Cork SRR - Cyclist in Middle Lane

Iwannahurl

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).

There are lots of reasons why motorists should be made to surrender their licence. This forum alone provides plenty of material in that regard. The "my speed" merchants would be a good place to start, perhaps.

If you know the road in question, can you (a) quantify the effect the removal of the hard shoulder had on accessibility for cyclists, and (b) indicate to what extent the SRR and its recent modifications has created community severance in the area?

dr.fuzzenstein

Yeah, but the cyclist in the OP is a sodding nutter.
Any takers on my Youtube offer?
Thought not.

(for any future replies defending that donut, just copy and paste the above as a reply)

_Kaiser_

Iwannahurl wrote: »

There are lots of reasons why motorists should be made to surrender their licence. This forum alone provides plenty of material in that regard. The "my speed" merchants would be a good place to start, perhaps.

If you know the road in question, can you (a) quantify the effect the removal of the hard shoulder had on accessibility for cyclists, and (b) indicate to what extent the SRR and its recent modifications has created community severance in the area?

I'm not getting drawn into a pointless debate of "think of the children" (but in motoring terms) on this.

I prefer to deal in reality - the reality is the road is there, it's a heavily used, multi-lane carrigeway with fast moving traffic and multiple entrance/exit points.

In any REAL term, a cyclist or pedestrian has no business being there and should either take an alternate route or use another form of motorised transport (public or private)

Anything else is advocating putting such people (and others) at unnecessary risk for the sake of misguided do-goodery and in my book protecting the former trumps the latter EVERY time

Cookie_Monster

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

You should not cycle on dual carriegeways. Or at least not in one of the driving lanes.
.

give me one credible reason why not. Hundreds, if not thousands of cyclists use the N11 daily... never mind any other location you care to mention.

Iwannahurl

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

In any REAL term, a cyclist or pedestrian has no business being there and should either take an alternate route or use another form of motorised transport (public or private)

What you are doing is avoiding the question.

Perhaps a 3-lane highway has no business being there? Or perhaps Cork City Council has no business putting residential estates, commercial developments, services or amenities alongside a 3-lane highway?

Perhaps such "planning" is one reason that Cork had the second highest level of insurance claims for road deaths in the country last year?

_Kaiser_

OK I'm out of this one..

If the pro-cycling lobby can't see why fast moving traffic, multiple lanes + push bikes and pedestrians is A BAD THING then I don't see the point in even trying to convince them anyway.

The N11 comparison is a fallacy.. it's another road (like the M50) where the actual conditions on the road are VERY different from other routes of the same classification.

Might I suggest though that such militancy from a certain section of this group is exactly why situations like described in the OP actually happen.

Anyway, I'll leave the rest of the forum to take this up (or not) with you

Ludo

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Perhaps such "planning" is one reason that Cork had the second highest level of insurance claims for road deaths in the country last year?

Or maybe it has something to do with the fact it is the largest county and has a large rural road network (similar to Donegal) on which there are more likely to be fatal accidents.

Iwannahurl

Ludo wrote: »

Or maybe it has something to do with the fact it is the largest county and has a large rural road network (similar to Donegal) on which there are more likely to be fatal accidents.

Several in the city too, over the years.

http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/Ireland-Road-Collisions/

Iwannahurl

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

If the pro-cycling lobby can't see why fast moving traffic, multiple lanes + push bikes and pedestrians is A BAD THING then I don't see the point in even trying to convince them anyway.

On the contrary. Mixing high volumes of fast-moving traffic with vulnerable road users in an urban setting is indeed A BAD THING.

dr.fuzzenstein

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

give me one credible reason why not. Hundreds, if not thousands of cyclists use the N11 daily... never mind any other location you care to mention.

Well, you read my postst, strap on a camera and recreate what the cyclist in the OP did, I'm looking forward to your, no doubt, hillarious video.

Corkblowin

Iwannahurl wrote: »

On the contrary. Mixing high volumes of fast-moving traffic with vulnerable road users in an urban setting is indeed A BAD THING.

I don't think you are getting the point of this road. This is a new road designed to GO AROUND an urban area. It is not an urban area with a mix of uses, road users etc.

