Cork SRR - Cyclist in Middle Lane

Tenzor07

Salvatore Sharp Woodpecker wrote: »

Aside from breaking the windscreen it wouldn't take much force to damage the rest. The cyclist falling onto the bonnet at a standstill would so plenty of damage. Driving over the bike would damage the bumper and under tray even at slow speed. Its very easy to do a lot of damage to modern cars.
Of course I would be concerned for the person I hit but I would also be concerned for my car and what it was going to cost me to fix it.

You hit someone cycling a bike or someone walking across the road then the last thing you would be concerned about is a bit of glass or a bump on a panel, easily fixed...put it through your insurance or pay for it yourself, it's only money!
If you are at fault then you won't have to worry about fixing your car anyways, as you could receive a driving ban and/or points on your licence and/or a jail sentence..

Tenzor07

blackwhite wrote: »

In the hypothetical scenario described the motorist would have injured/killed nobody. The cyclist who ran the red light into traffic would have killed/injured themselves.
But this does show the prevalent mindset among some that, no matter what, the cyclist is never responsible for anything. :rolleyes:

Oh dear, that's cold comfort if you ran over and hit someone who subsequently died...

CramCycle

blackwhite wrote: »

In the hypothetical scenario described the motorist would have injured/killed nobody. The cyclist who ran the red light into traffic would have killed/injured themselves.
But this does show the prevalent mindset among some that, no matter what, the cyclist is never responsible for anything. :rolleyes:

Not what he said, what he mentioned was the pecularity that the main concern would be the car and not the life of another person, but as the reply said, it was only a hypothetical pointing out other possible damages.

As for the damage described, it would be quite possible for a cyclist to cause major damage to the front of the car, and still walk away with no more than bumps and bruises. Modern cars have crumple zones that are designed to 1) project the driver from head on impacts with heavier objects and 2) to absorb as much of the impact as possible if there is a collision with a pedestrian/cyclist. The bumper is normally plastic and doesn't take much to damage it, and the bonnet is designed to crumple quite easily.

Quite true, I left a Wiley Coyote imprint in the rear of a car after I was rear ended, the Gardai could not believe that my injuries were, in the grand scheme of things, minor.

Back on topic though, I think the cyclist in the OP was in the right place considering the speed of traffic, the road layout and their apparent intended destination, I am not sure what the OPs issue with it was after looking at it.

Padraig Mor

CramCycle wrote: »

Back on topic though, I think the cyclist in the OP was in the right place considering the speed of traffic, the road layout and their apparent intended destination, I am not sure what the OPs issue with it was after looking at it.

Quite obviously you are not familiar with the road so. You could perhaps enlighten the rest of us too as to his "apparent intended destination".

dr.fuzzenstein

CramCycle wrote: »

Not what he said, what he mentioned was the pecularity that the main concern would be the car and not the life of another person, but as the reply said, it was only a hypothetical pointing out other possible damages.

A:
Quite true, I left a Wiley Coyote imprint in the rear of a car after I was rear ended, the Gardai could not believe that my injuries were, in the grand scheme of things, minor.

B:
Back on topic though, I think the cyclist in the OP was in the right place considering the speed of traffic, the road layout and their apparent intended destination, I am not sure what the OPs issue with it was after looking at it.

A:
How did you manage to hit the rear of the car when you where rear ended.
You must have done a Matrix style backflip through the air. :cool:
and
B:
I don't think anyone but the terminally insane would argue that what the cyclist in the OP did was anything but suicidal, lost, drunk, insane or just suffering from I Am Entitled syndrome that plagues Irish society these days.

blackwhite

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Oh dear, that's cold comfort if you ran over and hit someone who subsequently died...

I wouldn't feel particularly happy about it, but knowing that it wasn't my fault and was due to the idiot who decided to run a red light would make my conscience a whole lot lighter....

I know someone where a person committed suicide by stepping out in front of their car (it was discovered afterward that the person had left a note in their home, including an apology to whomever the driver would be). It was pretty sh*tty for them for a long time afterwards, and they were pretty traumatised. The one comfort she was able to take is that there was nothing she could have done differently, and it wasn't her fault.

That didn't stop <snip> with attitudes similar to yours whispering behind her back about how "she had killed someone" though.

Someone cycles through a red light into oncoming traffic then they only have themselves to blame if they get knocked down. The fact that the cyclist will be the most likely one injured doesn't change the fact that the cyclist is still responsible for what happens

CramCycle

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Quite obviously you are not familiar with the road so. You could perhaps enlighten the rest of us too as to his "apparent intended destination".

