gives too much live commentary.

I only saw this bit of your post after 2 minutes when I stopped watching the video because that guy is about as annoying as itchy balls.....

...and even knowing now what I know, I'm still not going back to watch the rest of it.

Isambard

bazz26 wrote: »

Anyone remember when dashcam videos used to be posted in this thread?

Anyway here we go:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bakVhl1VfQE

You might want to put it on mute though as Ozzy Man's British cousin gives too much live commentary.

like watching paint dry.

fritzelly

Really boring stuff anyway - wasted 10 mins on that

[Deleted User]

fritzelly wrote: »

Really boring stuff anyway - wasted 10 mins on that

I quit after about two minutes....

liamog

around the 7:10 mark, can't tell but looks to me like the car on the right was merging in turn and it was the Mini trying to block the lane

DaveyDave

You see a lot of the of the same stuff on the Aussie channel but it's always interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS70cpQbzIw

bladespin

Wonder how that happened???

AndyBoBandy

bladespin wrote: »

Wonder how that happened???

I’ll tell you exactly what happened;

Someone driving along at 95 in a 100 km/h zone saw the speed camera van ahead so dropped the anchor, and the Tesco truck was was following too close behind had no chance to slow down and ran into the back of the car..

A nice €25,000 settlement for the car driver because of whiplash should suffice. Or are the judges now awarding more appropriate settlements yet?