In contrast the roads in the area the SSR bypasses have been modified to urban streets over the last few years to accommodate the mix you describe, and the unnecessary traffic in these areas is directed to the SSR.

Iwannahurl

Did you not say previously that it's being used by commuters?

Corkblowin

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Did you not say previously that it's being used by commuters?

Now you're just being argumentative for the sake of it.

As I said previously - in theory it should not be used by commuters. A cyclist using the SRR would be like using the m50 to go from Newlands to Liffey Valley instead of through Clondalkin.

dr.fuzzenstein

I'm looking forward to all those videos of people recreating the situation described in the OP.

Iwannahurl

Corkblowin wrote: »

I don't think you are getting the point of this road. This is a new road designed to GO AROUND an urban area. It is not an urban area with a mix of uses, road users etc.

In contrast the roads in the area the SSR bypasses have been modified to urban streets over the last few years to accommodate the mix you describe, and the unnecessary traffic in these areas is directed to the SSR.

I don't know the area at all, but StreetView's suggestion for a 3.5 km cycle route from Elmvale Avenue to Alderbrook appears to include this beauty.

Have the "urban streets" been modified in recent times to provide a different cycling experience? Or is StreetView inaccurate in this case, as it often is?



EDIT: I notice a lot of posters for Alan Kelly's election campaign in the StreetView images. That gives me a bit of a laugh. It seems the Minister is having as big an impact on cycling conditions in Cork as he is in Galway.

Corkblowin

That route sends the cyclist along a path under the SRR & only requires them to negotiate the light controlled roundabout - where in practical terms anybody with an iota of sense would use the pedestrian crossings & not go around with the traffic flow.

Having said that even the directions say some parts of the route may not be suitable for bicycles.

dr.fuzzenstein

That guy must spend his life trawling through stats, it's easy to keep a fool occupied.
I'm off to watch telly and have a drink, later, dudes.

Iwannahurl

Corkblowin wrote: »

That route sends the cyclist along a path under the SRR & only requires them to negotiate the light controlled roundabout - where in practical terms anybody with an iota of sense would use the pedestrian crossings & not go around with the traffic flow.

Having said that even the directions say some parts of the route may not be suitable for bicycles.

It's an example of the community severance I referred to earlier, perhaps.

With regard to the pedestrian crossings, two observations: (1) it is illegal for cyclists to use footpaths, and (2) are we to assume that Alan Kelly has funded the provision of new pedestrian crossings in that spot, because the ones there don't look so hot.

The two-way "cycle path" along the Kinsale Road is the usual Irish fragmented and dangerous rubbish, I notice. BTW, is that in fact a different Alan Kelly looking for the cyclist vote?

Corkblowin

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I don't know the area at all

Enough said.

If cyclists want to use corks M50 to travel around the city then carry on. I just hope I'm not in the area the day something goes wrong.

Iwannahurl

Judging by the empty "cycle paths" on the Kinsale Road, by way of just one example, I'd say Cork City Council have managed to deter most cyclists by now.

That's one method of preventing casualties among vulnerable road users: just get rid of those pesky people by 'designing' them out. That way if anything bad happens to one or two, er, die-hards on occasion, we can say it's their own fault.

Cookie_Monster

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well, you read my postst, strap on a camera and recreate what the cyclist in the OP did, I'm looking forward to your, no doubt, hillarious video.

being in lane 2 is probably not the best idea, but until you manage to track him down and ask why he was there you don't know if there was a valid reason or just muppetry, nothwithstanding why shouldn't cyclist be on DCs

Corkblowin wrote: »

If cyclists want to use corks M50 to travel around the city then carry on. I just hope I'm not in the area the day something goes wrong.

It's not an M50 equiv, it's a N road and that's an important difference.

Corkblowin

Iwannahurl wrote: »

That's one method of preventing casualties among vulnerable road users: just get rid of those pesky people by 'designing' them out. That way if anything bad happens to one or two, er, die-hards on occasion, we can say it's their own fault.

For the last time....the SRR is designed to take traffic away from the urban areas of Mahon, Douglas and Wilton - and the roads in those areas have been made more pedestrian and cycle friendly. It is now quicker to cycle across the city along former main routes than to drive and continuing to argue otherwise when you don't know the area is, frankly, idiotic.

