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

12357334

Comments

  • Moderators, Music Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,717 Mod ✭✭✭✭Boom_Bap


    To be fair, there is a yeild sign on the cycle lane there so the cyclist shouldn't be whipping accross it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 919 ✭✭✭Danjamin1


    You're right actually, I hadn't noticed the yield sign on the lane. I tend not to use the lane on this route as it goes across people's driveways & you don't have right of way at the junctions, the road's safer in my opinion.


  • Moderators, Music Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,717 Mod ✭✭✭✭Boom_Bap


    Totally agree, sometimes the road is the better option.


  • Registered Users Posts: 935 ✭✭✭Roadhawk


    Danjamin1 wrote: »
    You're right actually, I hadn't noticed the yield sign on the lane. I tend not to use the lane on this route as it goes across people's driveways & you don't have right of way at the junctions, the road's safer in my opinion.

    A lot of people dont notice these yield signs but even if they did would it make a difference? I would be more inclined to think not.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,006 ✭✭✭Moflojo


    Danjamin1 wrote: »
    Saw a fella nearly get wiped out going across this cycle lane this morning, it's the main reason I don't use that lane myself, drivers aren't expecting a bike to come across their path as they approach the junction. Far safer to stick to the road along this route in my opinion.

    The raised cycle path says "There was an attempt" but the wide sweeping curve says "Feel free to take this turn at speed".

    Bad infrastructure results in bad outcomes, especially for the most vulnerable road users. The radius of that corner kerb should be around 50cm, but it's more like 10 metres and thus promotes cornering at speed.

    412906.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 919 ✭✭✭Danjamin1


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    A lot of people dont notice these yield signs but even if they did would it make a difference? I would be more inclined to think not.

    Common sense should prevail on both parts, personally I'd never approach such a junction either by bike or by car at speed and would be prepared to stop. The problem this morning was that the cyclist had already passed the yield marking and was crossing the junction when the car approached at speed without taking the cycle lane in to account. Both parties should ideally have been more cautious.


  • Registered Users Posts: 638 ✭✭✭LpPepper


    Danjamin1 wrote: »
    Saw a fella nearly get wiped out going across this cycle lane this morning, it's the main reason I don't use that lane myself, drivers aren't expecting a bike to come across their path as they approach the junction. Far safer to stick to the road along this route in my opinion.

    That cycle lane is dangerous going both directions. As you said you go across driveways etc, bad surface and you must be prepared to stop at every single junction. Safer and better on the road, only problem is some motorists seem to have an issue with it...


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,761 ✭✭✭Pinch Flat


    Danjamin1 wrote: »
    Saw a fella nearly get wiped out going across this cycle lane this morning, it's the main reason I don't use that lane myself, drivers aren't expecting a bike to come across their path as they approach the junction. Far safer to stick to the road along this route in my opinion.

    This is where the law and / or perception needs to be changed, IMHO, to give right of way to cyclists. The phoenix park has similar situations - realise they might be slightly different (by lws etc) but the principal is still the same.

    I lived in German for a while and you'd come across these situations quote often - some cycle lanes I used crossed the slip roads of the A5, one of the main autobahns going from north to south. You'd be given right of way 100% of the time, never an issue.

    https://goo.gl/maps/JynyegE87rt


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,208 ✭✭✭HivemindXX


    Danjamin1 wrote: »
    Common sense should prevail on both parts, personally I'd never approach such a junction either by bike or by car at speed and would be prepared to stop. The problem this morning was that the cyclist had already passed the yield marking and was crossing the junction when the car approached at speed without taking the cycle lane in to account. Both parties should ideally have been more cautious.

    I assume the driver was approaching from behind the cyclist and then turned left across their path? This sort of thing is the primary reason I detest so many cycle lanes in Dublin.

    So you have to yield, which is annoying enough since if you were on the road you wouldn't, but it's hard to tell if cars approaching from behind are planning to turn or not. It can be very hard to see if an indicator is lit when looking behind especially if there are multiple cars, and as everyone should know, indicator usage is very far from universal.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭I love Sean nos


    Moflojo wrote: »
    The raised cycle path says "There was an attempt" but the wide sweeping curve says "Feel free to take this turn at speed".

