Cork SRR - Cyclist in Middle Lane

Ludo

corktina wrote: »

It was stated that lane one peels off in the direction of Bandon , and I imagine that is why the cyclist was in lane two...ie he was going straight on. There is no other reasonable explanation for him being in lane two.

As the cyclist was between the Kinsale and Sarsfield exits at the time, the left lane does not peel off for another kilometer or so depending exactly where between those roundabouts he was. No reason to be in middle lane between those junctions as the lane does not end until the following exit.

The Bishop Basher

corktina wrote: »

It was stated that lane one peels off in the direction of Bandon , and I imagine that is why the cyclist was in lane two...ie he was going straight on. There is no other reasonable explanation for him being in lane two.

I'm not saying he wasn't putting himself at risk, I'm saying he might be entitled to be there if he was going straight on, in which case it is the road design at fault . As I said before in the UK he would have been routed down the slip road to the roundabout and back up the next slip on to the main line and he would have been sensible to go this way anyway

This post is based on assumptions as are many of the posts in here.

Basic facts:

Man on bike in lane 2 of busy, fast moving 3 lane road, in the dark at rush hour. Man has legal right to be there. Man is obviously suicidal or insane as he should not be there and he's putting both his life and the life of everyone around him in immediate danger.

People can argue all they want based on their own assumptions but the facts are the facts and the rest is just waffle.

dr.fuzzenstein

corktina wrote: »

It was stated that lane one peels off in the direction of Bandon , and I imagine that is why the cyclist was in lane two...ie he was going straight on. There is no other reasonable explanation for him being in lane two.

I'm not saying he wasn't putting himself at risk, I'm saying he might be entitled to be there if he was going straight on, in which case it is the road design at fault . As I said before in the UK he would have been routed down the slip road to the roundabout and back up the next slip on to the main line and he would have been sensible to go this way anyway

Insanity? Sheer bloody mindedness? Proving a point?
Agree otherwise. But again, in Ireland someone would pull that sort of stunt because they're "entitled to it", even though there would be a perfectly good road elsewhere. (hypothetically speaking)
People here would never risk their lives for anyone else or on a fundamental, global, human rights issue. But they would happily die to prove a minor point about their entitlements.

The Bishop Basher

Anan1 wrote: »

You think that cyclists are being militant by exercising their lawful right to use the road?

That's clearly not what I'm saying but sure if that's what you want to read into it so that you can disagree and argue ad nauseum, be my guest. Just don't expect me to remain engaged when I get bored in about 5 minutes.

corktina

I did say that would be the only reasonable explanation for him being there.....if it isn't reasonable, then he shouldn't have been there. Please note though that neither you nor I nor the OP can say exactly where he was on that road.

Anan1

Swanner wrote: »

That's clearly not what I'm saying but sure if that's what you want to read into it so that you can disagree and argue ad nauseum, be my guest. Just don't expect me to remain engaged when I get bored in about 5 minutes.

Actually, it is exactly what you were saying. The danger to cyclists is from fast-moving traffic. Given that cyclists have a perfect right to be there, the correct solution is for drivers to slow down. Your assertion otherwise is the very definition of militancy.

corktina

cyclists are at danger on every road from fast moving traffic and more so on other roads than the N40. It isn't logical to want to limit them there, without doing the same elsewhere

Jimmy Bottles

corktina wrote: »

I did say that would be the only reasonable explanation for him being there.....if it isn't reasonable, then he shouldn't have been there. Please note though that neither you nor I nor the OP can say exactly where he was on that road.

I overtook him just past the Togher flyover which is between the Pouladuff Flyover and the Sarsfield Roundabout. At a guess, he must have been in the same lane before I overtook him.

TINA1984

Red Nissan wrote: »

The South Link and the South Ring Road had been designated as Motorways previously. When the South Link was built just going to the Magic Roundabout cyclists were not permitted to use it.

No that is not correct. They've never been designated as Motorways, restrictions on cyclists yes, Motorways no. The first Motorway in the county and city of Cork was the M8 Fermoy Bypass, followed by the rest of the N8 schemes being redesignated Motorway.