Goodnight

_Kaiser_

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

It's not an M50 equiv, it's a N road and that's an important difference.

More fallacy... again let's deal with reality:

- 3 lanes.. check
- multiple exits/entrances over a short distance.. check
- 100 km/h limit.. check
- heavy fast-moving traffic.. check

Just because one is an N and the other an M does not make the former any more suitable for cyclists or pedestrians than the latter.

But if it helps you, the M50 should be re-designated an N-road too on the basis that it bears no resemblance to other motorways either (M1/M2/M3/M4/M6 etc) but neither is suitable for push bikes or people taking a stroll! That's basic common sense, regardless of the whaterboutery or "rights"/"killing the community" nonsense

Iwannahurl

Corkblowin wrote: »

It is now quicker to cycle across the city along former main routes than to drive and continuing to argue otherwise when you don't know the area is, frankly, idiotic.

Goodnight

And good luck.

I haven't advanced such an argument. This has to do with speculation as to why the cyclist observed by the OP might be there. Community severance is one theory. As Cookie Monster has pointed out, we "don't know if there was a valid reason or just muppetry."

Do we know whether the cyclist in question was trying to "cycle across the city" or trying to "use Cork's M50 to travel around the city"?

Here in Galway we have a major route (originally "planned" as a ring road) that features high volumes of pedestrians and cyclists amidst motorised traffic often doing twice the speed limit by my estimation. Cyclists travelling along the route are not trying to use Galway's "M50" to get around the city. They're just travelling from A to B to C along a road that happens to divide their travel destinations from their homes. Irish "planners" are well capable of such travesties, although I would grant that Cork could be ahead of Galway in remedying past mistakes.

Jimmy Bottles

Iwannahurl wrote: »

And good luck.

I haven't advanced such an argument. This has to do with speculation as to why the cyclist observed by the OP might be there. Community severance is one theory. As Cookie Monster has pointed out, we "don't know if there was a valid reason or just muppetry."

Do we know whether the cyclist in question was trying to "cycle across the city" or trying to "use Cork's M50 to travel around the city"?

Here in Galway we have a major route (originally "planned" as a ring road) that features high volumes of pedestrians and cyclists amidst motorised traffic often doing twice the speed limit by my estimation. Cyclists travelling along the route are not trying to use Galway's "M50" to get around the city. They're just travelling from A to B to C along a road that happens to divide their travel destinations from their homes. Irish "planners" are well capable of such travesties, although I would grant that Cork could be ahead of Galway in remedying past mistakes.

I've been keeping an eye on this thread all night.

I started this thread with a simple point. The way the N40 was built is not suitable for cyclists and what this cyclist did was idiotic in the extreme. Its lamentable that no provision has been made for cyclists, but as no provision has been made, I believe cyclists should not be allowed on this stretch of road as it is simply too dangerous.

I have absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make in this thread. For the last 5 pages, you're posts have grown ever more tedious and you have brought this thread so far away from its original point that it not almost has nothing to do with my original post. I have no idea what you are trying to achieve but how about doing it in a new thread instead of wrecking this one.

Iwannahurl

Jimmy Bottles wrote: »

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.

Your main point is that cyclists have not been provided for on the SRR and if that's not to be done then they should be banned.

My main point is that the source of the danger should be addressed (high volumes of motorised traffic travelling at high speed) and that merely banning the potential victim(s) from a particular road is not a sustainable solution.

It appears that Cork City has made some efforts to improve conditions for cyclists, but maybe parts of the SRR remain problematic?

That said, we still don't know why this individual cyclist did what he did last Thursday during rush hour traffic.

corktina

Corkblowin wrote: »

For the last time....the SRR is designed to take traffic away from the urban areas of Mahon, Douglas and Wilton - and the roads in those areas have been made more pedestrian and cycle friendly. It is now quicker to cycle across the city along former main routes than to drive and continuing to argue otherwise when you don't know the area is, frankly, idiotic.

Goodnight

how would you propose to ride from Mahon to Wilton (for instance)?

