Cork SRR - Cyclist in Middle Lane

Jimmy Bottles

As with most people on here, I absolutely detest Middle Lane Morons. However, what I saw at about 5.45 on Thursday evening was beyond belief.

It was on the new section between Kinsale and Sarsfield Roundabout heading Westbound. I couldn't at first work out what was going on. 1st lane was going quite slowly. 2nd lane was going at about 15 to 20mph and the 3rd lane was log jammed.

Eventually I got into the 3rd lane and to my amazement there was a cyclist in the 2nd lane on the SRR. Did anyone else see this. I couldn't believe my eyes. The guy must have had a death wish.

This brings me to my main point though. On the new section of the SRR there is no hard shoulder. In addition, our planners decided on not putting in a cycle lane on the side of the road. Is it time to have an outright ban on cyclists on the SRR (and also maybe on the South Link Road). It seems to me that it is just too damn dangerous.

What I simply can't work out though is Cork City Council's preference to put in cycle lanes everywhere. And yet, where they are most needed (South Ring Road) they are ignored. Either put in cycle lanes on the SRR or ban cycling outright.

corktina

I'm not very familiar with the arrangements, maybe the left lane is for left turns and the cyclist was going straight on? It would be quite dangerous for a cyclist to change lanes thus actually at the point of divergence.

(The cyclist is as entitled to his bit of road as everyone else btw)

Jimmy Bottles

corktina wrote: »

I'm not very familiar with the arrangements, maybe the left lane is for left turns and the cyclist was going straight on? It would be quite dangerous for a cyclist to change lanes thus actually at the point of divergence.

(The cyclist is as entitled to his bit of road as everyone else btw)

The 1st lane continues over the Sarsfield Roundabout flyover and then turns into an exit which feeds the Bandon Roundabout. Lane 1 would still have been much more sensible.

If he was taking the exit he'd be the correct lane. If he wasn't he'd have easy access to the hard shoulder which starts when this lane leaves the main line.

corktina

but if he wasn't taking the exit, he'd have to change lanes if he was in lane 1 wouldn't he?

Why would he need the hard shoulder?

Jimmy Bottles

corktina wrote: »

but if he wasn't taking the exit, he'd have to change lanes if he was in lane 1 wouldn't he?

Why would he need the hard shoulder?

I just don't think that cycling in the middle lane of the SRR, in the dark during rush hour is a good idea. I'd go as far to say its near suicidal.

There's no hard shoulder in the Jack Lynch Tunnel and thankfully our engineers decided sensibly enough to ban cyclists from cycling through it. Believe it or not, I don't think there's a pedestrian ban on the SRR either.

corktina

I could never see why they would ban cyclists just because it's a tunnel. It's just an ordinary road with a roof and hundreds of miles of road have no shoulder.

AltAccount

Any Google Maps link to tho location?

Jimmy Bottles

https://maps.google.ie/?ll=51.876077,-8.4966&spn=0.000007,0.00523&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=51.876077,-8.498644&panoid=HKBjctKug8GJaYH1ZIOZpw&cbp=12,280.96,,0,-7.73

Middle lane in this carriageway

Cookie_Monster

Jimmy Bottles wrote: »

There's no hard shoulder in the Jack Lynch Tunnel and thankfully our engineers decided sensibly enough to ban cyclists from cycling through it. Believe it or not, I don't think there's a pedestrian ban on the SRR either.

that 'ban' is not legal and cyclists are perfectly entitled to use it
see discussion here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056338421&page=2

that said it's not exactly a pleasant place to cycle...

Jimmy Bottles

The signs at the tunnel are nothing more than advisory so ?

Its also shocking to think that even though there isn't a path, there would be no way to bad pedestrians say on the SRR. Surely some provision needs to be made in law for limited access roads. A lot of countries have these alongside Motorways.

Cookie_Monster

Jimmy Bottles wrote: »

Its also shocking to think that even though there isn't a path, there would be no way to bad pedestrians say on the SRR. Surely some provision needs to be made in law for limited access roads. A lot of countries have these alongside Motorways.

why?
the road is car centric enough already without further restricting the rights of other users.