Red Nissan wrote: »

In that time the authority over seeers has changed a few times and it has had more than one designation, recently access roads from Carrigtwohill and Ballincollig have all been redesignated to Motorway Status and now the SRR has its compliments of flyovers to make one complete uninterrupted bypass of the city.

That is not correct either. You're confusing the speed limit increase from 100 to 120 kph as changes in designation from national primary (N designation & Green signage) with Motorway (M designation & Blue signage).

Red Nissan wrote: »

I expect the road to get official designation and a toll in the coming months.

I would like to see the entire N40 being redesignated as Motorway, but I would say it is unlikely until the Dunkettle Interchange upgrade is completed. It will take the death of cyclists on the N40 as it stands to concentrate minds on the issue.

beauf

Anan1 wrote: »

Actually, it is exactly what you were saying. The danger to cyclists is from fast-moving traffic. Given that cyclists have a perfect right to be there, the correct solution is for drivers to slow down. Your assertion otherwise is the very definition of militancy.

What right does a cyclist have to be in the middle lane a kilometre from the next junction?

The Bishop Basher

Anan1 wrote: »

Actually, it is exactly what you were saying. The danger to cyclists is from fast-moving traffic. Given that cyclists have a perfect right to be there, the correct solution is for drivers to slow down. Your assertion otherwise is the very definition of militancy.

That's right Anan1. They have a perfect right to take up lane 2 on a 3 lane road in the dark at rush hour, not only inconveniencing every other road user behind them but putting themselves and everyone else at risk. An entire ring round round a city should slow down from 70 to 20 to accommodate the cyclist for 20 miles if that's how long he chooses to remain in lane 2.

This thread is just tedious now. I'm not feeding them anymore.

beauf

The solution is simple.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2391203/Millions-motorists-face-fined-range-sweeping-new-police-powers-tackle-careless-drivers.html

Anan1

beauf wrote: »

What right does a cyclist have to be in the middle lane a kilometre from the next junction?

None, I meant to use the road.

Mikros

Anan1 wrote: »

Actually, it is exactly what you were saying. The danger to cyclists is from fast-moving traffic. Given that cyclists have a perfect right to be there, the correct solution is for drivers to slow down. Your assertion otherwise is the very definition of militancy.

No, the correct solution is separating slow moving, vulnerable road users from a high density, high speed multi lane carriageway. Of course motorists *should* slow down, but you may as well say motorists shouldn't be involved in collisions. The fact remains the presence of a cyclist in that situation significantly increases the chances of a collision occurring, and if it involves the cyclist it will likely involve a serious injury or fatality. The law is never going to cover every possible situation, and just because it is a N road and cyclists are legally allowed there doesn't mean there shouldn't be some common sense in play.

Anan1

Mikros wrote: »

No, the correct solution is separating slow moving, vulnerable road users from a high density, high speed multi lane carriageway. Of course motorists *should* slow down, but you may as well say motorists shouldn't be involved in collisions. The fact remains the presence of a cyclist in that situation significantly increases the chances of a collision occurring, and if it involves the cyclist it will likely involve a serious injury or fatality. The law is never going to cover every possible situation, and just because it is a N road and cyclists are legally allowed there doesn't mean there shouldn't be some common sense in play.

Agreed, and common sense is to slow down for cyclists. It may or may not be stupid for them to be there, but they are there, they have a right to be there, and the onus is on motorists to take account of them. If you want them gone then lobby your local councillor.

Donnelly117

Anan1 wrote: »

Given that cyclists have a perfect right to be there, the correct solution is for drivers to slow down.

You've stated this several time in this thread now...I can only assume you're trolling at this stage. Do you really think that the thousands of cars using the SRR everyday should drive at cycling pace when there is a cyclist using the road? Are you actually serious? Whats the point in building a road the scale of the SRR if cars drive at 20kmh on it?

Anan1

Donnelly117 wrote: »

You've stated this several time in this thread now...I can only assume you're trolling at this stage.

* yawns *.