Cookie_Monster

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

But if it helps you, the M50 should be re-designated an N-road too on the basis that it bears no resemblance to other motorways either (M1/M2/M3/M4/M6 etc) but neither is suitable for push bikes or people taking a stroll! That's basic common sense, regardless of the whaterboutery or "rights"/"killing the community" nonsense

both are perfectly suitable; it's only the law that prevents people, including me, from using the M50 or any other motorway on a regular basis (before I moved abroad), you're counter argument is nothing more than misplaced "won't somebody think of the children" whataboutery, that or you believe car have more rights to the roads than other forms of transport.

dr.fuzzenstein

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

both are perfectly suitable; it's only the law that prevents people, including me, from using the M50 or any other motorway on a regular basis (before I moved abroad), you're counter argument is nothing more than misplaced "won't somebody think of the children" whataboutery, that or you believe car have more rights to the roads than other forms of transport.

OK, this is nonsense.
You know full well that pedestrians and cyclists have absolutely no place on a motorway.
You are merely arguing for the sake of it, therefore you are being disingenuous, because you would not cycle on a motorway yourself or allow your kids to do so. (Oh PLEASE don't tell me you have kids, I wouldn't trust you with a goldfish)
You therefore are merely trolling, but what worries me is the fact that some poor, less than bright people might take you serious and actually cycle down the middle lane of the M50 shouting "I Am Entitled!"
If you really are serious, you should do exactly that and post the video on Youtube.
Funny how no one takes me up on the offer. Here, I'll sweeten the deal, €5 to do it? Would be worth the price of admission...
So now, back in your box, enough feed for you.
Or maybe the law should be changed:
Anyone wanting to cycle down the M50 is entitled to do so, but there will be a clause that if you end up as a 20ft smear, no one is to blame but the cyclist and his family will have to pay for repair and cleanup of vehicles...

Wexfordian

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

both are perfectly suitable; it's only the law that prevents people, including me, from using the M50 or any other motorway on a regular basis (before I moved abroad), you're counter argument is nothing more than misplaced "won't somebody think of the children" whataboutery, that or you believe car have more rights to the roads than other forms of transport.

Absolutely cars (and other motorised vehicles) have more rights on certain roads then bicycles and pedestrians. In exactly the same way as they are not allowed on cycle lanes or down footpaths (bad parking notwithstanding).

_Kaiser_

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

both are perfectly suitable; it's only the law that prevents people, including me, from using the M50 or any other motorway on a regular basis (before I moved abroad), you're counter argument is nothing more than misplaced "won't somebody think of the children" whataboutery, that or you believe car have more rights to the roads than other forms of transport.

I'm with Dr F on this - you must be trolling at this stage! To suggest that a road like those mentioned are in anyway suitable for pedestrians or cyclists is lunacy!

As for your last point.. yes, in this instance a car (or other motorised vehicle) absolutely has more "rights" to the road than any other form of transport.

But feel free to take Dr F up on his offer and see how you get on. When the Gardai arrive to escort you off the road, do let us know how they respond to you asserting your "right" to be there!

Cookie_Monster

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

You are merely arguing for the sake of it, therefore you are being disingenuous, because you would not cycle on a motorway yourself or allow your kids to do so. (Oh PLEASE don't tell me you have kids, I wouldn't trust you with a goldfish)

have seen people cycling (and walking) on the m50 before. People cycle the stretch of M11 from Loughlinstown to south of Bray every single weekend. What differentiates that section of m11 from the N11 directly south (apart from classification) of it which I've cycled dozens and dozens of time without any issue what-so-ever. My father in law also cycle that M11 section often enough.

You therefore are merely trolling, but what worries me is the fact that some poor, less than bright people might take you serious and actually cycle down the middle lane of the M50 shouting "I Am Entitled!"

why would you cycle down the middle lane? Unless specifically avoiding something to the left blocking lane 1.

If you really are serious, you should do exactly that and post the video on Youtube.
Funny how no one takes me up on the offer. Here, I'll sweeten the deal, €5 to do it? Would be worth the price of admission...

pay me the $5000 it'll take to fly home and I'll video it for you.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

IBut feel free to take Dr F up on his offer and see how you get on. When the Gardai arrive to escort you off the road, do let us know how they respond to you asserting your "right" to be there!