Jimmy Bottles

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

why?
the road is car centric enough already without further restricting the rights of other users.

You think a person should be allowed walk along a 3 lane dual carriageway without any hard shoulder ? On a lot of parts of the SRR, a person would actually have to walk in the driving lane.

Cookie_Monster

Jimmy Bottles wrote: »

You think a person should be allowed walk along a 3 lane dual carriageway without any hard shoulder ? On a lot of parts of the SRR, a person would actually have to walk in the driving lane.

Of course they should, whether or not it's a good idea is a slightly different kettle of fish.

wotswattage

Jimmy Bottles wrote: »

It was on the new section between Kinsale and Sarsfield Roundabout heading Westbound. I couldn't at first work out what was going on. 1st lane was going quite slowly. 2nd lane was going at about 15 to 20mph and the 3rd lane was log jammed.

Eventually I got into the 3rd lane and to my amazement there was a cyclist in the 2nd lane on the SRR. Did anyone else see this. I couldn't believe my eyes. The guy must have had a death wish.

If the cyclist was in any way a serious one he/she would have no problem matching the speed of the vehicles in the 2nd lane. I'm not 100% sure what you mean about the speed of the other lanes, but maybe the cyclist didn't want to be undertaking :pac::pac:

Jimmy Bottles

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Of course they should, whether or not it's a good idea is a slightly different kettle of fish.

I'd take the more sensible view that the person would have a death wish. And weirdly enough, this has actually happened in the recent past on this stretch of road.

http://www.thejournal.ie/fatal-road-traffic-collision-in-bishopstown-cork-725796-Dec2012/

My own view is that walking along this road is many, many times more dangerous than walking along the break down lane of a motorway. However, one is banned and one is not. I'd go as far to say that sleeping a night in the break down lane of a motorway would be safer than walking along this road.

corktina

but it is far more dangerous to walk along an unlit country road . (or to cycle)

Victor

So, one cyclist was able to hold up three traffic lanes?

I think that says more about the motorists than one cyclist.

Jimmy Bottles

Victor wrote: »

So, one cyclist was able to hold up three traffic lanes?

I think that says more about the motorists than one cyclist.

It was rush hour. If the cyclist was in the middle lane, that is the middle lane blocked. If you follow the rules of the road, you cannot undertake the cyclist so that is lane 1 also down to the speed of the cyclist. Every motorist was trying to get into lane 3 so that was lane 3 blocked.

How do you honestly see any other scenario working out ?

Jimmy Bottles

corktina wrote: »

but it is far more dangerous to walk along an unlit country road . (or to cycle)

You can at least jump into the hedge row if badly needed or go to the other side of the road.

In this case you have a hard barrier with no where to go on one side and another busy lane of traffic on the other.


I simply cannot work out how anyone can condone these actions in terms of road safety.

Padraig Mor

And again we witness the lunatic fringe of the cyclist lobby, more concerned with their "rights" than the safety of road users, most especially their own.

Let's get something straight here: cycling on the middle lane of the SRR at rush hour on a dark winter's evening is beyond lunacy. There should be no debate about this - it's self evident to anyone who uses the road. I suspect that anyone not wide eyed with incredulity at the thought of this cyclist has never driven the SRR, and certainly not at rush hour in the dark. To clarify: the SRR is Cork's version of the M50, and has the traffic to match. It is built to motorway standard along most of its length, most of which has three lanes in each direction. At that location at that hour on a December evening, the road will be a river of red tail lights travelling at 50 - 100 km/h. Sticking a slow moving cyclist slap bang in the middle of this is crazy and a massive hazard. To suggest that this nutter was in any way justified is insane.

corktina

so you'd advocate the cyclist travelling in lane one and then when that peals off to change lanes at that point ? That could be even more dangerous. We aren't talking motorway speeds here.15 to 20 mph is what the OP said I think

Padraig Mor

corktina wrote: »

so you'd advocate the cyclist travelling in lane one and then when that peals off to change lanes at that point ? That could be even more dangerous. We aren't talking motorway speeds here.15 to 20 mph is what the OP said I think

No, I'd advocate the cyclist using a route that doesn't come with an automatic high risk of causing a pileup or getting themselves killed. I think it's obvious from the OP that the low speed was due to the motorists being stuck behind the cyclist!