Donnelly117 wrote: »

Do you really think that the thousands of cars using the SRR everyday should drive at cycling pace when there is a cyclist using the road? Are you actually serious? Whats the point in building a road the scale of the SRR if cars drive at 20kmh on it?

Yes, for as long as it is legal for cyclists to use the road.

beauf

Anan1 wrote: »

Agreed, and common sense is to slow down for cyclists. It may or may not be stupid for them to be there, but they are there, they have a right to be there, and the onus is on motorists to take account of them. If you want them gone then lobby your local councillor.

Only the traffic in the same lane needs to slow down. The other lanes should not have to unless the cyclist is in the wrong lane.

The issues here is the cyclist was in the wrong lane.

That the road is unsuitable for cycling is a separate issue

beauf

Anan1 wrote: »

Yes, for as long as it is legal for cyclists to use the road.

Why does all the traffic in the other lanes have to slow down?

Donnelly117

Anan1 wrote: »

* yawns *.

Yes, for as long as it is legal for cyclists to use the road.

Im sure that will catch on alright. Maybe we can just stop using the road altogether and turn it into a cycling lane... :rolleyes:

Anan1

beauf wrote: »

Why does all the traffic in the other lanes have to slow down?

It doesn't, although in heavy traffic a cyclist in the left lane will cause congestion across other lanes.

Mikros

Anan1 wrote: »

Agreed, and common sense is to slow down for cyclists.

Slowing down from 80 km/ to say 30 km/h on a route with that sort of high volumes of traffic causes a huge stop wave to travel back through following traffic - 100 cars back people are slamming on brakes. The fact it is dark and the person at the front might not see or expect the cyclist until late makes this even more severe. But I suspect you know this already.

The road network has to be shared between all road users - proper design prioritises some road users over others depending on the environment. For example in residential areas cyclists and pedestrian take priority, hence lower speed limits, speed bumps, bans on HGV's etc. On high density dual carriageways and motorways vehicle traffic takes priority - cyclists should be provided with alternative routes in those cases. That is how you reduce collisions and injuries.

You are arguing nonsense tbh.

Donnelly117

Anan1 wrote: »

It doesn't, although in heavy traffic a cyclist in the left lane will cause congestion across other lanes.

This is the bloody point everyone in this thread is making. You proposing to slow down hundreds of cars to 20% of the limit in order to keep 1 cyclist happy...

Anan1

Donnelly117 wrote: »

This is the bloody point everyone in this thread is making. You proposing to slow down hundreds of cars to 20% of the limit in order to keep 1 cyclist happy...

Go back and read my posts again. S-l-o-w-l-y. The law dictates that cyclists be accommodated on that road. If you have a problem with that then you need to look at having that law changed.

Mikros

Anan1 wrote: »

* yawns *.

Yes, for as long as it is legal for cyclists to use the road.

It is legal for me to drive a HGV through a village at 50 km/h at 3pm when school children are walking home - doesn't make it safe or advisable. You can't ignore the circumstances.

Anan1

Anan1 wrote: »

Are you saying that the law prohibits cyclists from holding up traffic? If so, I wouldn't mind a link to the relevant legislation?

There have been a number of cases of tractor drives being pulled by the guards for holding up traffic, I would apply the same to cyclists. A cyclist is a slow moving vehicle and should make allowances for faster moving traffic to pass easily or be fined.

Most cyclists I encounter cycle as close as possible to the left (usually in the hardshoulder when available which is where they should be for there own sake and that of other road users) which makes it possible to get passed them easily even with oncoming traffic. A cyclist tight to the left lane on the wide lanes on the south ring could passed by cars without too much difficulty. He should not be on the road in the first place but if he is that stupid to be cycling on it then he should at least try to keep out of the way of faster moving traffic.

Anan1

Mikros wrote: »

Slowing down from 80 km/ to say 30 km/h on a route with that sort of high volumes of traffic causes a huge stop wave to travel back through following traffic - 100 cars back people are slamming on brakes. The fact it is dark and the person at the front might not see or expect the cyclist until late makes this even more severe. But I suspect you know this already.

