Buffalo & Doozerie - The mild musings of two grumpy old men!

Chuchote

Seve OB wrote: »

I know.

I was being devils advocate

No need. The devil already has many, many advocates.

CramCycle

Chuchote wrote: »

No need. The devil already has many, many advocates.

I support the devil, it is the righteous (not correct, or even legally knowledgeable) preachers on the road, who feel it is their god given right to enforce the law in an almost biblical fashion.

Rogue-Trooper

Anyone that goes to city centre through Fairview noticed this piece of fantastic signage placement recently? (That's the cycle lane on the left hand side of the footpath)



There are a number of concerns I have about this:

• It is positioned at a pinch point - there's just enough room to get a bike through between the railing and the sign. It's great fun for any poor peds in the morning with all of the bikes piling through that small aperture.
• The telecoms boxes (or whatever they are) just before it create a 'chicane'.
• The manhole covers are at the exact point where you brake before you enter the 'chicane' - lethal when wet.
• The cycle lane moves back on to the road a couple of metres past the sign, however the sign completely obscures your view of the road so it's impossible to see if there's anything coming as you pop back onto the road

I've no idea who governs the placement of these signs or if anyone does. Are they just told to put them out wherever they fit?


Anyway, rather than just moan about it here, I called DCC earlier and spoke to a helpful gentleman who has logged my concerns. I've also sent them on the pic above.



S'pose time will tell if they do anything about it. I just hope they do it before someone falls off at the sign or gets a smack of a 29A as they rejoin the road.

buffalo

Kudos to the few pricks this morning, livening up an otherwise dull Friday morning. Pedalling along the canal, hear a bell from behind and I immediately indicate and move over to my left to allow the overtake. Instead I get a roar of abuse because the muppet had decided to overtake on the left, and he has been delayed for approximately a second. No response to my call of 'calm down'.

Dude #2 cycling on the wrong side of the road on Seville Place, a pretty busy city centre location. Which means oncoming cars are swerving out around him and toward where I'm filtering up the outside of a line of traffic.

Dude #3 in a car... I'm not even arsed. Cut me off, overtaking tightly on a left turn leaving me no room.

Incidentally, I heard an RSA ad this morning recommending a 1m overtaking distance in certain areas, instead of the universal 1.5m. Anyone know where that idea came from?

Chips Lovell

buffalo wrote: »

Incidentally, I heard an RSA ad this morning recommending a 1m overtaking distance in certain areas, instead of the universal 1.5m. Anyone know where that idea came from?

Came from? I think you're giving them far too much credit there.

Chuchote

buffalo wrote: »

Incidentally, I heard an RSA ad this morning recommending a 1m overtaking distance in certain areas, instead of the universal 1.5m. Anyone know where that idea came from?

Where was that ad? Immediately report it to the Advertising Standards Authority, perhaps using this

Weepsie

I go down Seville place daily. I'm never surprised when I see some eejit coming down it on the wrong side of the road. Further back too on the NCR. I sometimes suspect it is a local tea-leaf taking their "new" bike to a local shop I pass.

buffalo

Chuchote wrote: »

Where was that ad? Immediately report it to the Advertising Standards Authority, perhaps using this

Morning Ireland on RTE Radio 1 today at about 07:16...

http://www.rte.ie/radio/utils/radioplayer/rteradioweb.html#!rii=b9%5F10630072%5F48%5F07%2D10%2D2016%5F

50kph and under: give 1m space
over 50kph only: 1.5m

Alek

Can't access the radio player now, was it someone from RSA that said that?

Weepsie

buffalo wrote: »

Morning Ireland on RTE Radio 1 today at about 07:16...

http://www.rte.ie/radio/utils/radioplayer/rteradioweb.html#!rii=b9%5F10630072%5F48%5F07%2D10%2D2016%5F

50kph and under: give 1m space
over 50kph only: 1.5m

Just listened there. That's awful

"You can't read the mind of a cyclist and they can't read yours, so don't second guess". It to me is effectively passing any blame onto cyclists. It's a disgraceful ad to be honest. Then the under 50 nonsense too.

It's an offical RSA advert.

Alek

You can't read the mind of a cyclist and they can't read yours

Taking it out of the context, this statement sounds pretty neutral to me.