Jimmy Bottles

corktina wrote: »

so you'd advocate the cyclist travelling in lane one and then when that peals off to change lanes at that point ? That could be even more dangerous. We aren't talking motorway speeds here.15 to 20 mph is what the OP said I think

No. The closing speed to where the cyclist was, was 100kph or higher for some other road users. The only reason traffic was so slow was due to the cyclist holding 2 lanes of traffic up. In addition, some road users were undertaking the cyclist and others were trying to pull into lane 3. Lane 3 was moving at 100kph and users in lane 2 doing 30kph were trying to pull into lane 3.

It was a crazy situation and I was thankful afterwards to not hear about the death of any cyclist on the evening news.

PanaDrama

Padraig Mor wrote: »

And again we witness the lunatic fringe of the cyclist lobby, more concerned with their "rights" than the safety of road users, most especially their own.

Let's get something straight here: cycling on the middle lane of the SRR at rush hour on a dark winter's evening is beyond lunacy. There should be no debate about this - it's self evident to anyone who uses the road. I suspect that anyone not wide eyed with incredulity at the thought of this cyclist has never driven the SRR, and certainly not at rush hour in the dark. To clarify: the SRR is Cork's version of the M50, and has the traffic to match. It is built to motorway standard along most of its length, most of which has three lanes in each direction. At that location at that hour on a December evening, the road will be a river of red tail lights travelling at 50 - 100 km/h. Sticking a slow moving cyclist slap bang in the middle of this is crazy and a massive hazard. To suggest that this nutter was in any way justified is insane.

Repped.

I'm genuinely incredulous that anyone could propose this as anything other than incredibly stupid and dangerous.

Clearly the posters who have come out with this gibberish are either not motorists or are wholly unfamiliar with this stretch of road

corktina

Padraig Mor wrote: »

No, I'd advocate the cyclist using a route that doesn't come with an automatic high risk of causing a pileup or getting themselves killed. I think it's obvious from the OP that the low speed was due to the motorists being stuck behind the cyclist!

That's not what he said at all!..Lane 1 moving slowly, lane 2 15 to 20, lane three nearly stopped.

What route would you advocate that doesn't run those risks?

Iwannahurl

Jimmy Bottles wrote: »

It was on the new section between Kinsale and Sarsfield Roundabout heading Westbound. I couldn't at first work out what was going on. 1st lane was going quite slowly. 2nd lane was going at about 15 to 20mph and the 3rd lane was log jammed.

Eventually I got into the 3rd lane and to my amazement there was a cyclist in the 2nd lane on the SRR. Did anyone else see this. I couldn't believe my eyes. The guy must have had a death wish.

This brings me to my main point though. On the new section of the SRR there is no hard shoulder. In addition, our planners decided on not putting in a cycle lane on the side of the road. Is it time to have an outright ban on cyclists on the SRR (and also maybe on the South Link Road). It seems to me that it is just too damn dangerous.

I had a look on StreetView, and the SRR is not a road I'd cycle on myself.

I notice your reference to slow-moving or stationary traffic. Is the SRR an important route for people accessing local commercial or residential areas?

What is the speed limit on that stretch of the SRR, by the way?*


*EDIT: 100 km/h presumably.

Padraig Mor

corktina wrote: »

That's not what he said at all!..Lane 1 moving slowly, lane 2 15 to 20, lane three nearly stopped.

OP has clarified that my interpretation is correct - the cyclist was the source of the jam.

What route would you advocate that doesn't run those risks?

I have no idea where the cyclist was heading so can't suggest a route. However, pretty much ANY route would have been better, no matter where they were going.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I notice your reference to slow-moving or stationary traffic. Is the SRR an important route for people accessing local commercial or residential areas?