Well I don't cycle on motorways, I should be able IMO, but I don't. I'd have no problem cycling on the N40 though, it's not a motorway and in no way is access for cyclists restricted despite your flawed opinions.

Cookie_Monster

Wexfordian wrote: »

Absolutely cars (and other motorised vehicles) have more rights on certain roads then bicycles and pedestrians. In exactly the same way as they are not allowed on cycle lanes or down footpaths (bad parking notwithstanding).

yes, on motorways, of which the N40 is not.

dr.fuzzenstein

Cookie, the whole point of the debate is that a cyclist was in the middle lane, no one in their right mind would argue that that was a good idea.
Personally I think that cycling down the hard shoulder of a dual carriageway is still not a great idea, what with doddery auld fellas driving down it and people on phones swerving across three lanes to park there to take the call.
I do agree that infrastructure for cyclists in this country has been neglected for decades, which is why nowhere in this country is great to cycle, or walk even.
And if you want to be able to cycle on motorways, I should be able to drive down cycle lanes. I can't see a single problem with it.
If you live abroad then you must have no doubt seen how the whole thing is handled in a proper, civilised country, where cyclists have their own roadspace and cars have theirs. Only in Ireland is anarchy and from the looks of it, many Irish prefer it.
The Irish way: Deliberately doing it wrong and being proud of it!

_Kaiser_

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Well I don't cycle on motorways, I should be able IMO, but I don't. I'd have no problem cycling on the N40 though, it's not a motorway and in no way is access for cyclists restricted despite your flawed opinions.

The only flawed opinions being expressed on this thread are by those who think cycling along a busy multi-lane highway with fast moving traffic (REGARDLESS of whether it's technically "legal" or not) is not only their "right" but perfectly acceptable.

And then you wonder why people have such a low opinion of cyclists in general? Case in point. I suggest you stick to buses, taxis or getting lifts before you get yourself or someone else killed.

Cookie_Monster

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Cookie, the whole point of the debate is that a cyclist was in the middle lane, no one in their right mind would argue that that was a good idea.

but until someone find the guy and asks him we he was there you can't know the reason. sure there's a 90% chance he's a ****ing moron but someone has already mentioned that lane one departs the carriageway further up...
maybe he was passing a tractor :pac:

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Personally I think that cycling down the hard shoulder of a dual carriageway is still not a great idea, what with doddery auld fellas driving down it and people on phones swerving across three lanes to park there to take the call.

far far safer than cycling on a 80kph backroad that's barely wider than a single lane wouldn't you say?

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I do agree that infrastructure for cyclists in this country has been neglected for decades, which is why nowhere in this country is great to cycle, or walk even.

infrastructure for cyclists = roads. I hate the perceived need for separation and the stupid, inconvenient or plain dangerous 'cycling facilities' that result. the sooner we can simply learn the concept of sharing the roads equally between all users the better.

Cookie_Monster

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

The only flawed opinions being expressed on this thread are by those who think cycling along a busy multi-lane highway with fast moving traffic (REGARDLESS of whether it's technically "legal" or not) is not only their "right" but perfectly acceptable.

you've yet to explain why it's not (aside from M roads)

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

And then you wonder why people have such a low opinion of cyclists in general? Case in point. I suggest you stick to buses, taxis or getting lifts before you get yourself or someone else killed.

why do you automatically assume I don't drive either? how does my cycling on a DC endanger anyone?
your obvious disdain for other road users is shocking.

Anan1

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

The only flawed opinions being expressed on this thread are by those who think cycling along a busy multi-lane highway with fast moving traffic (REGARDLESS of whether it's technically "legal" or not) is not only their "right" but perfectly acceptable.

And then you wonder why people have such a low opinion of cyclists in general? Case in point. I suggest you stick to buses, taxis or getting lifts before you get yourself or someone else killed.

If they have a legal right to be there then you accept that for as long as it's the case and drive accordingly, end of. Whether they should or shouldn't is a separate issue.

Karma

Padraig Mor wrote: »

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.