I only remembered the second post, ie the left lane were turning left, the middle lane was a straight through lane, the cyclist was going straight through ergo in the correct lane. Looking at the google map link from JB further down the left lane is straight ahead or left. Considering the back up of traffic is presumably indicating left, the correct position for the cyclist if going straight ahead is right of the left lane or in the middle lane. Traffic was at 15-20kmph so a speed many cyclists (not all) could match.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

A:
How did you manage to hit the rear of the car when you where rear ended.
You must have done a Matrix style backflip through the air. :cool:
and

Hit me from behind while turning, cars were stationary in traffic, driver got bored, no indicators, decided to pull in as I had passed and hit me from behind right. Slammed on their brakes, I continued moving (Physics) and went into the back of a parked car to my front left. Investigated by 3 engineers, there were several witnesses and the driver who all said it was the drivers fault

I don't think anyone but the terminally insane would argue that what the cyclist in the OP did was anything but suicidal, lost, drunk, insane or just suffering from I Am Entitled syndrome that plagues Irish society these days.

At 15mph, its exactly the route I would have taken, if traffic was faster, I may have chosen a different route. I'd still be entitled but doesn't mean I have too or would want too, safety supercedes my "I am entitled" syndrome everytime. In the OP traffic was slow, barring other drivers paying no attention and making a stupid, unexpected maneuvre. it would appear perfectly safe at the time.

Alanstrainor

blackwhite wrote: »

I wouldn't feel particularly happy about it, but knowing that it wasn't my fault and was due to the idiot who decided to run a red light would make my conscience a whole lot lighter....

I know someone where a person committed suicide by stepping out in front of their car (it was discovered afterward that the person had left a note in their home, including an apology to whomever the driver would be). It was pretty sh*tty for them for a long time afterwards, and they were pretty traumatised. The one comfort she was able to take is that there was nothing she could have done differently, and it wasn't her fault.

That didn't stop <snip> with attitudes similar to yours whispering behind her back about how "she had killed someone" though.

Someone cycles through a red light into oncoming traffic then they only have themselves to blame if they get knocked down. The fact that the cyclist will be the most likely one injured doesn't change the fact that the cyclist is still responsible for what happens

Warning given.

Attack the post not the poster, and try keep it civil.

Red Belly

When I got hit by a car at a pretty low speed on my bike I left a significant me-sized impression in their bonnet. It cost €25 to fix the damage to my bike. Took a lot longer and a lot more cash to fix the damage to me (not life-threatening or long-term debilitating though). In my case it was the motorist's responsibility, it was (in my view) at least partly a third party's fault because they gestured the motorist to pull out into a road I had right of way on but apparently that didn't matter. Also, I discovered that generally speaking even if it had been my fault, the tendency is for these things to be settled by the motorist's insurers because they are the insurable entity on the road.

On balance, this is the way it should be because the potential to cause serious damage and injury in a collision between car and bike/pedestrian/pram is predominantly on the side of the car. Requiring bikes/pedestrians/prams etc to carry obligatory insurance to cover possible damages to third parties in accidents where they are deemed to be at fault would only benefit lawyers who would then be directed by insurers to dispute if at all possible the blame for the accident.

I can see how a driver would be pissed off to lose their No Claims Bonus as a result of an accident in which they felt the other party was to blame, but "C'est la vie". This is why we have insurance on our cars and why we have to have insurance on our cars, because there is a relatively high chance that we will do serious damage, such that we couldn't possibly afford to compensate for ourselves, to another road user in an incident that may well be our fault, their fault, both parties faults, a third party's fault or nobody's fault. Because of this, all motorists are required to pay into a fund to compensate accident victims when accidents arise. This is part of the price we pay for operating such a powerful, dangerous and convenient mode of transport

When we go for a walk, or a run or a bike ride there is a relatively low chance that we will do serious damage to another road user. If all cyclists paid a €5 insurance contribution, designed to compensate motorists when cyclists were to blame for damages or injuries to them, there would probably quite quickly be a large fund built up to pay out on such claims. However, most of the fund would be gobbled up by lawyers arguing at length as to the rights and wrongs of the accident itself. Just not worth it for the rare situations where a cyclist may cause serious damage or injury to a third party.

rb

Iwannahurl

Red Belly wrote: »

I can see how a driver would be pissed off to lose their No Claims Bonus as a result of an accident in which they felt the other party was to blame, but "C'est la vie".

There is also No Claims Bonus Protection available. I have it on my motor policy, and I do feel it gives me peace of mind. Unfortunately I forgot to avail of it once, after a hit and run while parked!