More commercial than residential (Wilton shopping centre is nearby). However, at that time, I would say that most traffic taking that route would be taking a left a couple of miles of the road to head towards Ballygarvan, Inishannon and Bandon, or going straight through to Ballincollig or beyond to Macroom direction. Also some traffic to residential estates in Wilton and Bishopstown, although this traffic would likely originate in at least Cork City or further east.

What is the speed limit on that stretch of the SRR, by the way?*


*EDIT: 100 km/h presumably.

The Sarsfield Rd and Bandon Rd roundabouts have recently been overpassed (yay!); this section (a bit further west than the OP incident it sounds to me, and not on Google Maps) is still subject to a temporary 60 km/h limit as finishing works (not actually on the dual carriageway) have yet to be completed as the contractor went bust.

Iwannahurl

Padraig Mor wrote: »

OP has clarified that my interpretation is correct - the cyclist was the source of the jam.

I have no idea where the cyclist was heading so can't suggest a route. However, pretty much ANY route would have been better, no matter where they were going.

More commercial than residential (Wilton shopping centre is nearby). However, at that time, I would say that most traffic taking that route would be taking a left a couple of miles of the road to head towards Ballygarvan, Inishannon and Bandon, or going straight through to Ballincollig or beyond to Macroom direction. Also some traffic to residential estates in Wilton and Bishopstown, although this traffic would likely originate in at least Cork City or further east.

Jimmy Bottles wrote: »

1st lane was going quite slowly. 2nd lane was going at about 15 to 20mph and the 3rd lane was log jammed.

Eventually I got into the 3rd lane and to my amazement there was a cyclist in the 2nd lane on the SRR.

How can one cyclist hold up three lanes simultaneously? That's just not credible. Even a HGV couldn't do that, unless it was zig-zagging at speed or something.

Clearly this road is not conducive for cyclists. The route is another matter. What would motivate a cyclist to mix with traffic in this situation? Apart from just being stubborn, what about the cyclist's need for access? I don't know that area, so I can only wonder.

Caliden

Iwannahurl wrote: »

How can one cyclist hold up three lanes simultaneously? That's just not credible. Even a HGV couldn't do that, unless it was zig-zagging at speed or something.

Clearly this road is not conducive for cyclists. The route is another matter. What would motivate a cyclist to mix with traffic in this situation? Apart from just being stubborn, what about the cyclist's need for access? I don't know that area, so I can only wonder.

Well if the cyclist is going <20kmh in lane 2 on a road where the average speed would be 80-90 kmh then it's hardly unbelievable.

If a car did the same speed, the outcome would be the same.

corktina

the average speed was nothing like that! Not credible as a story.

Padraig Mor

Iwannahurl wrote: »

How can one cyclist hold up three lanes simultaneously? That's just not credible.

Easily credible TBH. You have to picture the road packed with heavy, heavy traffic, moving at a decent clip. Stick a slow moving vehicle in there (tractor, cyclist, whatever) and the sudden huge number of lane change movements causes instant problems and a quick logjam behind, and a massive increase in collision risk. All it takes is one driver coming over the Kinsale Rd flyover (which is humped, without a full line of sight beyond as you approach) not paying attention and you've got a major problem.

Clearly this road is not conducive for cyclists. The route is another matter. What would motivate a cyclist to mix with traffic in this situation? Apart from just being stubborn, what about the cyclist's need for access? I don't know that area, so I can only wonder.

For people living in most of the estates in Wilton, Bishopstown and Ballincollig, there are far easier ways to get into town in one piece. Ballincollig (the most far flung of these) in particular has cycle lanes most / all of the way to the city centre. The fact that this incident stands out so much attests to its rarity - simply put, cyclists do not seem to have much reason to use this route, or surely we'd see more of them? (I'm aware that's a bit chicken and egg BTW). I use the SRR daily (the more eastern section) and I would absolutely not expect to see a cyclist at rush hour in the dark. I can honestly not recall EVER seeing one in a driving lane at rush hour, and that's using the road for a decade. If I see cyclists (and it's rare), it would tend to be on a bright weekend morning, and even then it tends to be a group. Again, it needs to be borne in mind that this road is a motorway (and a busy one at that) in all but name.