As a driver of 30 years, there is only one certain thing with road use. You are responsible for your actions. So when you say a cyclist was blocking the lane, the road, the country... maybe you left late and you should give respect and space BY LAW.
also "LOG JAMMED" is a common occurrence with road users of all various vehicles, it is where you can't get your head out of your ass due to self righteousness.

I look at driving in this country like fighting in school, Leave the little ones alone. why do you want to interfere with them, do you want a name for yourself.

whatever your reason, would you do it with your family in the car?

Like all drivers who, keep to the speed limit in the overtaking lane, you are not the law or ANY interpretation of it. obey the rules and we all might make it home.

Also, should the op have written to the chity council to be ignored in the first place...as he pointed out the cyclist is allowed there and as powerful as we are:rolleyes: we can't change it for you.

dr.fuzzenstein

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

but until someone find the guy and asks him we he was there you can't know the reason. sure there's a 90% chance he's a ****ing moron but someone has already mentioned that lane one departs the carriageway further up...
maybe he was passing a tractor :pac:
far far safer than cycling on a 80kph backroad that's barely wider than a single lane wouldn't you say?
infrastructure for cyclists = roads. I hate the perceived need for separation and the stupid, inconvenient or plain dangerous 'cycling facilities' that result. the sooner we can simply learn the concept of sharing the roads equally between all users the better.

On the guy, yes, plainly nuts.
On the backroads, yes, absolutely, some of those windy stretches are lethal.
On separate cycling lanes:
Of course there should be separate cycle lanes!
In Germany it's the norm. Beside every road, there will be a separate roadway for pedestrians and cyclists, I can't see what's stupid and dangerous about it.

_Kaiser_

Anan1 wrote: »

If they have a legal right to be there then you accept that for as long as it's the case and drive accordingly, end of. Whether they should or shouldn't is a separate issue.

I really think this country has gone to the dogs.. not just economically but socially.

Basic common sense and awareness of your personal responsibility for your safety seems to have been replaced by blind adherence to "the law" (no matter how nonsensical it may be) and a perceived "right" to something that trumps all.

If certain people on this thread really can't see the dangers of walking/cycling along a busy multi-lane urban highway amongst vehicles moving significantly faster than them then there really is no point in trying to convince them otherwise.

I've had enough trolling for one day.

dr.fuzzenstein

Anan1 wrote: »

If they have a legal right to be there then you accept that for as long as it's the case and drive accordingly, end of. Whether they should or shouldn't is a separate issue.

Which brings us right back to Irelands entitlement culture.
What the Irish excel at is doing something daft beyond comprehension and shout "I Am Entitled!"
I live here for 20 years and I still marvel at it...
But when it comes to really big issues, you won't see a soul on the street complaining. Me feiners.

Anan1

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

I really think this country has gone to the dogs.. not just economically but socially.

Basic common sense and awareness of your personal responsibility for your safety seems to have been replaced by blind adherence to "the law" (no matter how nonsensical it may be) and a perceived "right" to something that trumps all.

It's not a perceived right, it's an actual legal right. If the SSR were suddenly to be taken over by F1 drivers in Ferraris then your right to be there wouldn't be revoked by the fact that you were blocking them and endangering yourself.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

If certain people on this thread really can't see the dangers of walking/cycling along a busy multi-lane urban highway amongst vehicles moving significantly faster than them then there really is no point in trying to convince them otherwise.

Who can't see the danger?

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

I've had enough trolling for one day.

Are you taking your ball home with you?;)

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Which brings us right back to Irelands entitlement culture.
What the Irish excel at is doing something daft beyond comprehension and shout "I Am Entitled!"
I live here for 20 years and I still marvel at it...
But when it comes to really big issues, you won't see a soul on the street complaining. Me feiners.

People do that everywhere, that's why we need laws.

The Bishop Basher

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

have seen people cycling (and walking) on the m50 before. People cycle the stretch of M11 from Loughlinstown to south of Bray every single weekend.

No they don't. I've lived In the area all my life and travel that road multiple times a day. I've seen 2 cyclists on that stretch and on one of those ocassions there was a squad car pulled in giving them a talking to.

Common sense and legal rights are clearly not always in keeping with each other. The lack of common sense in defending the militant cycling brigades right to cycle in a centre lane on a busy motorway is astounding.