    Bad infrastructure results in bad outcomes, especially for the most vulnerable road users. The radius of that corner kerb should be around 50cm, but it's more like 10 metres and thus promotes cornering at speed.

    412906.jpg
    I'm getting conflicting signals from that junction. On a bike, you have a yield sign painted on, yet a raised crossing that suggests priority. On the road, the curve radius encourages speed, yet again the raised crossing suggests to yield.

    Is there not a design manual that should be followed for these things?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,006 ✭✭✭Moflojo


    I'm getting conflicting signals from that junction. On a bike, you have a yield sign painted on, yet a raised crossing that suggests priority. On the road, the curve radius encourages speed, yet again the raised crossing suggests to yield.

    Is there not a design manual that should be followed for these things?

    Yes there is, the Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets (DMURS). http://www.dttas.ie/corporate/publications/english/design-manual-urban-roads-and-streets


  • Registered Users Posts: 919 ✭✭✭Danjamin1


    HivemindXX wrote: »
    I assume the driver was approaching from behind the cyclist and then turned left across their path? This sort of thing is the primary reason I detest so many cycle lanes in Dublin.

    So you have to yield, which is annoying enough since if you were on the road you wouldn't, but it's hard to tell if cars approaching from behind are planning to turn or not. It can be very hard to see if an indicator is lit when looking behind especially if there are multiple cars, and as everyone should know, indicator usage is very far from universal.

    Nope, the car was approaching the junction from the side road to turn left joining the main road, so they were approaching perpendicular to the cyclist, as a result the cyclist was millimeters from being T-boned.


  • Registered Users Posts: 935 ✭✭✭Roadhawk


    Danjamin1 wrote: »
    Common sense should prevail on both parts, personally I'd never approach such a junction either by bike or by car at speed and would be prepared to stop. The problem this morning was that the cyclist had already passed the yield marking and was crossing the junction when the car approached at speed without taking the cycle lane in to account. Both parties should ideally have been more cautious.

    I agree, both sense and caution should displayed from both road users. You have to put yourself in their shoes...If you were on a bike crossing there, the only thing you need to do is have a little look over the shoulder. If all is clear then plough on...if not then stop/slow. If you were a car turning in you would check you mirrors, signal then turn. You would not expect people (bike or pedestrian) to fly out across the road in front of you but you should be ready for either way.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    Danjamin1 wrote: »
    Nope, the car was approaching the junction from the side road to turn left joining the main road, so they were approaching perpendicular to the cyclist, as a result the cyclist was millimeters from being T-boned.

    Well then surely the motorist was 100% at fault? If the cyclist has started to cross the road then he/she has right of way, no?


  • Registered Users Posts: 935 ✭✭✭Roadhawk


    Danjamin1 wrote: »
    Nope, the car was approaching the junction from the side road to turn left joining the main road, so they were approaching perpendicular to the cyclist, as a result the cyclist was millimeters from being T-boned.

    In the pic above, was the cyclist travel from right to left or left to right?

    I presume it was right to left...either way it not as if the car could have been traveling at any significant speed that would contribute to an incident. The cyclist could/should have seen the car and yielded.


  • Registered Users Posts: 935 ✭✭✭Roadhawk


    amcalester wrote: »
    Well then surely the motorist was 100% at fault? If the cyclist has started to cross the road then he/she has right of way, no?

    Aw if only there was a laughing hysterically crying emoji for this comment...

    How would the motorist have been at fault if there was a collision here?


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,200 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    I agree, both sense and caution should displayed from both road users. You have to put yourself in their shoes...If you were on a bike crossing there, the only thing you need to do is have a little look over the shoulder. If all is clear then plough on...if not then stop/slow. If you were a car turning in you would check you mirrors, signal then turn. You would not expect people (bike or pedestrian) to fly out across the road in front of you but you should be ready for either way.

    This is exactly why cycling on the road is better/safer (in this case). even then, many motorists when turning left will "left hook" cyclists. As you say people should "expect the unexpected" when on the roads.