SpaceTime wrote: »

I suspect it's just a project that was done on a tiny budget in the days when we didn't have a bulls notion what we were doing when it came to road design.

We still don't.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87893699&postcount=2

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056378355

Padraig Mor wrote: »

As SpaceTime says, no particular facilities in the area. It's possible the man was walking between Carrigtohill village and the houses off the road and perhaps got confused. I understand he was a retired priest, which would suggest an age older than the 60s being reported.

Witness description:
"The man walked out In front of the car In front of us. I was the first person to get to him and unfortunately he was dead at that stage. He wasn't hit on purpose he walked into the middle of the on coming traffic. Nothing could have been done to stop this accident unfortunately. Also there was no footpath where he was walking it had ended at least 100meters back the road so it was just the hard shoulder. It happened right before the cottage on the left"

It was not the person you're thinking of, reportedly.

Just before the cottage on the left: around here perhaps?

I'm given to understand that locals like to walk this loop, and have done for years. However that is in the daytime.

.

Ludo

SpaceTime wrote: »

There are entrances straight out on to the DC and in both cases they come off motorway or high quality dual carriageway that's moving at 120km/h so drivers are often still in 'fast driving mode' and the quality suddenly deteriorates.
...
The N18 stretch near Bunratty's even worse as there are far more house entrances as I think the planning must have been laxer for longer.

Houses were there long before it was a DC. My mother in law lives in one around there and their drive way goes directly onto the DC....pain in the ass.

Tenzor07

Tenzor07 wrote: »

You hit someone cycling a bike or someone walking across the road then the last thing you would be concerned about is a bit of glass or a bump on a panel, easily fixed...put it through your insurance or pay for it yourself, it's only money!
If you are at fault then you won't have to worry about fixing your car anyways, as you could receive a driving ban and/or points on your licence and/or a jail sentence..

Well personally if someone walks or cycles in front of me and through there own fault gets hit and damages my car then yes I would be concerned about who is going to pay for it as it will almost certainly be me either directly or through an increased premium after claiming.

Of course I would be concerned for the persons welfare but that would not stop me perusing them for compensation for damage done etc.

RainyDay

Swanner wrote: »

F1 cars race on tracks. They don't share the roads with ordinary cars in the way bikes do. If you're going to use analogies at least make them relevant.

When you're finished with the pedantic nitpicking, you might revisit the key point - that what happens in triathlons is not relevant for day to day road cycling. It makes no sense to change the regulatory regime for day to day road cycling to fix a problem with triathlons.

Swanner wrote: »

Both were shaken and bruised. One had a broken collar bone. In both cases it was the cyclists fault so why would the motorist claim from their own insurance ?

The motorist would claim from their own insurance because there is no-one else to foot the bill. I'm not suggesting that is right, or nice, but if these incidents are happening, that is the reality of the current situation.

Swanner wrote: »

Is this another assumption on your part ? If not, data please.

No problem, I'll post my data immediately after you post the data to confirm your assumption that these incidents are NOT being reported.

dr.fuzzenstein

CramCycle wrote: »

I only remembered the second post, ie the left lane were turning left, the middle lane was a straight through lane, the cyclist was going straight through ergo in the correct lane. Looking at the google map link from JB further down the left lane is straight ahead or left. Considering the back up of traffic is presumably indicating left, the correct position for the cyclist if going straight ahead is right of the left lane or in the middle lane. Traffic was at 15-20kmph so a speed many cyclists (not all) could match.
Hit me from behind while turning, cars were stationary in traffic, driver got bored, no indicators, decided to pull in as I had passed and hit me from behind right. Slammed on their brakes, I continued moving (Physics) and went into the back of a parked car to my front left. Investigated by 3 engineers, there were several witnesses and the driver who all said it was the drivers fault

At 15mph, its exactly the route I would have taken, if traffic was faster, I may have chosen a different route. I'd still be entitled but doesn't mean I have too or would want too, safety supercedes my "I am entitled" syndrome everytime. In the OP traffic was slow, barring other drivers paying no attention and making a stupid, unexpected maneuvre. it would appear perfectly safe at the time.

That makes sense...

On your last paragraph, traffic was moving just fine until the cyclist decided to go into lane 2 and cause mayhem.
So, traffic wasn't moving slow anyway and therefore it was safe for the cyclist, traffic was moving fast until cyclist decided to weave out to lane 2 and cause mayhem.
That is insane and I wouldn't do it for all the tea in China.
I have repeatedly asked people to recreate the exact scenario, grab a bike and a camera, cycle on lane 2 of the road in the OP and post it on Youtube.
So far we've had no Darwin Award™ hopefuls.

