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

eeeee · 11-11-2019 10:23pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If it's any help, Dublin Cycling Campaign have a 'Buddy' programme to let you cycle with an experienced cyclist for a while, if that would help you to gain confidence.

How do you become a buddy? Sounds like a great idea. Might be a nice thing to do do for a person on a day off, as I work part-time.

AndrewJRenko · 11-11-2019 10:42pm

eeeee wrote: »

How do you become a buddy? Sounds like a great idea. Might be a nice thing to do do for a person on a day off, as I work part-time.

Don't know, to be honest - contact them via Facebook or Twitter for more details. Sign up as a member would be a good first step.

micar · 12-11-2019 8:09am

New law 6 and half hours old and had dangerous overtake by a muppet in a Merc bombing it downhill in a bus lane using it as an undertaking lane giving me about a foot of space.

tnegun · 12-11-2019 8:34am

Same some ahole in a bus lane this am going at least 70k with inches to spare past me, minutes before I got abuse from a motorbike in the same bus lane beeping and pointing to a bike lane full of leaves and obstructions

buffalo · 12-11-2019 8:43am

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I've thought about doing this more when on foot than on the bike for some reason - but just grabbing the phone out of their hand and throwing it into the back seat of their own car.

You need to work on your imagination. I've smashed drivers' phones, emptied my water bottle in their laps, taken their keys from the ignition and thrown them in the ditch, leapt headfirst through their open window to wrestle them while the car is still moving...

magicbastarder · 12-11-2019 9:10am

saw a chap take a tumble this morning, a bit of a prat fall, he hit the brakes while cycling on wet leaves on the footpath on grace park road and the bike went from under him. he claimed he was fine anyway.

more interestingly, i saw what could have been an expensive day for a chap driving a BMW who passed me on leopardstown road - i was headed for leopardstown, away from the N11, approaching the entrance to a housing estate. he'd obviously pulled out to pass me, but as he was pulling back in i thought 'jesus he's going a bit fast and late making that turn into the housing estate'; as he didn't straighten out but kept pulling back in, and i guess had technically entered the side road. seemingly at the last second, he swerved to pull back out into lane, and clipped the kerb roughly alongside where the 'cycle lane starts' sign is here:

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.276367,-6.187977,3a,75y,212.87h,73.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7KIP_ALh_GoqdG6_k2L7kA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

i suspect with another tenth of a second of inattention from him, he'd have destroyed his front wheel on the kerb.

Kander · 12-11-2019 10:48am

fryup wrote: »

how in the name of flying fuk are the gaurds suppose to police this???

unless there's clear bike-cam footage, its going to boil down to his word against mine 99% of the time

its ludicrous legislation (imo)

Get a bike-cam then. They are not expensive anymore and are easy to use.

I posted this awhile back but the camera cost 30-35 euro on amazon along with the casing and mounts: https://streamable.com/yrzh5

droidus · 12-11-2019 11:28am

Kander wrote: »

I posted this awhile back but the camera cost 30-35 euro on amazon along with the casing and mounts: https://streamable.com/yrzh5

Link?

Kander · 12-11-2019 11:42am

droidus wrote: »

Link?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Campark-X25-Waterproof-Rechargeable-Accessories/dp/B07W7JB6M8?ref_=Oct_DotdC_2rmfmv7_2_479430dd&pf_rd_p=553b8fba-18f5-5e79-94ab-2d6124ca341f&pf_rd_s=merchandised-search-5&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_i=3077037031&pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_r=R7DMXMFV6DZ84A6DSEFX&pf_rd_r=R7DMXMFV6DZ84A6DSEFX&pf_rd_p=553b8fba-18f5-5e79-94ab-2d6124ca341f

I got it on sale similar to what it is at now.

creedp · 12-11-2019 3:11pm

fryup wrote: »

how in the name of flying fuk are the gaurds suppose to police this???

unless there's clear bike-cam footage, its going to boil down to his word against mine 99% of the time

its ludicrous legislation (imo)

Does it only apply to motorist or can dash cam footage of a cyclist passing close by a car be used to gain a prosecution against a cyclist? Just sitting close by a junction in Dublin city centre and watching muppetry unfolding. To date all cyclist related muppetry. A woman cycled straight through a red light then across a junction into the oncoming lane and the took a right with no visibility of traffic potentially coming against her. Luckily no oncoming traffic or else they would be charged with passing too close to her as they drove over her. When you actually observe what going on around you the amount of cyclists putting their life at risk by breaking red lights is alarming