  • Registered Users Posts: 919 ✭✭✭Danjamin1


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    In the pic above, was the cyclist travel from right to left or left to right?

    I presume it was right to left...either way it not as if the car could have been traveling at any significant speed that would contribute to an incident. The cyclist could/should have seen the car and yielded.

    The cyclist was travelling left to right.

    I totally disagree with you on this, the car was 100% at fault as by the time the car reached the point where the lane meets the cycle lane the cyclist was directly in front of the bonnet. The driver was going too fast (thankfully not too fast to stop in time) but the cyclist was already half way through the crossing so the car should have yielded. I wasn't on the cycle lane so I don't know what visibility the cyclist had of the car approaching the junction but given the speed the car approached at I wouldn't be surprised if the way had looked clear as the cyclist approached.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    Aw if only there was a laughing hysterically crying emoji for this comment...

    How would the motorist have been at fault if there was a collision here?

    Failing to yield to traffic on his right for starters.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,339 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    The yield signs are horrendously placed and show again my issue with segregated cycle lanes. There are similar ones on the churchtown road only the Yield sign is for the motorist, but most motorists think it is for the main road and not the cycle path.
    If the cyclists slowed, looked and the proceeded when apparently clear, I am unsure what they could have done wrong. The motorist at the time the cyclist passed the yield sign would have been on a different road and certainly should have been going slow enough to stop as it is not as if the cyclist was invisible.
    The corner is far to wide and does promote speeding, you could argue that nothing promotes it, it is just what some people do, but lets not BS, it promotes taking the corner at speed.
    Imagine that cycle path was a parallel lane way, the car slowed, seen the road was clear and proceeded. Then the other car its it side on, who would be at fault here. I suppose the problem with my example is, if it were a car, it would have been noticed and they would have designed the junction better.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭Chuchote


    It would be worth putting in a report under "Street Furniture" here, explaining that it's dangerous and subject to misinterpretation.

    http://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-services-roads-and-traffic-road-maintenance-and-street-repair/repair-road-or-footpath


  • Registered Users Posts: 24 arse_jackeen


    I cycle that route every day and do not use the cycle lanes on either side. As well as the reasons above they are in poor condition.


  • Registered Users Posts: 935 ✭✭✭Roadhawk


    Danjamin1 wrote: »
    The cyclist was travelling left to right.

    I totally disagree with you on this, the car was 100% at fault as by the time the car reached the point where the lane meets the cycle lane the cyclist was directly in front of the bonnet. The driver was going too fast (thankfully not too fast to stop in time) but the cyclist was already half way through the crossing so the car should have yielded. I wasn't on the cycle lane so I don't know what visibility the cyclist had of the car approaching the junction but given the speed the car approached at I wouldn't be surprised if the way had looked clear as the cyclist approached.

    I have to question the whole speeding thing because you make it sound like the Parabolica at Monza...how fast can a car really be traveling when approaching a speed ramp immediately before turning 90 degrees onto a main road? I would guestimate at 20km-30km at a push.

    If there is no visibility for the cyclist when they have to yield then the first thing that they should have done was to slow down, then read the junction and proceed when clear. That is what yielding is. This is not an awkward junction with blind spots, its one straight road meeting another at a "T" junction.

    If you were to change it up a bit and presume the same scenario except change the bicycle to a car...then the car failing to yield and cross the path of oncoming traffic is at fault...no question about it. I dont know why it changes when on a bicycle? :confused:


  • Registered Users Posts: 919 ✭✭✭Danjamin1


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    I have to question the whole speeding thing because you make it sound like the Parabolica at Monza...how fast can a car really be traveling when approaching a speed ramp immediately before turning 90 degrees onto a main road? I would guestimate at 20km-30km at a push.

    If there is no visibility for the cyclist when they have to yield then the first thing that they should have done was to slow down, then read the junction and proceed when clear. That is what yielding is. This is not an awkward junction with blind spots, its one straight road meeting another at a "T" junction.