Jimmy Bottles

http://www.eveningecho.ie/2013/12/13/outspoken-fr-joe-dies-accident/

Man died walking between Midleton and Carrigtowhill.

This highlights two things for me.

Firstly that stretch of road needs to be grade separated with side roads for all the houses on it and

Secondly, cyclists / pedestrians and dual carriageways do not mix well.

dr.fuzzenstein

Jimmy Bottles wrote: »

http://www.eveningecho.ie/2013/12/13/outspoken-fr-joe-dies-accident/

Man died walking between Midleton and Carrigtowhill.

This highlights two things for me.

Firstly that stretch of road needs to be grade separated with side roads for all the houses on it and

Secondly, cyclists / pedestrians and dual carriageways do not mix well.

And I bet you that, even if there was a cycle path, cyclists would still be on the Dualler, because of "entitlement" issues.
The rules do need to be changed.

Jimmy Bottles

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

And I bet you that, even if there was a cycle path, cyclists would still be on the Dualler, because of "entitlement" issues.
The rules do need to be changed.

If this is the case, there should be a rule specifying that cyclists should use the cycle lane unless it is unsafe to do so.

County Councils up and down the country are spending millions retrofitting cycle lanes in our infrastructure. To not use them as some form of protest would be the height of ignorance.

CramCycle

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

On your last paragraph, traffic was moving just fine until the cyclist decided to go into lane 2 and cause mayhem.
So, traffic wasn't moving slow anyway and therefore it was safe for the cyclist, traffic was moving fast until cyclist decided to weave out to lane 2 and cause mayhem.

Apologies for the confusion but was traffic slow because of the cyclist? or was it slow regardless and he was mingling with it? Two very different scenarios. My understanding of JBs post was that the 2nd lane was faster than the first but still only 15-20mph, regardless of the bicyclist.

That is insane and I wouldn't do it for all the tea in China.
I have repeatedly asked people to recreate the exact scenario, grab a bike and a camera, cycle on lane 2 of the road in the OP and post it on Youtube.
So far we've had no Darwin Award™ hopefuls.

I just have no interest in going down to Cork, waiting for a specific time of day, for a specific set of circumstances and then recording it. Surely the merits of a discussion is that no one needs to do that. With a bit of luck someone will pick it up on the dashcam thread :pac:

dr.fuzzenstein

Jimmy Bottles wrote: »

If this is the case, there should be a rule specifying that cyclists should use the cycle lane unless it is unsafe to do so.

County Councils up and down the country are spending millions retrofitting cycle lanes in our infrastructure. To not use them as some form of protest would be the height of ignorance.

But it is something we hear over and over again. Cyclists in this country hate cycle lanes, it's unique in the world and warrants scientific study. It's a genuine oddity, along with the bullrun of Pamplona, mad Brits chasing cheese down a hill and the Japanese slaughtering thousands of Dolphins for fun.
Maybe some cycle lanes aren't fit for purpose, but some cyclists will make a point out of putting themselves into danger and doing insane things, even if alternate routes or cycle lanes are available because, erm, I think, no can't be, dunno, lemme think, no can't think of anything other than substance abuse, being dropped on their heads as babies, having serious mental issues, being blind or maybe tired of life.
It's not like there is some kind of government vendetta against cyclists that sees them being persecuted, imprisoned or executed that would necessitate them having to take such drastic steps as to endanger their lives, unless they suffer from serious delusions.
I mean, I don't see the need to drive down a pedestrianised area or a cycle lane in my car to prove some kind of point, which one, I really cannot even imagine.
Cyclists in this country have a persecution complex beyond anything that's sane or rational.
We're not out to get you, honest!

RainyDay

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

But it is something we hear over and over again. Cyclists in this country hate cycle lanes, it's unique in the world and warrants scientific study. It's a genuine oddity, along with the bullrun of Pamplona, mad Brits chasing cheese down a hill and the Japanese slaughtering thousands of Dolphins for fun.
Maybe some cycle lanes aren't fit for purpose, but some cyclists will make a point out of putting themselves into danger and doing insane things, even if alternate routes or cycle lanes are available because, erm, I think, no can't be, dunno, lemme think, no can't think of anything other than substance abuse, being dropped on their heads as babies, having serious mental issues, being blind or maybe tired of life.
It's not like there is some kind of government vendetta against cyclists that sees them being persecuted, imprisoned or executed that would necessitate them having to take such drastic steps as to endanger their lives, unless they suffer from serious delusions.
I mean, I don't see the need to drive down a pedestrianised area or a cycle lane in my car to prove some kind of point, which one, I really cannot even imagine.
Cyclists in this country have a persecution complex beyond anything that's sane or rational.
We're not out to get you, honest!