Stark · 12-11-2019 3:15pm

Thank you for sharing that story of that woman with us. Without it, we would have never known that not all laws are ubiquitously obeyed by all people at all times.

magicbastarder · 12-11-2019 3:20pm

creedp wrote: »

Does it only apply to motorist or can dash cam footage of a cyclist passing close by a car be used to gain a prosecution against a cyclist?

uh, why would that be an issue? the car is overwhelmingly heavier than the bike, i can explain the basic physics involved if it helps you understand.

creedp · 12-11-2019 3:33pm

Stark wrote: »

Thank you for sharing that story of that woman with us. Without it, we would have never known that not all laws are ubiquitously obeyed by all people at all times.

You are welcome.

creedp · 12-11-2019 3:40pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

uh, why would that be an issue? the car is overwhelmingly heavier than the bike, i can explain the basic physics involved if it helps you understand.

No its OK I understand the position outlined. So presumably if a cyclist moves towards a car the motorist must take evasive action in order to stay within the law. A potential for a moral hazard issue here but for me I'd prefer to cycle safely and have due regard to other road users around me. Obviously there are some real muppet motorists out there and these need to be dealt with but equally some cyclists would want to cop on as well

xckjoo · 12-11-2019 3:49pm

creedp wrote: »

No its OK I understand the position outlined. So presumably if a cyclist moves towards a car the motorist must take evasive action in order to stay within the law. A potential for a moral hazard issue here but for me I'd prefer to cycle safely and have due regard to other road users around me. Obviously there are some real muppet motorists out there and these need to be dealt with but equally some cyclists would want to cop on as well

What in the name of God makes you jump to that conclusion

magicbastarder · 12-11-2019 3:54pm

creedp wrote: »

a cyclist moves towards a car the motorist must take evasive action in order to stay within the law

the law is not 'motorists cannot find themselves within 1.5m of a bicycle'.
the law is specific to a situation of a motorist overtaking a cyclist, whether it is done safely or not. there's no specific distance mentioned i the law, and a cyclist behaving dangerously or erratically would not be a reflection on the motorist.

plodder · 12-11-2019 4:04pm

fryup wrote: »

how in the name of flying fuk are the gaurds suppose to police this???

unless there's clear bike-cam footage, its going to boil down to his word against mine 99% of the time

its ludicrous legislation (imo)

Dangerous overtaking has always been an offence. Why is this suddenly a problem now?

Chips Lovell · 12-11-2019 4:56pm

Amended law states:

4. Article 10 (as amended by the Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2012 ( S.I. No. 332 of 2012 )) of the Principal Regulations is amended by the substitution of the following for paragraph (1):

“(1) (a) A driver shall not overtake or attempt to overtake if to do so would endanger or cause inconvenience to a pedal cyclist.

(b) A driver shall not overtake or attempt to overtake if to do so would endanger or cause inconvenience to a person other than a pedal cyclist.”.

As far as I can see, under the law there is nothing to prohibit a cyclist being prosecuted for dangerously overtaking another cyclist under (a) or dangerously overtaking any other vehicle under (b).

Kander · 12-11-2019 5:47pm

creedp wrote: »

No its OK I understand the position outlined. So presumably if a cyclist moves towards a car the motorist must take evasive action in order to stay within the law. A potential for a moral hazard issue here but for me I'd prefer to cycle safely and have due regard to other road users around me. Obviously there are some real muppet motorists out there and these need to be dealt with but equally some cyclists would want to cop on as well

Muppets and idiots everywhere. However it's the muppets and idiots driving dangerously that cause the most damage.

Pinch Flat · 12-11-2019 5:48pm

plodder wrote: »

Dangerous overtaking has always been an offence. Why is this suddenly a problem now?

Open to correction, but as far as I know the new law has moved from careless driving (on the statute books) to dangerous driving - a more serious offence. Can anyone confirm?