That's kind of obvious.

Mikros wrote: »

The road network has to be shared between all road users - proper design prioritises some road users over others depending on the environment. For example in residential areas cyclists and pedestrian take priority, hence lower speed limits, speed bumps, bans on HGV's etc. On high density dual carriageways and motorways vehicle traffic takes priority - cyclists should be provided with alternative routes in those cases. That is how you reduce collisions and injuries.

And that could be done here too, by banning cyclists. But for now it hasn't, which means that they need to be accommodated.

Mikros wrote: »

You are arguing nonsense tbh.

Yeah, whatever.

Mikros

Anan1 wrote: »

And that could be done here too, by banning cyclists. But for now it hasn't, which means that they need to be accommodated.

My point is that cyclists (unfortunately) haven't been accommodated in the design of that section of road and their presence now results in a significantly increased risk of collision. Even if every motorist was 100% competent the risk would still be there because of the traffic volume, speed and nature of a 3 lane carriageway.

In other words a cyclist cannot be safely accommodated at the moment irrespective of how much of a right they have to be there. If you choose to ignore that well then you have to accept the inevitable consequences.

TonyStark

Salvatore Sharp Woodpecker wrote: »

There have been a number of cases of tractor drives being pulled by the guards for holding up traffic, I would apply the same to cyclists. A cyclist is a slow moving vehicle and should make allowances for faster moving traffic to pass easily or be fined.

In relation the OP there was an overtaking lane available. If he had such great concerns he should have rung the Gardai and reported it.

Perhaps when you encounter other road users (cyclists/cars/busses/tractors/cows) who are "not making allowances for faster moving traffic"... you should ring the Gaurds (when safe to do so) and report them. I'm sure the boys in blue will give you a robust discourse about your complaints!

TonyStark

TonyStark wrote: »

In relation the OP there was an overtaking lane available. If he had such great concerns he should have rung the Gardai and reported it.

Perhaps when you encounter other road users (cyclists/cars/busses/tractors/cows) who are "not making allowances for faster moving traffic"... you should ring the Gaurds (when safe to do so) and report them. I'm sure the boys in blue will give you a robust discourse about your complaints!

When I am driving a tractor I make allowances for other faster moving traffic. I drive in the hardshoulder when available, if there is no hardshoulder I pull in every so often to allow cars to pass if there are no opportunities for them to overtake me safely etc.

In the very rare event a faster moving car is behind me when driving my car I will move over into the hard shoulder to allow them passed me etc.

I would expect the same from other road users, including cyclists.

Also your "robust discourse" comment suggests that the guards do not intervene in situations where traffic is being unreasonably impeded. Well they do and have issued fines to tractor drivers who refuse to allow faster moving traffic passed.

beauf

Anan1 wrote: »

It doesn't, although in heavy traffic a cyclist in the left lane will cause congestion across other lanes.

Yes but far less. Which is why being in the middle lane at that point is obnoxious at best. Dangerous at worse.

Wexfordian

TonyStark wrote: »

In relation the OP there was an overtaking lane available. If he had such great concerns he should have rung the Gardai and reported it.

Perhaps when you encounter other road users (cyclists/cars/busses/tractors/cows) who are "not making allowances for faster moving traffic"... you should ring the Gaurds (when safe to do so) and report them. I'm sure the boys in blue will give you a robust discourse about your complaints!

If he had rung the Guards and said that there was a vehicle doing 20kph in the middle lane of a three lane otherwise reasonably free-flowing carriageway, I doubt a "robust discourse" would have ensued. Unless (and with a bit of luck) they sent someone out to have a chat with said eejit.

Actually the only rules of the road being broken (unless he was being undertaken) were by the cyclist a) not keeping left and b) Not keeping up with traffic
"In normal road and traffic conditions, safely keep up with the pace of the traffic flow while obeying the speed limit. While you must keep a safe distance away from the vehicle in front, you should not drive so slowly that your vehicle unnecessarily blocks other road users"

Iwannahurl

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

http://media.fakeposters.com/results/2012/07/13/wjfs876t3d.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-fWN0FmcIU

Iwannahurl

Corkblowin wrote: »

What route would he have taken before the road existed? Because they all remain. Its a red herring like the community severance issue. The road follows a route that was a mixture of rivers and marsh and development on both sides were connected via roads that remain and are in fact safer now.