But the official "1m under 50kph" advice is simply infuriating :mad::mad::mad:

buffalo

Alek wrote: »

Taking it out of the context, this statement sounds pretty neutral to me.

But the official "1m under 50kph" advice is simply infuriating :mad::mad::mad:

1m at 50kph and under. I listened a couple of times to be sure of that.

1.5m at 50kph and over would seem better advice, which mean the theoretical max speed a car would overtake at 1m would be 30kph (unless there are 40kph zones).

There was no advice to slow down when performing a 1m overtake.

Weepsie

Alek wrote: »

Taking it out of the context, this statement sounds pretty neutral to me.

But the official "1m under 50kph" advice is simply infuriating :mad::mad::mad:

I know it's not what they mean, but I think it's very easy to be taken out of context.

Chuchote

Is this the official RSA advice, to pass cyclists at a metre distance when you're going 50kp/h? It shouldn't be. That's scarcely more than arm's length from a cyclist, really, really dangerous.

dreamerb

Chuchote wrote: »

Is this the official RSA advice, to pass cyclists at a metre distance when you're going 50kp/h? It shouldn't be. That's scarcely more than arm's length from a cyclist, really, really dangerous.

The problem with that last image (and it's one I have encountered) is that the overtaking motorist may then end up closer to a bicycle travelling in the opposite direction than the one s/he is overtaking. A collision with an "opposite direction" cyclist is likely to have substantially greater effects on both parties with the cyclist inevitably worse off. Let's say car at 50 kph, cyclists either side at 20 kmh - one crash is an effective relative rate of 30 kph (often survivable, if I recall correctly), the other is at 70 kph (usually not survivable).

I'd prefer an image which recognised the possibility of cyclists on both sides, because if this one is preaching to non-bike-riders then it should not be so simplistic.

De Bhál

dreamerb wrote: »

The problem with that last image (and it's one I have encountered) is that the overtaking motorist may then end up closer to a bicycle travelling in the opposite direction than the one s/he is overtaking. A collision with an "opposite direction" cyclist is likely to have substantially greater effects on both parties with the cyclist inevitably worse off. Let's say car at 50 kph, cyclists either side at 20 kmh - one crash is an effective relative rate of 30 kph (often survivable, if I recall correctly), the other is at 70 kph (usually not survivable).

I'd prefer an image which recognised the possibility of cyclists on both sides, because if this one is preaching to non-bike-riders then it should not be so simplistic.

You're over thinking this.

dreamerb

De Bhál wrote: »

You're over thinking this.

Maybe - but it's something I've experienced more than once: someone overtaking a cyclist on the other side coming closer to me than the person they're overtaking. Specifically (couple of times) on Heytesbury Street, also on Lower Kimmage Road.

And sure, may be ovethinking the image, but the experience is genuine.

CramCycle

dreamerb wrote: »

Maybe - but it's something I've experienced more than once: someone overtaking a cyclist on the other side coming closer to me than the person they're overtaking. Specifically (couple of times) on Heytesbury Street, also on Lower Kimmage Road.

And sure, may be ovethinking the image, but the experience is genuine.

I suppose the other way to look at it is that, the overtake you describe is nothing to do with the image. If you want to overtake and there is traffic in the opposing lane, and to complete the overtake would put the opposing traffic in danger then it should not be done.

Alek

Coming down at speed towards Northwood from the southside: there is bus lane and a cycle path starting just after the lights. In the last moment I decided to take the cycle path and then SWOOOSH, a white fecking whale of a bus passes just next to me at super speed.

I chase it to the next lights and ask the man: what was that? Do you realise what would happen if I was going to take the bus lane? Him: And what's wrong with the cycle path?

OFFS. What is wrong with people?

Sadly I don't remember the operator, something starting with B going towards Airport - does anybody know? I want to give them a call while my kids still have a father.

Weepsie

Alek wrote: »

Coming down at speed towards Northwood from the southside: there is bus lane and a cycle path starting just after the lights. In the last moment I decided to take the cycle path and then SWOOOSH, a white fecking whale of a bus passes just next to me at super speed.

I chase it to the next lights and ask the man: what was that? Do you realise what would happen if I was going to take the bus lane? Him: And what's wrong with the cycle path?

OFFS. What is wrong with people?

Sadly I don't remember the operator, something starting with B going towards Airport - does anybody know? I want to give them a call while my kids still have a father.