Padraig Mor

corktina wrote: »

the average speed was nothing like that! Not credible as a story.

Are you saying you were there?

Bear in mind that the OP seems to be quite critical of the state of cycling infrastructure in the area - hardly a "fecking cyclists - they should pay road tax" type.

keithclancy

You'd want to be a complete brain doner to cycle on that stretch of road at any time.

Legal or not.

Iwannahurl

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Easily credible TBH. You have to picture the road packed with heavy, heavy traffic, moving at a decent clip. Stick a slow moving vehicle in there (tractor, cyclist, whatever) and the sudden huge number of lane change movements causes instant problems and a quick logjam behind, and a massive increase in collision risk.

This is the OP's description:

Jimmy Bottles wrote: »

1st lane was going quite slowly. 2nd lane was going at about 15 to 20mph and the 3rd lane was log jammed.

Eventually I got into the 3rd lane and to my amazement there was a cyclist in the 2nd lane on the SRR.

The OP switched to the "[log jammed] third lane" because the first lane was moving "quite slowly" and the second lane was moving only a little faster presumably.

If both the first and third lanes are moving, while the middle lane is going significantly more slowly because a cyclist is allegedly creating a tailback, where is the hold-up exactly?

I'm not saying the cyclist is doing the right thing, by the way, but I'm still a bit perplexed as to how one person on a push bike can single-handedly cause a three-lane "logjam" on a road already "packed with heavy heavy traffic".

Was this cyclist in a wool overcoat on a High Nelly, by the way, or was it a Lycra-clad individual on a road bike perhaps? I would have thought that a serious cyclist on a road bike could go quite fast, in which case maybe they were actually keeping pace with "rush hour" traffic.

corktina

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Are you saying you were there?

Bear in mind that the OP seems to be quite critical of the state of cycling infrastructure in the area - hardly a "fecking cyclists - they should pay road tax" type.

he GAVE the speeds in the OP. Nothing was moving at a decent clip. Lane one was slow, lane two 15 to 20 mph and lane three clogged solid.

Iwannahurl

If the lone cyclist was causing a logjam on three lanes simultaneously, we have to imagine a situation in which there are three lines of vehicles stretching out behind him, while up ahead is free-flowing traffic on all three lanes.

What I am finding it hard to understand is why, if the cyclist is holding up the middle lane, vehicles can't overtake in lanes 1 and 3.

Are the motorists immediately in front of and just beside the cyclist unwilling or unable to go faster than him. If so, why?

Viper_JB

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I'm not saying the cyclist is doing the right thing, by the way, but I'm still a bit perplexed as to how one person on a push bike can single-handedly cause a three-lane "logjam" on a road already "packed with heavy heavy traffic".

Was this cyclist in a wool overcoat on a High Nelly, by the way, or was it a Lycra-clad individual on a road bike perhaps? I would have thought that a serious cyclist on a road bike could go quite fast, in which case maybe they were actually keeping pace with "rush hour" traffic.

Really not that surprising given the average driver in Ireland, something like this would actually be likely to cause traffic problems on the other side of the road too, with people slowing to see what was happening.

When Douglas was flooded before the SRR backed up because people were stopping on the bridge to have a look down.

Caliden

You've got the volume of an entire lane spilling over into lanes 1 & 3...

Iwannahurl and corktina, I've a feeling neither of you spend much time on 3 lane carraigeways if you're struggling to understand the issue.

Join the m50 whenever there's a crash in one lane to get an idea of what the OP is on about.