Jimmy Bottles

Seems to be a real divide on this thread between people who believe in common sense and those who believe in the letter of the law.

To me, cycling a bike on a 3 lane dual carriageway without a hard shoulder is absolute insanity and should never be done whether or not it is legal to do so.

On the flip side, going 10mph over the speed limit on a motorway may be against the law, but to my mind it is nowhere near as dangerous as cycling on the dual carriageway.

Would all the people on here who would cycle on a dual carriageway have any problem with people doing 10mph over the speed limit on a motorway ? Following the letter of the law blindly is a truly bizarre thing to do. Judges don't even do this and will often reinterpret pieces of law they view to be misdrafted or simply deficient in a certain area.

dr.fuzzenstein

Anan1 wrote: »

It's not a perceived right, it's an actual legal right. If the SSR were suddenly to be taken over by F1 drivers in Ferraris then your right to be there wouldn't be revoked by the fact that you were blocking them and endangering yourself.


People do that everywhere, that's why we need laws.

F1 cars would not be allowed, they are not road legal :P
Bikes are, maybe you're right and we need laws (sadly).
So it should be made illegal to cycle on dual carriageways, or at least on the driving lane of dual carriageways, with on the spot €50 fines for doing so.
In other countries you can actually accrue points on your driving licence for offences committed on a bike. This should be looked at in this case.
So, in tandem with the above laws, it should be made compulsory to use cycle lanes, where available, along with more points and fines.
You're right, I understand your argument, common sense doesn't work (and I still say more so in this country than anywhere else outside the US), the only thing people will react to is fines and points.

Which leads us to the biggest problem:
AGS and the Traffic Corps can't be arsed enforcing the existing rules, there is no chance they will enforce anything on top of it.
So we continue as before, which each side accusing the other and no one budging an inch and the casualties continuing.
I'm still amazed how the Irish are willing to sacrifice their life for their Right To Be On The Road, but when it comes to real global or social issues, you will see 10-15 people out protesting.
I will never get it. Personally I blame the British occupation, it has messed up the heads of people here. Small scale civil disobedience and willfully misinterpreting the rules is a unique Irish trait because of it.

Anan1

Swanner wrote: »

Common sense and legal rights are clearly not always in keeping with each other. The lack of common sense in defending the militant cycling brigades right to cycle in a centre lane on a busy motorway is astounding.

Militant is seeking to deny someone their lawful right to do something. Right now, the law defends the cyclist. Until such time as the law is changed, other traffic needs to take account the cyclists presence and drive accordingly. The problem here isn't the cyclist, it's the law.

corktina

can you see that riding a bike on any road is dangerous? Maybe he was foolish to be doing what he was doing but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be doing it. There is no justification to call for cyclists to be banned from this road on the sole basis that it has three lanes and is busy. Plenty of single lane roads are just as fast and busy, yet no one calls for cyclists to be banned from them.

I believe in common sense, it plainly isn't common sense to call for cyclists to be banned from this road for those reasons

dr.fuzzenstein

Anan1 wrote: »

Militant is seeking to deny someone their lawful right to do something. Right now, the law defends the cyclist. Until such time as the law is changed, other traffic needs to take account the cyclists presence and drive accordingly. The problem here isn't the cyclist, it's the law.

Militant is trying to assert one's rights, or perceived rights, over anyone else's, regardless of the impact it has on the rest of society and to do so by any means and without regard for the consequences.
So you actually agree that the law needs to be changed and cyclists banned from certain roads?

dr.fuzzenstein

corktina wrote: »

can you see that riding a bike on any road is dangerous? Maybe he was foolish to be doing what he was doing but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be doing it. There is no justification to call for cyclists to be banned from this road on the sole basis that it has three lanes and is busy. Plenty of single lane roads are just as fast and busy, yet no one calls for cyclists to be banned from them.

I believe in common sense, it plainly isn't common sense to call for cyclists to be banned from this road for those reasons

Since some people are unaware of the danger they put themselves and others in, yes, it would appear patently obvious that since people are daft, the law has to make the decisions for them. No one wants a nanny state, but it seems we need one.