Route from Mahon to Wilton as requested by Corktina - Cycle Route 10.4km, SRR route 10.2km

https://www.dropbox.com/s/i99du2sai6zazcp/Mahon-wilton.tiff

Google maps sends you into the City Centre along the old rail line - but that adds an extra KM.

On those maps the Skehard Road keeps catching my eye.

I remember why now. This old thread on Boards: New traffic lights planned on Skehard Road. Still time to object!

As you have already stated, the SRR is meant to function as a bypass (of some sort) but is actually being used as a commuter route. What changes in traffic movement have occurred in the 'catchment area' of the section of the SRR mentioned by the OP?

I ask this because here in Galway there is a proposal for a supposed "bypass" that is really desired as a commuter route for motorists resident in the west of the city and the "rural" hinterland around it. The original EIS predicted a 166% increase in traffic over baseline on one particular road by 2025 if the bypass was built. Given that the road in question is already cycle-hostile in parts and clearly not designed with accessibility and permeability in mind, a 166% increase in traffic would certainly not be a move in the right direction.

In a nutshell, depending on the use of a "bypass" (since actual use determines function) traffic may actually increase rather than decrease in certain localities.

I'm not saying this applies in the OP's scenario. I am merely admitting the possibility that accessibility and permeability around the OP's stretch of the SRR may not be what you think it is.

Do you cycle around there regularly? If so, how often? What distances?

dantastic

Whatever you do don't hold up the cyclists!!!

Iwannahurl

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Insanity? Sheer bloody mindedness? Proving a point?

Alcohol? A bet? Cultural confusion?

Does anybody here actually know?

The point is we're only getting one version of events, that of the OP.

The cyclist may well be a nutter, even if not in breach of the law. I'd love to know why he chose to be there, in the same way that I'm curious to know the exact motivation of every footpath cyclist (since they're not all the same).

Iwannahurl

Jimmy Bottles wrote: »

I overtook him just past the Togher flyover which is between the Pouladuff Flyover and the Sarsfield Roundabout. At a guess, he must have been in the same lane before I overtook him.

Any chance he could have been lost?

RainyDay

Salvatore Sharp Woodpecker wrote: »

When I am driving a tractor I make allowances for other faster moving traffic. I drive in the hardshoulder when available, if there is no hardshoulder I pull in every so often to allow cars to pass if there are no opportunities for them to overtake me safely etc.

In the very rare event a faster moving car is behind me when driving my car I will move over into the hard shoulder to allow them passed me etc.

I would expect the same from other road users, including cyclists.

So just to be clear, in urban traffic where a cyclist will generally be faster for a car, you will pull over to let cyclists past you, right?

Salvatore Sharp Woodpecker wrote: »

Most cyclists I encounter cycle as close as possible to the left (usually in the hardshoulder when available which is where they should be for there own sake and that of other road users) which makes it possible to get passed them easily even with oncoming traffic.

Wrong. A cyclist should not be 'as close as possible to the left'. Listen to what the Road Safety Authority advice for cyclists "Ride well clear of the kerb and parked cars. You are as entitled to your road space as any other road user."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PocLSapuXa8

Staying 'as close as possible to the left' is a recipe for disaster. Cars brush past without leaving enough room, and certainly don't give the 1.5m overtaking space recommended by the RSA. Staying out from the kerb gets cars to do a proper overtake - indicate, pull out, pull back in. That's safer for everybody.

I always think it's a bit funny to hear drivers moaning about cyclists holding them up. Look around you, drivers. It's not cyclists that hold you up - it's other cars, 99% of the time at least.

dr.fuzzenstein

RainyDay wrote: »

So just to be clear, in urban traffic where a cyclist will generally be faster for a car, you will pull over to let cyclists past you, right?


Wrong. A cyclist should not be 'as close as possible to the left'. Listen to what the Road Safety Authority advice for cyclists "Ride well clear of the kerb and parked cars. You are as entitled to your road space as any other road user."


Staying 'as close as possible to the left' is a recipe for disaster. Cars brush past without leaving enough room, and certainly don't give the 1.5m overtaking space recommended by the RSA. Staying out from the kerb gets cars to do a proper overtake - indicate, pull out, pull back in. That's safer for everybody.

I always think it's a bit funny to hear drivers moaning about cyclists holding them up. Look around you, drivers. It's not cyclists that hold you up - it's other cars, 99% of the time at least.

Actually, motorists should keep clear of the curb to let cyclists past. I always do that, because I'm nice and I see no reason to unnecessarily hold up cyclists or have them go around my car on the outside.
I just realise that I am not forced by law to do so, I am entitled to take up my bit of roadspace, so the door is shut now.

_Kaiser_

dantastic wrote: »

Whatever you do don't hold up the cyclists!!!

Ah that clown again. I've seen videos of his posted here before.

Aside from the fact that there was no cycle lane on the road anyway for him to be whinging about, even when there was room to pass her (on either side), he sits behind her giving out :rolleyes: - the fella on the bike ahead of him manages to get past her without a drama funnily enough!

But a perfect example of some of the attitudes on this thread.

ItsLikeThis

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Ah that clown again. I've seen videos of his posted here before.

Aside from the fact that there was no cycle lane on the road anyway for him to be whinging about, even when there was room to pass her (on either side), he sits behind her giving out :rolleyes: - the fella on the bike ahead of him manages to get past her without a drama funnily enough!

But a perfect example of some of the attitudes on this thread.

Those kind of videos don't sit well with me, her road positioning wasn't great, but what laws did she break? She was entitled to use her lane. Did she deserve to end up on youtube for slightly inconveniencing a couple of cyclists? I know its filming in a public place but surely there has to be a point when it becomes invasion of privacy?

_Kaiser_

ItsLikeThis wrote: »

Those kind of videos don't sit well with me, her road positioning wasn't great, but what laws did she break? She was entitled to use her lane. Did she deserve to end up on youtube for slightly inconveniencing a couple of cyclists? I know its filming in a public place but surely there has to be a point when it becomes invasion of privacy?

Not forgetting the irony here..

Cyclists complaining about cars not letting them past - but then saying they should be allowed hold cars up themselves because they're "just as entitled to be there" :rolleyes:

Iwannahurl

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Ah that clown again. I've seen videos of his posted here before.

Aside from the fact that there was no cycle lane on the road anyway for him to be whinging about, even when there was room to pass her (on either side), he sits behind her giving out :rolleyes: - the fella on the bike ahead of him manages to get past her without a drama funnily enough!

But a perfect example of some of the attitudes on this thread.

FWIW I never overtake stationary or slow-moving vehicles as shown in the video.

I believe 'undertaking' has now been made legal for cyclists, but I don't know why I'd bother in such a situation.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Not forgetting the irony here..

Cyclists complaining about cars not letting them past - but then saying they should be allowed hold cars up themselves because they're "just as entitled to be there" :rolleyes:

Not the same group of people?

RainyDay

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Not forgetting the irony here..

Cyclists complaining about cars not letting them past - but then saying they should be allowed hold cars up themselves because they're "just as entitled to be there" :rolleyes:

It seems that some of the subtleties have gone whooosh over your head.

Cyclists are complaining about slow or stopped cars not letting them past - cars that aren't going anywhere themselves, but opt to block other traffic by virtue of selfish road positioning.

Cars are complaining about cyclists holding them up, because they are in a mad rush to get past the cyclist to the back of the queue at next line of cars.

Iwannahurl

RainyDay wrote: »

Cyclists are complaining about slow or stopped cars not letting them past - cars that aren't going anywhere themselves, but opt to block other traffic by virtue of selfish road positioning.

Or just sheer numbers, even in fine weather.