I live around there and it's a right pain in the hole sometimes. You get people cutting in last minute from the lane on the right too, or people who want to turn right up ahead in your lane and causing chaos behind them.

There are a few choke points between the omni and there, where cars and busses get awfully close and some awful surface.

B, hardly Bus Eireann, though they'd be noticeable. I'll keep an eye out on my commute.

'68 Fastback

Admittedly I don't drive often but I doubt there are many motorists that could knowingly and accurately position their car 1 or 1.5 metres from a moving object. One persons "loads of room" is anothers "almost clipped".

I think the RSA's instructions are irresponsible here.

MediaMan

I had a very strange cycle on Sat last, spinning around the hills of North Wicklow and South Dublin. I had three separate situations with a car coming from the opposite direction, on a narrow road. In each case the driver pulled in to the left and slowed or stopped to let me pass.

Not just that. Twice I was overtaken by drivers who left me loads of space - I'm guessing about 2 metres.

I thought it might have been a dream, but no this really happened, and it was great. Left me wondering what caused these people to be so courteous, and whether it could actually become a trend.

I had a small number of close passes too (just the usual, nothing dramatic), and it made me think that if we could get drivers to give more space consistently, it would change the whole cycling experience to be so much better. We get used to close passes, but it still scary.

Anyway, thank you to those drivers out there who are careful around cyclists. It should be the norm, with no thanks required, but since its not, your consideration is appreciated!

Chuchote

I pulled in to let a truck pass today and the passenger leaned out the window and waved thanks. In return, I stopped when they parked to tell them their left-hand back light was shot. Pleasant all round.

cdaly_

Riding the hills of Antrim a week or so ago, drivers were consistently careful and courteous. They hung back awaiting a safe opportunity and left loads of room when passing...

buffalo

Cycled down Clonliffe Road today, which is a semi-regular feature of my commute home. It's generally got cars parked both sides for about half of it, and cars parked only my side for the other half. This means it can be difficult for cars to safely overtake, and I've been victim to a few close passes before.

Today however, I noticed a couple cars were pottering along very gently ahead of me - including a taxi. In front of them were two cyclists who were one behind the other and despite a long gap in oncoming traffic, nobody dared make a move to overtake.

It's surprising how much of a deterrent a Garda uniform can be.

nomdeboardie

buffalo wrote: »

Cycled down Clonliffe Road today, which is a semi-regular feature of my commute home. It's generally got cars parked both sides for about half of it, and cars parked only my side for the other half. This means it can be difficult for cars to safely overtake, and I've been victim to a few close passes before.

Today however, I noticed a couple cars were pottering along very gently ahead of me - including a taxi. In front of them were two cyclists who were one behind the other and despite a long gap in oncoming traffic, nobody dared make a move to overtake.

It's surprising how much of a deterrent a Garda uniform can be.

Garda was on one of the bikes? Ha
Now if we all just dressed up as Gardai when cycling...idea for a close-pass-free Halloween?

Police in Britain may be doing the reverse, as it were, soon...
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/uk-plain-clothes-police-to-hunt-drivers-endangering-cyclists-1.2794016

MediaMan

nomdeboardie wrote: »

Police in Britain may be doing the reverse, as it were, soon...
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/uk-plain-clothes-police-to-hunt-drivers-endangering-cyclists-1.2794016

What a great idea! I wonder could we interest the Gardai in doing that here...

buffalo

buffalo wrote: »

I was crossing the road this morning at a junction with no pedestrian lights. I waited for the lights to change to red, then did a quick check for traffic but I obviously managed to miss the taxi who came zipping through.

I was very grateful for the beep and the exasperated look he gave me as he slowed, to make sure that I'd be more cautious next time in case he had to break the red light again.

Same junction, different driver... this time when I raised my arm in protest I got the finger. \o/

Chuchote

Automated cameras that send out fines?

However, apparently these result in fewer people killed by idiots crashing the lights, and more people killed through idiots rear-ending cars that stop for the lights:

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/calculator/factsheet/redlight.html

CramCycle

Chuchote wrote: »

However, apparently these result in fewer people killed by idiots crashing the lights, and more people killed through idiots rear-ending cars that stop for the lights:

I may be wrong but while it says there is an increase in rear ending drivers, it does say that typically those crashes are less severe. It comes across as a positive.