Padraig Mor

I think there is some misunderstanding of the OP's post here, although perhaps "log jammed" may not have been the best description to use. They've clarified that the middle lane was moving extremely slowly (~ 20 km/h) and that the left lane was going somewhat faster, with some people moving to that lane to undertake the cyclist. The right hand lane very busy ("log jammed"), but actually moving quite fast (~100 km/h). Problems arise when you have a lot of people trying to move from a very slow moving lane like the middle one in this situation, to one where the traffic is moving considerably faster (right lane in the OP). Inevitably, someone moves where they didn't quite have the gap they thought and drivers behind need to step on the brakes. Best case scenario: more and more people behind brake (rather like a wave moving backward) leading to possible gridlock in both lanes. Worst case scenario: someone doesn't hit the brakes in time.

Iwannahurl

Caliden wrote: »

You've got the volume of an entire lane spilling over into lanes 1 & 3...

So the OP is quite clearly saying that traffic in all three lanes up ahead was enjoying free-flow conditions during "rush" hour?

dr.fuzzenstein

Well, so far Boardsies have argued that undertaking is legal, a stolen car is the rightful property of the buyer and not the owner it was taken from, that one should never move aside for ambulances, if your car gets crashed into, you're not entitled to compensation for the damage and those are only some of the most recent gems that reveal an unbelievable amount of insanity amongst the people who post here.
I suppose if he really wanted to, the cyclist can claim I Am Entitled To Be On The Road!
He should also make sure to instruct his stone mason to include that on his headstone.

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/cyclist-killed-in-collision-with-car-in-co-clare-26295066.html

I used to see a cyclist almost every around that time on that stretch of road, he did not cycle on the hard shoulder, but smack bang in the middle of lane one. Caused huge chaos.
I did not see him after that incident, don't know if it was him, just saying...

corktina

Caliden wrote: »

You've got the volume of an entire lane spilling over into lanes 1 & 3...

Iwannahurl and corktina, I've a feeling neither of you spend much time on 3 lane carraigeways if you're struggling to understand the issue.

Join the m50 whenever there's a crash in one lane to get an idea of what the OP is on about.

getting a little personal there.

The traffic at that time is slow moving, the OP said it was, there is no way one cyclist alone could jam up three lanes, sounds to me as if he was going faster than some of the cars!

The point is the cyclist might have felt he was in the correct lane for his route (lane one peels off for Bandon we are told). He is entitled to use the roads within the law and I believe that to change out of lane 1 at the point of divergence may well be dangerous.

corktina

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well, so far Boardsies have argued that undertaking is legal, a stolen car is the rightful property of the buyer and not the owner it was taken from, that one should never move aside for ambulances, if your car gets crashed into, you're not entitled to compensation for the damage and those are only some of the most recent gems that reveal an unbelievable amount of insanity amongst the people who post here.
I suppose if he really wanted to, the cyclist can claim I Am Entitled To Be On The Road!
He should also make sure to instruct his stone mason to include that on his headstone.

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/cyclist-killed-in-collision-with-car-in-co-clare-26295066.html

I used to see a cyclist almost every around that time on that stretch of road, he did not cycle on the hard shoulder, but smack bang in the middle of lane one. Caused huge chaos.
I did not see him after that incident, don't know if it was him, just saying...

Cyclists should not have to cycle on the hard shoulder, and do not because that's where all the rubbish ends up, very easy to puncture a bike tyre.

Jimmy Bottles

I didn't say the traffic was slow moving at the time in general. I said that the cyclist was holding up everyone due to doing about 20mph in lane 2. That caused everyone to have to slow down significantly in lane 2. Once past the cyclists, the road ahead was virtually empty due to the cyclist causing such a backlog.

People in lane 1 obviously didn't know whether to undertake the cyclist in lane 2 and people doing 20mph in lane 2 were then trying to merge into traffic in lane 3 which were doing about 60mph. This cyclist caused absolute chaos.

keithclancy

corktina wrote: »

Cyclists should not have to cycle on the hard shoulder, and do not because that's where all the rubbish ends up, very easy to puncture a bike tyre.

Indeed, you should cycle in the driving lane and pull in when its safe for you to do so.

corktina

Jimmy Bottles wrote: »

I didn't say the traffic was slow moving at the time in general. I said that the cyclist was holding up everyone due to doing about 20mph in lane 2. That caused everyone to have to slow down significantly in lane 2. Once past the cyclists, the road ahead was virtually empty due to the cyclist causing such a backlog.

People in lane 1 obviously didn't know whether to undertake the cyclist in lane 2 and people doing 20mph in lane 2 were then trying to merge into traffic in lane 3 which were doing about 60mph. This cyclist caused absolute chaos.

cyclists? typo?

That's a very different version to the first post. How far was he from the Bandon Rd exit?

Jimmy Bottles

corktina wrote: »

cyclists? typo?

That's a very different version to the first post. How far was he from the Bandon Rd exit?

Sorry, typo. Was just one cyclist.


I did say: "I couldn't at first work out what was going on. 1st lane was going quite slowly. 2nd lane was going at about 15 to 20mph and the 3rd lane was log jammed.". I thought what I wrote would indicate that the slow pace was due to the cyclist.


At a guess it was about here

https://maps.google.com/?ll=51.875951,-8.494079&spn=0.000007,0.003449&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=51.875965,-8.49549&panoid=11u-x2YaGQ6lxkx956V5Eg&cbp=12,282.58,,0,13.18

Just after passing the Togher Road flyover. Well before even the Sarsfield Roundabout.

Iwannahurl

Jimmy Bottles wrote: »

It was rush hour. If the cyclist was in the middle lane, that is the middle lane blocked. If you follow the rules of the road, you cannot undertake the cyclist so that is lane 1 also down to the speed of the cyclist. Every motorist was trying to get into lane 3 so that was lane 3 blocked.

OP, is this a reasonably accurate illustration of what occurred at 5:45 pm during rush hour on the South Ring Road last Thursday?





EDIT: Just saw this post:

Jimmy Bottles wrote: »

I didn't say the traffic was slow moving at the time in general. I said that the cyclist was holding up everyone due to doing about 20mph in lane 2. That caused everyone to have to slow down significantly in lane 2. Once past the cyclists, the road ahead was virtually empty due to the cyclist causing such a backlog.

People in lane 1 obviously didn't know whether to undertake the cyclist in lane 2 and people doing 20mph in lane 2 were then trying to merge into traffic in lane 3 which were doing about 60mph. This cyclist caused absolute chaos.

Iwannahurl

Jimmy Bottles wrote: »

At a guess it was about here

https://maps.google.com/?ll=51.875951,-8.494079&spn=0.000007,0.003449&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=51.875965,-8.49549&panoid=11u-x2YaGQ6lxkx956V5Eg&cbp=12,282.58,,0,13.18

Just after passing the Togher Road flyover. Well before even the Sarsfield Roundabout.

Is that a hard shoulder?

Did you say the road alignment has been changed, OP? If so, was the hard shoulder removed as part of the modifications?

dr.fuzzenstein

corktina wrote: »

Cyclists should not have to cycle on the hard shoulder, and do not because that's where all the rubbish ends up, very easy to puncture a bike tyre.

Cyclists should not cycle on any lane of a dual carriageway because, well, if I even have to say it, here are some other safety hints that people like that will find useful:

1: Never take a hammer and bash your own head in
2: Do not jump out of windows, especially if they are high up
3: Domestos is not a delicious and refreshing drink
4: Do not look down the barrel of a loaded gun and squeeze the trigger

You can do these things if you want to, but you can't seriously complain if they go wrong, well, you could, but you'll be complaining to St Peter at the Pearly Gates.

Jimmy Bottles

Iwannahurl wrote: »

OP, is this a reasonably accurate illustration of what occurred at 5:45 pm during rush hour on the South Ring Road last Thursday?

Accurate enough I guess. People in lane 1 didn't know wether to undertaking the cyclist. All did eventually but the lane was crawling compared to usual.

100kph may be an exaggeration about lane 3. The biggest problem there were people in lane 2 having to pull out into gaps in lane 3. The speed difference seemed quite large.