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

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

CramCycle

Same rule as the old thread…

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

magicbastarder

jeremy vine occasionally posts some corkers, but this sort of this is/was common along strand road when i was commuting. i've wondered if it's still policy to use these little islands on narrow roads.

https://twitter.com/theJeremyVine/status/1398579607490772995

Seth Brundle

One of the kids from the movie "School of Rock" was killed by a driver whilst cycling in Chicago
It reads...

'School of Rock' star Kevin Clark dies at 32, per @TMZ
A motorist crashed into him while he was cycling in Chicago

magicbastarder

that's not loading for me. but i think twitter itself is having a slight panic attack.

Seth Brundle

RIP.
Watched this movie with my daughter a few weeks ago...

https://twitter.com/getFANDOM/status/1397659467416629248

Duckjob

CramCycle wrote: »

Doesn't look as bad in the video but the driver merged in on me, phone in hand, child in the back seat who I'd say I scared the sh1t out of. Sorry for the language.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYKGIamh3tQ

The dog joining in made the video. Not sure whether he was agreeing or disagreeing with you though, I think he might have been barking something about road tax.

buffalo

VonLuck wrote: »

So you can park in a non-mandatory cycle track, but maintain a duty of care and do not obstruct a cycle track. Also if there is no information plate you cannot park at all.

Clear as mud.

This was annoying me, so I went digging last night...

SI 332/2012:

36. (1) Save as otherwise provided for in these Regulations and subject to article 5 a vehicle shall not be parked on a public road at a location, in a manner or for a purpose, referred to in sub-article (2).

(2) A vehicle shall not be parked—

(m) in a cycle track where traffic sign number RUS 009, RUS 058 or RUS 059 is provided, or

Those signs are respectively, cycle track, shared path/cycle track and contra-flow cycle track. So no parking in those tracks.

Article 5 (of 274/1998) makes an exception though:

(5) A prohibition on the parking of a vehicle imposed by article 36 (2) (m) shall not apply to a vehicle parked in a cycle track, on the right hand edge of which traffic sign number RRM 023 has been provided, while goods are being loaded in or on to it or unloaded from it for a period not exceeding thirty minutes from the commencement of such parking.

RRM 023 is the line marking for a non-mandatory lane. (RRM 022 is the line marking for a mandatory lane.)

So, if a cycle track has a sign, you're not allowed park in it - no distinction between mandatory and non-mandatory, what matters if there's round blue sign (RUS 009, RUS 058) or a contra-flow sign (RUS 059).

However, if the cycle track is marked with non-mandatory line markings (RRM 023), that restriction doesn't apply to parking while loading/unloading for up to thirty minutes. I can't see a restriction on the type of vehicle.

I am not a lawyer and the Road Traffic Acts are a mess in general and desperately need to be amalgamated into one coherent Act, but that's my reading of it.

edit: posted in legislation thread - https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=117280124&postcount=273

Wishbone Ash

buffalo wrote: »

...I'm not sure how you reconcile "park in a non-mandatory cycle track" with "do not obstruct a cycle track", but anyway.

It means that you must not obstruct the cycle track EXCEPT where you have to load/unload and have no other viable option.

(AFAIK a vehicle loading/unloading must be taxed commercially - i.e. loading your shopping from a supermarket is not permitted).

cletus

This bike lane is right before the entrance to my work. There's always heavy traffic in the morning, as the entrance covers 3 different schools. Slow moving/stop start traffic means there's nearly always someone parked across the "straight ahead" cycle lane.

buffalo

VonLuck wrote: »

So I guess I have no right (from a legal sense) to be annoyed if a car is driving or parked in a cycle lane with dashed markings?

I went looking for the SI last night but couldn't find it. Driving in non-mandatory track is definitely allowed. As for parking, the ROTR says:

No driver may park a vehicle in a mandatory cycle track.

A driver may park in a non-mandatory cycle track for up to 30 minutes, but only
if they are loading or unloading their vehicle and there is no alternative parking
available. Remember the basic duty of care and do not obstruct a cycle track.

If a driver parks their vehicle in a cycle track that operates for only some of the
day (shown on an information plate under the cycle track sign), they must move
the vehicle by the time the next operating period starts.

If there is no information plate, it means the cycle track operates all the time
and no parking is allowed.

I'm not sure how you reconcile "park in a non-mandatory cycle track" with "do not obstruct a cycle track", but anyway.

Seth Brundle

VonLuck wrote: »

So I guess I have no right (from a legal sense) to be annoyed if a car is driving or parked in a cycle lane with dashed markings?

Unless there are signs indicating that the driver should not be doing that, I'd say you've nothing to be annoyed about.
In many cases, it's drivers just being lazy. In others, it's poor road design and/or road limitations.

magicbastarder

it depends; some of the dashed cycle lanes actually share space with car lanes, so a car could not physically drive in the car lane without occupying the cycle lane too.
but in general, i think they should only cross into the cycle lane when they're actually *crossing* the cycle lane.

Breezer

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Not really surprising in my opinion. The vast majority of drivers have no understanding of the laws when it comes to cycling whether it is helmets and high-viz, cycle lanes or even dangerous overtakes.

The particular scenario described would benefit more from an understanding of the laws of physics, which in the eyes of some drivers are trumped by the law of the jungle.

Seth Brundle

elchupanebrey wrote: »

A lot of the "cycle lanes" around where I live have a solid line and also have cars parked blocking them and half the footpath. I remember getting beeped by a guy in a truck one day and him pointing at me to get into the cycle lane. He just drove off when I pointed out the 3 or 4 cars parked in the lane 100m ahead:rolleyes:

Not really surprising in my opinion. The vast majority of drivers have no understanding of the laws when it comes to cycling whether it is helmets and high-viz, cycle lanes or even dangerous overtakes.

Seth Brundle

The only cycle lanes that are mandatory for cyclists to use are Contra Flow Cycle Lanes
Article 14 of the Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2012

Don't currently have the other legislation details at hand.

Seth Brundle

Cars cannot cross the solid white lines - these indicate a "mandatory cycle lane" which mean it is mandatory for cars not to enter (stupid naming!).
As for dashed markings, these really mean nothing.

Chips Lovell

Mod Note

Troll banned

5uspect

I live in Lucan and we do the school run in a cargo bike. Don’t start me on idiots overtaking as we approach red lights.

Idleater

5uspect wrote: »

Those returning to the roads are angrier and more impatient. More people are out walking than ever still they’re in greater danger than ever.

Interestingly, no near miss so technically off topic but there is a new (maybe a year - i don't actually remember) 30kmph speed limit in Lucan village. One of the perimeter signs was added to the top of the hill (as opposed to near the school a bit further down where it has been 30 for a number of years). The signs at the school have the "your speed" displays too where my record :rolleyes: is seeing 71.
Anyway today while driving down I was passed by 2 cars who had to stop after 100m tops, i was not on the bike so was on the brakes in the car 30kmph on all displays. I can only pressure I'm the subject of a "forced me to overtake" near miss thread somewhere.

5uspect

I’m not a Lycra clad weekend racer. I commute to work on my bike and I, like the majority of people I encounter along my route, stop at lights and respect the rules of the road. The folks who tend to post here would be of a similar mindset.

This behaviour is of course unacceptable. Sometimes I’ll call out a cyclist for running a red light, I usually pass them out later anyway because I’m on an ebike these days. They just don’t care. The same applies to cyclists without lights in the depths of winter.

The problem is an attitude of impatience, aggression and selfishness on our roads. It doesn’t matter if you’re on a bike, driving a car or a truck. People drive too fast. People don’t stop at red lights. People park their cars up on footpaths, they’ll just be a minute don’t you know?

Why is this? Because people are universally selfish jerks. It’s human nature. There’s been a climate of zero enforcement of any kind of road traffic laws in Ireland and this has festered to the degree where there is no fear whatsoever for the consequences of our actions on the road. Kill someone with your car and you’ll get off scot free.
Bring the Gardai 4K60 360 degree footage of appalling driving and they’ll threaten you and fob you off. The Gardai have a lot to answer for here, they’ve utterly abandoned their duties.

I feel that things are about to boil over. We’ve seen two children killed in as many weeks. My work meant that I was frequently travelling during the lockdowns and the empty roads were treated as racetracks by motorists. Those returning to the roads are angrier and more impatient. More people are out walking than ever still they’re in greater danger than ever. What will it take for action to be taken?

buffalo

Late yesterday morning, Leixlip village, waiting to cross the road at the pedestrian lights at Aldi. Lights go red for road traffic, driver coming down the hill from my right comes to a stop at the line.

I'm about to step out into the road, carrying my son, when I catch some movement out of the corner of my eye. Some eejit of a road cyclist coming down the hill is coming through on the inside of the car. There's not much room, so he has to do a little shimmy to get his handlebars around the wing mirror. He doesn't let that deter him though, and barrels through the red light without hesitation.

As I then take one step out, he's followed by a small group in a mishmash of lycra who come to what I would describe as a sheepish stop. I have a feeling my death stares while standing in the road may have reinforced the red light.

In hindsight, I should have said it to them at the time, but on the off chance any of you are on the forum, tell your mate/yourself to cop on. I get it, it's a lovely hill for descending and a shame to have to come to a full stop at the bottom, but that's no excuse to be an arsehole.

Stark

Driving instructor completely in the wrong there. I've been in that situation driving before coming up on a cyclist. For sure, the courteous thing for the van driver to do would be to observe ahead, hold back and allow space for the person coming up behind the cyclist to overtake easily. But given most drivers won't extend that courtesy, it's the responsibility of the instructor to make sure he or his student slows well down as soon as they see the cyclist ahead to either give themselves extra time to find a gap to overtake or slow down to the cyclist's speed if necessary until it was safe to do so. From the video above it looks like he put his put to the floor pretty much. Even if he had slowed a little, the van driver would have passed him quickly and he'd be able to overtake safely. Pig ignorant driving overall.

Seth Brundle

CramCycle wrote: »

I could be wrong but the van driver was mid overtake of the car and done nothing wrong. The car was not attempting an overtake (unless I missed the indicator), if he was, he did not look rear ward and then the car speeds up to match.

- Dangerous overtaking
- Failure to leave appropriate distance between you and the vehicle in front
- Failure to yield
- Driving without reasonable consideration
- Driver found to be driving carelessly
- Dangerous overtaking of a cyclist

Poor learner (if he even exists) will have lost his license before he even gets it.

The driving school instructor was absolutely and completely in the wrong. Even if a student was driving*, the instructor is in charge ultimately so they're still in the wrong.
The driving was apalling for someone whose role it is to educate others. They know this which is why they point the finger at everyone else on the road except themselves.
I sincerely hope that the RSA remove them from the list of ADIs.

* from other tweets, I think there might have only been one person in the car!

Stark

Wildly Boaring wrote: »

Thought of this thread
THE SPACE WE HAVE GIVEN TO CARS
...

This is also pretty great

https://twitter.com/Kjoen2u/status/1279324842593062912

hesker

Wildly Boaring wrote: »

By the way the worst bit of his response is not the typical "roads are for cars bit"

But this bit......."assuming that i would ever allow to overtake a cyclist when it is not safe and without appropriate distance"

BUT YOU ****ING DID!!!!

That car should have been out into lane 2 when appropriate or slow to the cyclists speed behind the cyclist. Any other maneuver is unsafe

I wouldn’t cycle it either due to the lunatic driving. Used to regularly see a Garda car at that spot in the past but not so much recent years.

Agree learner should have been over in other lane or braked. However if he was in the other lane I wouldn’t be surprised to see the van undertake him with bad consequences

hesker

I know that road very well.

Complete fail on the instructor’s part. Failed to read the road ahead, failed to anticipate, failed to brake.

People treat that hill like it’s an airport runway. Rushing to beat the car beside them to the merge point at the top.

buffalo

Eamonnator wrote: »

^^^^^^^
Any hint of an apology?

The first half was promising... "we were about to do everything right (apart from realising there was a big bad van coming), but my inexperienced student panicked and I avoided something worse happening".

I'd expect "very sorry that it happened, and I'll try make sure it doesn't happen again", but instead we get "cyclists should be banned from some roads because drivers". I assume the appropriately named Cars Hill will be the first on the list! :pac:

Seth Brundle

When he responds with something to the effect of "the cyclist shouldn't have been there and they were lucky I just managed to avoid them", I don't think they are ready to apologise

Seth Brundle

Cork Twitter user RightToBikeIt had this close pass from a driving school trainer recently...

https://twitter.com/righttobikeit/status/1394629072983035906

Apparently the RSA took an interest in the incident.

The driving school owner sent this response which leaves me feeling somewhat lost for words...

E12o-ZWXIAAChj4?format=jpg

Dr_Colossus

Garzard wrote: »

Clapped out BMW flew up behind, ran parallel to within a couple of inches and knocked me sideways with his left wing mirror I'd say at 30kph.

Didn't manage to recall the full reg. of the vehicle unfortunately, and got blocked from the Cartell site for too many searches when I think I was close to finding it :confused.

Try the ncts.ie website also, have used that a few times to confirm the reg and also helps to check if NCT is in date, guards are more likely to pursue if details are out of date so I usually make a habit of checking paper work rather than engaging with driver if I catch up to them.

In your case however I don't know if I'd have your composure especially to the unapologetic driver and I'd fear I'd have removed the wing mirror.

Stark

The worst driving I've ever experienced from people was during Lockdown I. Without other cars in the way to slow people down, people just went nuts.