ED E · 12-11-2019 6:37pm

Before:

Dangerous Overtaking - Sec 35
+
Inconsiderate Driving 51
Careless Driving 52
Dangerous Driving 53

After:

Dangerous Overtaking - Sec 35
- Bigger fine if the overtaken is a cycle

+
Inconsiderate Driving 51
Careless Driving 52
Dangerous Driving 53

All he did was add €40 to a FCPN. Its pissing in the wind. Shame Skelton is singing his praise like he's cycling jesus.

ED E · 12-11-2019 6:38pm

Gardai were already bypassing Sec 35 for 51-53 anyways so in cases worth chasing with them this will probably not be at all useful.

CramCycle · 12-11-2019 7:18pm

The benefit now is that it is out there, the hope would be some drivers would second guess a bad overtake. Considering there is almost no enforcement of the overtaking rule before this, this might put it in a Gardas mind that not making contact doesn't mean it wasn't illegal, which was the excuse always given at the station, no contact = no danger was what many of them believed.

creedp · 12-11-2019 10:38pm

Kander wrote: »

Muppets and idiots everywhere. However it's the muppets and idiots driving dangerously that cause the most damage.

Again that fact is irrefutable. However I've lost count if the times I am driving in heavy urban traffic and indicating left well in advance of a junction only to have to hit the brakes to allow a cyclist to undertake me at just as I'm turning left. All I get for my consideration is at best a fist shaken at me with verbals but can also get a fist against the car window as the muppet squeezes past. Now could I be considered to be dangerously overtaking a vulnerable cyclist or is the cyclist dangerously undertaking me?

As I both cycle and drive I can see both sides and all I am doing is calling out muppetry on both sides because no matter who is at fault for an accident the cyclist will come off worst

Salary Negotiator · 12-11-2019 10:41pm

creedp wrote: »

Again that fact is irrefutable. However I've lost count if the times I am driving in heavy urban traffic and indicating left well in advance of a junction only to have to hit the brakes to allow a cyclist to undertake me at just as I'm turning left. All I get for my consideration is at best a fist shaken at me with verbals but can also get a fist against the car window as the muppet squeezes past. Now could I be considered to be dangerously overtaking a vulnerable cyclist or is the cyclist dangerously undertaking me?

As I both cycle and drive I can see both sides and all I am doing is calling out muppetry on both sides because no matter who is at fault for an accident the cyclist will come off worst

You’re overthinking it and just looking for something to complain about.

Breezer · 12-11-2019 11:45pm

creedp wrote: »

Again that fact is irrefutable. However I've lost count if the times I am driving in heavy urban traffic and indicating left well in advance of a junction only to have to hit the brakes to allow a cyclist to undertake me at just as I'm turning left. All I get for my consideration is at best a fist shaken at me with verbals but can also get a fist against the car window as the muppet squeezes past. Now could I be considered to be dangerously overtaking a vulnerable cyclist or is the cyclist dangerously undertaking me?

If the cyclist is coming from behind you, you're not overtaking anyone. If you've indicated, they are in the wrong in this situation. Of course, you have a responsibility to avoid an accident regardless, but that's not what this law is about.

When driving, you don't skim past other cars with inches to spare, at speed. You shouldn't do that to cyclists either, even prior to this law. All this law is doing is highlighting that doing so to a cyclist is more likely to result in injury because they're a more vulnerable road user, and increasing the penalty accordingly.

Roberto_gas · 13-11-2019 7:37am

https://jrnl.ie/4887875

Cabaal · 13-11-2019 8:39am

Roberto_gas wrote: »

https://jrnl.ie/4887875

There's just no point reading the comments section,

Many motorists (and I drive far more then I cycle these days) just feel like the world is out to get them when no matter what.

Stark · 13-11-2019 9:42am

Coupled with the sense that people are entitled to drive no matter how competent they are or their behaviour record. You should see the amount of bleating and whinging when it's suggested it's not okay to drive unaccompanied for decades on a learner permit for example.

Pinch Flat · 13-11-2019 10:41am

Stark wrote: »

Coupled with the sense that people are entitled to drive no matter how competent they are or their behaviour record. You should see the amount of bleating and whinging when it's suggested it's not okay to drive unaccompanied for decades on a learner permit for example.

yeah it;s weird. Driving on a provisional is almost excusable "sure what else are you meant to do", yet people bleating on about licences for cyclists, the vast majority of which are licensed drivers

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

Comments