    If you were to change it up a bit and presume the same scenario except change the bicycle to a car...then the car failing to yield and cross the path of oncoming traffic is at fault...no question about it. I dont know why it changes when on a bicycle? :confused:

    Are you serious? 20-30km/h is nothing on a motorway but it's too fast to approach both a junction and an intersecting lane. I'm only giving my opinion on the situation that I witnessed which put the driver more at fault. I already agreed the cyclist could have been more observant.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,254 ✭✭✭Chiparus


    Moflojo wrote: »
    Yes there is, the Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets (DMURS). http://www.dttas.ie/corporate/publications/english/design-manual-urban-roads-and-streets

    South county Dublin seem to ignore it, just look at the new Bird Avenue scheme.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,942 ✭✭✭Danbo!


    I too cycle the above road in both directions. In 11 years I've never once used the cycle track - it's sh*te, covered in bins on bin day, and yielding at every junction is a joke. There are 5 junctions inbound and 4 outbound in less than 800m. The road is wide enough to accommodate an on-road cycle track too - the road actually narrows after the roundabout inbound and they've a perfectly good on-road cycle track there.

    Funnily enough, I can only recall being beeped once on that stretch for using the road in the thousands of times I've cycled it. But, I should mention the guy that beeped made up for all the others that didn't. He pulled in further down the road waiting for me, went absolutely nuts verbally and, only for his poor missus pleading with him to get back in and holding him back, would have swung for me. I've made a few silly mistakes in my time but this was literally just because I was on the road and not on "THE F*CKING RED BIT"

    That was when I decided it was time for a camera.


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,003 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    jamesbil wrote: »
    With so many near misses and so many eejits on the roads, combined with poor road lighting and shady, gloomy areas, why do some have a problem with wearing something that makes you stand out or keep you a little safer?
    I don't think anyone has a problem with anyone who chooses to wear hi-vis. I think many people have a problem with the expectation that ALL cyclists HAVE to wear hi-vis ALL the time, or else it's OK to run them down - which isn't too far from the common thinking of The Journal commentariat.
    Chiparus wrote: »
    South county Dublin seem to ignore it, just look at the new Bird Avenue scheme.
    Bird Avenue is Dun Laoghaire Rathdown area. What's the problem with the work done there?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,254 ✭✭✭Chiparus


    I don't think anyone has a problem with anyone who chooses to wear hi-vis. I think many people have a problem with the expectation that ALL cyclists HAVE to wear hi-vis ALL the time, or else it's OK to run them down - which isn't too far from the common thinking of The Journal commentariat.


    Bird Avenue is Dun Laoghaire Rathdown area. What's the problem with the work done there?
    Sorry you are correct about DLR area.
    They widened the footpath on the north side narrowed the footpath on the southside and put in parking bays the then narrowed the road.

    When it was pointed out that there was no provision for cyclists, they painted some bicycles on the road - no cycles .

    I was driving along it a month ago saw a female cyclist nearly get killed when she suddenly stopped when she dropped some thing.

    https://dlrcoco.citizenspace.com/transportation/bird-avenue-road-safety-improvement-scheme/

    http://irishcycle.com/2016/11/05/council-uses-guidance-to-justify-no-spaceforcycling-but-ignores-advice-on-removal-of-slip-turns/


  • Registered Users Posts: 543 ✭✭✭Crocked


    Had a farmer nearly take out half our group on a club spin at the weekend. Looking back at the fly6 this evening and I'm lucky I made it home to my family.

    I'm sure the farmer made his point though the ****ing ****


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,935 ✭✭✭TallGlass


    Actually in Fairview Park I have noticed some poor markings. As you enter the park by the second entrance after WestWood, you'll notice there are markings on the ground one side has a bike going forward and another going the opposite way.

    The fact is the other lane is non existent. The left lane further up has both bicycles in one lane. So there is only one lane but the entrance would have you think there are two lanes. They can't even get the markings correct, I have little faith in them getting anything else done correctly.

    It's appalling. What makes it worse and I hate it when I hear it, 'cyclists don't pay road tax', well this one does! On both a car and a motorbike


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement