Cork SRR - Cyclist in Middle Lane

Jimmy Bottles

Iwannahurl wrote: »

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?

The hard shoulder has been removed since that photo.

corktina

that's a old image. Road has changed a lot since. Iirc, the left lane becomes two lanes and diverges left and the other two lanes go over the new flyover. From his road position, he clearly intended to go straight on and I contend he is in the correct lane, staying in lane 1 until he reaches the point of divergence would entail cutting across two lanes of traffic (certainly one, I can't be sure where it becomes 2 lanes on the off ramp)

Not the wisest bit of cycling but clearly not illegal either.

corktina

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

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.

but on that basis they shouldn't cycle anywhere. Probably it is safer on a dual carriageway as they can be passed without regard to oncoming traffic

dr.fuzzenstein

corktina wrote: »

that's a old image. Road has changed a lot since. Iirc, the left lane becomes two lanes and diverges left and the other two lanes go over the new flyover. From his road position, he clearly intended to go straight on and I contend he is in the correct lane, staying in lane 1 until he reaches the point of divergence would entail cutting across two lanes of traffic (certainly one, I can't be sure where it becomes 2 lanes on the off ramp)

Not the wisest bit of cycling but clearly not illegal either.

Was kind of the point I was making...:p
Just because you can do a thing, does not mean you should do it.
Or do you mean this from a "giving evolution a helping hand" kind of standpoint?

Jimmy Bottles

corktina wrote: »

that's a old image. Road has changed a lot since. Iirc, the left lane becomes two lanes and diverges left and the other two lanes go over the new flyover. From his road position, he clearly intended to go straight on and I contend he is in the correct lane, staying in lane 1 until he reaches the point of divergence would entail cutting across two lanes of traffic (certainly one, I can't be sure where it becomes 2 lanes on the off ramp)

Not the wisest bit of cycling but clearly not illegal either.

Staying in lane 1 wouldn't have required him cutting across any lanes of traffic. It would however require him cycling across white hatched markings at the Bandon Roundabout sliproad.


I simply look at it like this. Cork City Council had the change to do this build in 2 ways. Either make it cyclist friendly with some sort of separate of cyclists and cars or just ban cyclists outright.

Having cyclists mix with cars on that road is downright suicidal. I know I certainly wouldn't cycle on that road at any point in the day during any level of traffic. To do so in the dark during rush hour is just absolutely crazy in my mind.

The lack of provision for cyclists on the SRR is lamentable but that is a whole other story.

Padraig Mor

corktina wrote: »

Not the wisest bit of cycling but clearly not illegal either.

No one said it was illegal - just that it was bat**** insane.

Look, how's about this. Anyone who thinks the cyclist in the OP was in any way safe, justified, etc - anything other than bat**** insane: I will personally drive you over that stretch of road this Thursday at 17.45. If you still think that cycling there at that time is not insanity, I will donate €50 to a charity of your choice.

corktina

the lane of traffic in lane 1?

In my view, we shouldn't be limiting cyclists (and pedestrians) we should be limiting cars.

Once he was in the correct lane, and I contend he was, then it's just tough on faster traffic. Life's like that.

Iwannahurl

Jimmy Bottles wrote: »

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.

So some motorists did overtake the cyclist on the left perhaps? If so, about what proportion of them? 5%? 50%?

And the middle lane in front of the cyclist was definitely empty? Or to put it another way, the cyclist was definitely not keeping up with traffic?

Did the motorists who switched from lanes 1 & 2 to lane 3 switch back again when they had overtaken the cyclist?

Is traffic usually free-flowing at speeds up to 100 km/h on this road at 5:45 pm on a Thursday?

Jimmy Bottles wrote: »

The hard shoulder has been removed since that photo.

So a hard shoulder, a piece of roads infrastructure often used by cyclists in a perfectly legal manner afaik (open to correction on that), was reallocated to motorised traffic some time ago?

This brings me back to my earlier point about roads and routes. Was this a route for cyclists before the conversion of the hard shoulder to a traffic lane?

corktina

it's been radically changed, i'm surprised a hard shoulder was included though

Iwannahurl

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

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.

1. If Cork City Council gives you a hammer, don't let them tell you it's a hat.
2. If Cork City Council tries to house you in a high-rise apartment block with no stairs or lift, try to say no even if you're homeless.
3. If Cork City Council puts the equivalent of Domestos in your water supply, don't let them tell you it's champagne.
4. Just because Cork City Council puts a gun to your head, it doesn't mean they're right.

Corkblowin

corktina wrote: »

In my view, we shouldn't be limiting cyclists (and pedestrians) we should be limiting cars.

In general a good policy - but the South Ring is one of those places where cars do, and should, have priority over other traffic. It is a designated 'Euroroute' linking Kerry to Rosslare and is designed to speed traffic around the city.

In theory not only should cyclists not be on it, but commuters shouldn't either, and those of us using it to hop from Douglas to Wilton are clogging the city bypass - but that would be a pretty dogmatic stance.

Jimmy Bottles

Iwannahurl wrote: »

So some motorists did overtake the cyclist on the left perhaps? If so, about what proportion of them? 5%? 50%?

And the middle lane in front of the cyclist was definitely empty? Or to put it another way, the cyclist was definitely not keeping up with traffic?

Did the motorists who switched from lanes 1 & 2 to lane 3 switch back again when they had overtaken the cyclist?

Is traffic usually free-flowing at speeds up to 100 km/h on this road at 5:45 pm on a Thursday?

As lane 1 was moving faster than lane 2 I have to summise that all of the traffic in lane 1 was undertaking the cyclist. The lane was travelling a lot slow than usual. Cars approaching this situation had to brake from 100kph to 35kph and that to me is never a safe situation.

Cyclist was the only thing holding by the 2nd lane. Can't say for every motorist, but once I had overtaken the cyclist, the vast majority of drivers did pull back into lane 2. I guess lane 1 would have been more correct but then this becomes an exit for the Bandon Roundabout about 20 or 30 seconds up the road.

Since the flyovers have been done on the two roundabouts ahead, traffic is usually going at around 100kph at all times of the day.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

So a hard shoulder, a piece of roads infrastructure often used by cyclists in a perfectly legal manner afaik (open to correction on that), was reallocated to motorised traffic some time ago?

This brings me back to my earlier point about roads and routes. Was this a route for cyclists before the conversion of the hard shoulder to a traffic lane?

Completely agree on your first point. There is little space along the sides of the road to accommodate a new hard shoulder.

In my time travelling this road, I don't think I can ever remember seeing a cyclist on it. Although as you can imagine, it wasn't something I was looking our for.

Iwannahurl

Corkblowin wrote: »

In general a good policy - but the South Ring is one of those places where cars do, and should, have priority over other traffic. It is a designated 'Euroroute' linking Kerry to Rosslare and is designed to speed traffic around the city.

In theory not only should cyclists not be on it, but commuters shouldn't either, and those of us using it to hop from Douglas to Wilton are clogging the city bypass - but that would be a pretty dogmatic stance.

What would motivate both cyclists and car commuters to avoid the SRR?

dr.fuzzenstein

corktina wrote: »

the lane of traffic in lane 1?

In my view, we shouldn't be limiting cyclists (and pedestrians) we should be limiting cars.

Once he was in the correct lane, and I contend he was, then it's just tough on faster traffic. Life's like that.

OK, where is Corktina and what have you done with him? :eek:
Cyclopath, is that you?:p

Viper_JB

Iwannahurl wrote: »

What would motivate both cyclists and car commuters to avoid the SRR?

I would have thought staying alive would be good enough motivation for cyclists.

Corkblowin

Iwannahurl wrote: »

What would motivate both cyclists and car commuters to avoid the SRR?

I'm saying a dogmatic traffic engineers stance would be that people moving from one part of the city to another should use local routes within the city and the SRR should be reserved for those passing around or leaving the city.

I'm a planner and this was articulated quite forcefully to me by a german roads engineer some time ago (who was dumbfounded that there were roundabouts on it at the time!). He may well have exploded if told cyclists were also using the SRR!:)

dr.fuzzenstein

Viper_JB wrote: »

I would have thought staying alive would be good enough motivation for cyclists.

Not in this country!
It is far more important to be right. Being dead is simply seen as a minor inconvenience.
To the Irish mules are amongst the most fickle-minded creatures.
The government is to blame though, because at some stage someone decided that separate cycle lanes are not really needed, just throw everything on the road together and spend the rest of your life arguing that this is a better solution that that European pansy bullsh*t with seperate cycle paths, pedestrian walkways and all that crap, who needs it, we can throw cars, trucks, buses, mules, cyclists, pedestrians, mothers with prams and horses on the same road and argue it's best international practice.

Iwannahurl

Viper_JB wrote: »

I would have thought staying alive would be good enough motivation for cyclists.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Not in this country!
It is far more important to be right. Being dead is simply seen as a minor inconvenience.
To the Irish mules are amongst the most fickle-minded creatures.
The government is to blame though, because at some stage someone decided that separate cycle lanes are not really needed, just throw everything on the road together and spend the rest of your life arguing that this is a better solution that that European pansy bullsh*t with seperate cycle paths, pedestrian walkways and all that crap, who needs it, we can throw cars, trucks, buses, mules, cyclists, pedestrians, mothers with prams and horses on the same road and argue it's best international practice.

There are dangers (eg speeding, red light running, cars driving up on footpaths, HGVs on roundabouts) every morning on the school run with my child. And that's just in a residential area less than 4 km from school.

Should we just give up?

corktina

I'm not arguing for the sake of it, but would it be safe for a cyclist to cross lane one , (an off ramp,with 100km/h traffic (we're told)) to continue straight on.

Now maybe it's the case that the guy got into lane 2 too early, but it does seem to me that he has to get into that lane a some point, (one assumes the dotted line changes on approach to the divergence to mark the start of the off ramp as is normal)

Consider the case that this guy might be a tourist following the map and would not know of alternative routes



what I have seen I the UK are marked cycl lanes in this situation which divert the cyclists down to the roaundabout and up the other side to avoid them getting hit half way across the offramp

Iwannahurl

Corkblowin wrote: »

I'm saying a dogmatic traffic engineers stance would be that people moving from one part of the city to another should use local routes within the city and the SRR should be reserved for those passing around or leaving the city.

I'm a planner and this was articulated quite forcefully to me by a german roads engineer some time ago (who was dumbfounded that there were roundabouts on it at the time!). He may well have exploded if told cyclists were also using the SRR!:)

What the Dutch would say about Irish "planning" for cyclists might well be unprintable.

Viper_JB

Iwannahurl wrote: »

There are dangers (eg speeding, red light running, cars driving up on footpaths, HGvs on roundabouts) every morning on the school run with my child. And that's just in a residential area less than 4 km from school.

Should we just give up?

It can be pretty dangerous to cross the roads at a pedestrian crossing, I wouldn't equate that to the same level of danger as say....trying to cross the M50 at rush hour.

Seweryn

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Not in this country!
It is far more important to be right. Being dead is simply seen as a minor inconvenience.

Surely we can give up using any other form of transport all together. It is too dangerous and we all have licences to kill pedestrians and cyclists.

Corkblowin

Iwannahurl wrote: »

What the Dutch would say about Irish "planning" for cyclists might well be unprintable.

Even the dutch have major traffic routes where cyclists do not travel.

dr.fuzzenstein

Iwannahurl wrote: »

There are dangers (eg speeding, red light running, cars driving up on footpaths, HGVs on roundabouts) every morning on the school run with my child. And that's just in a residential area less than 4 km from school.

Should we just give up?

You should not cycle on dual carriegeways. Or at least not in one of the driving lanes.
No continental person would be insane enough to do it, except the Irish.
I'm saying the Irish sometimes lack a sense of danger, instead saying "well, I'm legally entitled to do so" and then scream blue blue murder if something goes wrong.

Iwannahurl

Viper_JB wrote: »

It can be pretty dangerous to cross the roads at a pedestrian crossing, I wouldn't equate that to the same level of danger as say....trying to cross the M50 at rush hour.

Absolutely.

But if the local authority builds, say, a dual carriageway between us and our place of work or education, and provides no means for us to continue walking or cycling safely and conveniently, should we just give up?

I'm not saying this is what applies in the situation described by the OP, but I find myself wondering what would motivate a cyclist to use that road?

Could it be a stubborn cyclist who just refuses to be railroaded out of the way? Or is he a bit nutty perhaps, as might be the old lady I see walking for no good reason in a local cycle lane from time to time?

Iwannahurl

Corkblowin wrote: »

Even the dutch have major traffic routes where cyclists do not travel.

Yes, they segregate cyclists and motorised traffic (except mopeds) for safety reasons.

They do not take away space from cyclists to reallocate it to motorised traffic though, at least not for the last 50 years or so.

They also have long-distance routes for cyclists, and they maximise cycle mobility and access generally.

Corkblowin

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Could it be a stubborn cyclist who just refuses to be railroaded out of the way? Or is he a bit nutty perhaps, as might be the old lady I see walking for no good reason in a local cycle lane from time to time?

I suppose the incredulity of those of us who use the road is that it is a relatively new route. When I first moved to Cork it was just fields. Its not as if an old road was widened to dual carriageway status and this chap has decided hes not changing his route. He has made the decision to leave the old routes to the west of the city and join a road which is dual carriageway at this point, but is motorway within a couple of miles on either sides.

Viper_JB

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Absolutely.

But if the local authority builds, say, a dual carriageway between us and our place of work or education, and provided no means for us to continue walking or cycling safely and conveniently, should we just give up?

I'm not saying this is what applies in the situation described by the OP, but I find myself wondering what would motivate a cyclist to use that road?

Could it be a stubborn cyclist who just refuses to be railroaded out of the way? Or is he a bit nutty perhaps, as might be the old lady I see walking for no good reason in a local cycle lane from time to time?

Ya, I'm from Cork though and I can't really think of any reason why you would need to use it for a commute - would pretty much nearly always be faster to avoid - might have some use of the roundabouts I guess is all, but it's not a shortcut road just a faster speed one to take traffic away from the city. Probably just a little bit nutty.

keithclancy

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

You should not cycle on dual carriegeways. Or at least not in one of the driving lanes.
No continental person would be insane enough to do it, except the Irish.
I'm saying the Irish sometimes lack a sense of danger, instead saying "well, I'm legally entitled to do so" and then scream blue blue murder if something goes wrong.

I believe the phrase is

"there was no sign saying I couldn't do it"

Ludo

60kmph limit in this area by the way not 100...not that ANYONE obeys that.

Iwannahurl

If that's the case, law-abiding motorists travelling at 60 km/h on this stretch are being endangered by others travelling at up to 40 km/h faster behind them.

corktina

isn't that just temporary signs though?

dr.fuzzenstein

Iwannahurl wrote: »

What the Dutch would say about Irish "planning" for cyclists might well be unprintable.

There I wholeheartedly agree with you.
Irish "planning"in any field is not the greatest.
This country will never be forward looking, it will simply stumble from crisis to crisis because people in charge only think about their next lunch and salary increase.

Iwannahurl

corktina wrote: »

isn't that just temporary signs though?

You're right. I think that was mentioned earlier.

The law is the law though.

Iwannahurl

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

This country will never be forward looking, it will simply stumble from crisis to crisis because people in charge only think about their next lunch and salary increase.

Or their next "sickie".

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/local-authority-sick-leave-twice-that-in-the-private-sector-1.1616147

Corkblowin

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

There I wholeheartedly agree with you.
Irish "planning"in any field is not the greatest.

And the more you learn about it the more annoyed you get. The number of departments who hold resist any change to the status quo has to be seen to be believed - and the lack of logic in a system that sees half the city dug up at the moment so their budget is spend by year end is mind-boggling.

dantastic

Next time you pass the area have a look over to the Dunnes side of the road. There's a brand new cycle path there. I don't know how much of the road it covers but I know it covers the stretch in question anyway.

But of course the cyclist have the "right" to be on the road.

Iwannahurl

There is no law that says a cyclist has to use a "cycle path".

In any case, what is the practical value of a stretch of cycle path on the 'wrong' side of the road?

Seweryn

Iwannahurl wrote: »

There is no law that says a cyclist has to use a "cycle path".

In any case, what is the practical value of a stretch of cycle path on the 'wrong' side of the road?

And when they build a cycle lane on your side of the road, it is quite often useless or even dangerous to use. Pure waste of taxpayers money. You can't expect anyone to use it.

dr.fuzzenstein

Seweryn wrote: »

And when they build a cycle lane on your side of the road, it is quite often useless or even dangerous to use. Pure waste of taxpayers money. You can't expect anyone to use it.

Looks good for a slalom, but not much else.

dr.fuzzenstein

Iwannahurl wrote: »

There is no law that says a cyclist has to use a "cycle path".

In any case, what is the practical value of a stretch of cycle path on the 'wrong' side of the road?

More monuments on the roadside, but a minor point made.

dr.fuzzenstein

dantastic wrote: »

Next time you pass the area have a look over to the Dunnes side of the road. There's a brand new cycle path there. I don't know how much of the road it covers but I know it covers the stretch in question anyway.

But of course the cyclist have the "right" to be on the road.

We need to tell them to never give up, redouble their efforts, go for it, all or nothing, assert your rights and go out there in the outside lane because they have a god-given right to be there!
Problem should sort itself fairly soon I imagine.
In other countries people die for human rights, freedom of speech, democracy, racial and sexual equality, but here people will gladly sacrifice themselves for their God Given Right To Be On The Road! (and wear lycra)

Iwannahurl

Seweryn wrote: »

And when they build a cycle lane on your side of the road, it is quite often useless or even dangerous to use. Pure waste of taxpayers money. You can't expect anyone to use it.

Ah yes. That one looks better (ie worse) in daylight.

If it wasn't so bog-standardly bad it would be a candidate for Cycle Facility of the Month.

Iwannahurl

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

More monuments on the roadside, but a minor point made.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

We need to tell them to never give up, redouble their efforts, go for it, all or nothing, assert your rights and go out there in the outside lane because they have a god-given right to be there!
Problem should sort itself fairly soon I imagine.
In other countries people die for human rights, freedom of speech, democracy, racial and sexual equality, but here people will gladly sacrifice themselves for their God Given Right To Be On The Road! (and wear lycra)

175 roadside monuments so far this year. 28 of them pedestrian monuments, five of them for cyclists.

Nothing minor about any aspect of this. The vast majority of the 175 fatalities were killed by or in cars.

To suggest that cyclists deal with these dangers, and with the often preventable factors that lead to death and serious injury on the roads, just by going away somewhere else or giving up entirely is to let the truly culpable off the hook.

dr.fuzzenstein

Iwannahurl wrote: »

175 roadside monuments so far this year. 28 of them pedestrian monuments, five of them for cyclists.

Nothing minor about any aspect of this. The vast majority of the 175 fatalities were killed by or in cars.

To suggest that cyclists deal with these dangers, and with the often preventable factors that lead to death and serious injury on the roads, just by going away somewhere else or giving up entirely is to let the truly culpable off the hook.

As I said, there once was a cyclist who cycled in lane one of a dual carriageway, despite there being backroads, hard shoulder, alternate roads, etc...
I marvel at the Irish and their attitude to road safety.
When i was small my mother told me "don't go playing out in the street and keep off the main roads on your bike, or you'll get killed!"
Here, it's "You go off now and use that road, because you are entitled to be there, don't worry, the cars will look out for you".
Being right is not useful when you're dead.
You want to kill yourself?
You're welcome to it.
I was told this strange concept of "common sense" that people here seem completely puzzled by.
They only say "well, nobody told me I couldn't do that"

_Kaiser_

I can't believe there's nearly 100 posts debating the rights and wrongs of the OP .. but in a way it does illustrate once again why driving in this country is the mess it is.

The road in question (I know it quite well myself) is Cork's equivalent of the M50 (without the M). It's 3 lanes of heavy fast-moving traffic and it's absolute lunacy to suggest that cyclist or pedestrian has any "right" to be there REGARDLESS of what some statute (that was probably written long before we even had roads like this) says.

Anyone who thinks otherwise should really hand in their license and stick to buses (and the same goes for the cyclist brigade).

dr.fuzzenstein

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

I can't believe there's nearly 100 posts debating the rights and wrongs of the OP .. but in a way it does illustrate once again why driving in this country is the mess it is.

The road in question (I know it quite well myself) is Cork's equivalent of the M50 (without the M). It's 3 lanes of heavy fast-moving traffic and it's absolute lunacy to suggest that cyclist or pedestrian has any "right" to be there REGARDLESS of what some statute (that was probably written long before we even had roads like this) says.

Anyone who thinks otherwise should really hand in their license and stick to buses (and the same goes for the cyclist brigade).

I agree so much, it had to be quoted.
How about this:
If anyone thinks it is such a brilliant idea to do what the cyclist in the OP did, why not go out there and do it yourself?
Go out there in the dark, rush hour traffic and cycle in lane 2 of that road in the middle of traffic for 10 minutes.
Then, if you have surviced, post Youtbe video and explain what it was like and why you think it was a great idea.
We're waiting with bated breath! (awaits inevitable deafening silence)

The Bishop Basher

A significant number of people on boards will defend the rights of cyclists to use the road anyway they like, as long as it's legal. Unfortunately this is often to the detriment of logic and common sense. On this occasion it seems, they really have gone too far.

For anyone to suggest that it's ok for a cyclist to take up lane 2 on a busy 3 lane road, in the dark at rush hour, is nothing short of utter lunacy.

Iwannahurl

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

As I said, there once was a cyclist who cycled in lane one of a dual carriageway, despite there being backroads, hard shoulder, alternate roads, etc...
I marvel at the Irish and their attitude to road safety.
When i was small my mother told me "don't go playing out in the street and keep off the main roads on your bike, or you'll get killed!"
Here, it's "You go off now and use that road, because you are entitled to be there, don't worry, the cars will look out for you".
Being right is not useful when you're dead.
You want to kill yourself?
You're welcome to it.
I was told this strange concept of "common sense" that people here seem completely puzzled by.
They only say "well, nobody told me I couldn't do that"

Well, maybe we should blame Irish mammies rather than Irish engineers and Irish politicians and Irish drivers for the vast majority of road deaths then.

I guess we need to point the figure at some group in particular for (a) the thousands of road deaths over the the last several decades and (b) the parallel decline in the number of people, especially children, cycling and walking, not to mention playing in the street.

In our neighbourhood the mammy's message would be "don't play on the road because there are cars on it, and don't play on the footpaths either because there are cars on them too, and don't play in the driveway because that's for the cars and don't cycle in the cycle lanes because they're for the cars, and don't cross the road at the green man because the cars are in a hurry to get through the red light, and don't try to go around the roundabout because that's full of cars, and don't bother using the dished kerbs because they're for the cars, and don't even think about walking on the grass verges because that space is for the cars too."

At no time have I stated that the cyclist mentioned by the OP was in the right. However, in this and in many other cases (some of which may even have resulted in death or injury) I thinks it's necessary to look beyond the individual and see whether there are any structural issues that need addressing. Victim-blaming is alive and well in discussions of road safety in Ireland, as is the targeting of individuals rather than the implementation of policies at population and institutional level. The RSA, AGS, local authorities and central government are all guilty of this imo.

dr.fuzzenstein

Yes and I agree to a point, but the cyclist in the OP was a sodding nutter.