A motorist complained to me recently (on enquiry from me) that I had gone in front of her on a roundabout. Traffic is stationary or slow-moving on the same roundabout every morning, so she was going nowhere fast anyway. When I asked her how I was supposed to access the road ahead without passing by the numerous cars clogging the roundabout, she said "take it to the Council". I realised later she was just peeved at seeing a bike nipping past her Chelsea tractor during "rush" hour.

dantastic

Iwannahurl wrote: »

A motorist complained to me recently (on enquiry from me) ...

You were picking a fight with someone in a car because a car should make room for cycles when cyclists should take up the full lane? Something like that?

Iwannahurl

I was accompanying my child while cycling to school one morning. As we waited to cross a busy road where no pedestrian crossing has been provided despite Bord Pleanala orders issued several years ago, a woman in an SUV drove by. I noticed she was shaking her head at us as she passed.

Inevitably I caught up with her at the next junction (a roundabout, inevitably) because it is inevitably clogged with cars every morning. Curiosity got the better of me, and I went up to her window indicating that I wanted to ask her something. She rolled down the window and we had a brief chat. I asked her whether there was something amiss and she said that I had gone in front of her on the same roundabout the previous day.

When I pass that way every school morning the roundabout is obstructed with stationary or slow-moving vehicles. By slow-moving I mean travelling at less than walking pace. Motorists jam up the roundabout because they try to squeeze in every way they can. Traffic simultaneously enters the roundabout from three arms and exits on one. Right-turning motorists use both 'lanes' of the roundabout. Very often the cars are three 'abreast' on the roundabout.

The "cycle lanes" on either side are discontinuous, and the only way through for bikes is to weave through whatever random gaps are available. The "courtesy crossings" for pedestrians (and child cyclists) are routinely obstructed, again making it necessary to find, or wait for, gaps suitable for crossing through.

I asked Mrs SUV how I was supposed to traverse the junction without passing through the gaps between cars. Her irritable reply was "take it up with the Council." I cycled off and left her there, still sitting in traffic. It was only later that it dawned on me that this woman was merely p:ssed off that I had gone ahead while she had to remain stationary.

Donnelly117

Should have known this thread would soon boil down to a cars vs cyclists debate sooner or later... Since I've seen this hundreds of times on boards I think ill call it a day on this one...

blackwhite

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I was accompanying my child while cycling to school one morning. As we waited to cross a busy road where no pedestrian crossing has been provided despite Bord Pleanala orders issued several years ago, a woman in an SUV drove by. I noticed she was shaking her head at us as she passed.

Inevitably I caught up with her at the next junction (a roundabout, inevitably) because it is inevitably clogged with cars every morning. Curiosity got the better of me, and I went up to her window indicating that I wanted to ask her something. She rolled down the window and we had a brief chat. I asked her whether there was something amiss and she said that I had gone in front of her on the same roundabout the previous day.

When I pass that way every school morning the roundabout is obstructed with stationary or slow-moving vehicles. By slow-moving I mean travelling at less than walking pace. Motorists jam up the roundabout because they try to squeeze in every way they can. Traffic simultaneously enters the roundabout from three arms and exits on one. Right-turning motorists use both 'lanes' of the roundabout. Very often the cars are three 'abreast' on the roundabout.

The "cycle lanes" on either side are discontinuous, and the only way through for bikes is to weave through whatever random gaps are available. The "courtesy crossings" for pedestrians (and child cyclists) are routinely obstructed, again making it necessary to find, or wait for, gaps suitable for crossing through.

I asked Mrs SUV how I was supposed to traverse the junction without passing through the gaps between cars. Her irritable reply was "take it up with the Council." I cycled off and left her there, still sitting in traffic. It was only later that it dawned on me that this woman was merely p:ssed off that I had gone ahead while she had to remain stationary.

Great story - you met a c**t.

What that has to do with a lunatic with a death wish cycling in the incorrect lane on the SRR in Cork I'm not sure though

Unless you think some mongo driving in Galway means it's ok for a cyclist to act like an idiot in Cork :rolleyes:

Iwannahurl

See post #236 and subsequent.