And we're not out to protest or make a point or have an agenda. Mostly, we're out to get home safely.

So when the cycle lane is fully of mushy leaves, or broken glass, or families with kids, or dog walkers with the lead stretched invisibly across the lane like piano wire, we won't use it. When the cycle lane is like a roller coaster, with an up/down section for every driveway in a residential section, we won't use it. When you park on the cycle lane 'just for a minute', we won't use it.

RainyDay

RainyDay wrote: »

The motorist would claim from their own insurance because there is no-one else to foot the bill. I'm not suggesting that is right, or nice, but if these incidents are happening, that is the reality of the current situation.
.

Or pay out of their own pocket or get taken to court the same as if they were someone who kicked the wing mirror of my car at 3am.

Red Belly

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

But it is something we hear over and over again. Cyclists in this country hate cycle lanes

Every single cycle lane within a 50k radius of my house is more dangerous than the same roads would be without cycle lanes. Firstly they are too narrow: barely room for one cyclist and because there is a lane painted on the road cars are inclined to drive right beside the line, which means I get less than a meter's clearance. No cycle lane and drivers are far more likely to give me room. Secondly they are regularly obstructed by walkers, joggers, parked cars, bins, cars exiting premises or side roads, drains, road works.... Thirdly at every T-junction left turning cars almost invariably "take" the cycle lane - very dangerous. Fourthly when they leave the road I'm expected to cede right of way at every junction and every house (in one village on a regular route of mine, in the space of 1km travelling on a Main Road, if I take the cycle lane, I share it with pedestrians, am expected to give way at four junctions, entrances to 8 houses, and fir the middle 300 meters the lane "disappears" so I have to re-merge with the Main Road). Fifthly on several cycle lanes shared with pedestrians, the cycle half is next the road and therefore the wheelchair accessible road crossing ramps are huge dangerous drops across my path. Finally they are usually in very poor repair compared to the road surface.

Cycle lanes in my area appear to designed and implemented with the sole goal of culling cyclists. I'm safer not using them, and because motorists expect me to use them, I'd be a lot safer if they weren't there at all.

RB

Seweryn

Red Belly wrote: »

Cycle lanes in my area appear to designed and implemented with the sole goal of culling cyclists. I'm safer not using them, and because motorists expect me to use them, I'd be a lot safer if they weren't there at all.

Sad, but very true...

A wide road that a couple of months ago could perfectly accomodate all road users - cyclists, cars, etc.

The same road (after spending God only knows how much money on "upgrades") is now useles either for motorists or cyclists. The lanes are now narrowed, so can only accomodate one vehicle and the cycle lanes are deadly dangerous and in fairness you can't expect any cyclist to use that "facility". This is a prime example how our local govenments waste taxpayers money "upgrading" road networks.

Red Nissan

Seweryn wrote: »

The same road .

All the roads are far more dangerous now, no escape room. I also love the way cyclists are supposed to warp through light poles! Priceless.

The Bishop Basher

Red Nissan wrote: »

All the roads are far more dangerous now, no escape room. I also love the way cyclists are supposed to warp through light poles! Priceless.

No need to warp. You're on a push bike. Just go round it. Sure, it would be better if it wasn't there but it shouldn't stop you using the lane.

Anyway, that lamppost is to cyclists what cyclists are to motorists. An annoying hazard that's in the way.

Seweryn

Swanner wrote: »

No need to warp. You're on a push bike. Just go round it. Sure, it would be better if it wasn't there but it shouldn't stop you using the lane.

To go round it you need to either get on the road or on the foot path (on the left). Cycling on the foot path is against the law.

Swanner wrote: »

Anyway, that lamppost is to cyclists what cyclists are to motorists. An annoying hazard that's in the way.

Yeah, same way as cars stuck in traffic are for cyclists that have to pass around them.

The Bishop Basher

Im a big lad and I could go to the left of that and stay in lane. My post was tongue in cheek though. It's laughable that it's stuck there in the way like that. Only in ireland.

Seweryn

Swanner wrote: »

Only in ireland.

Yep, only in Ireland an Engineer would approve a project like that one.

Sure, that will do . Another box ticker for the County Council for road safety improvement programmes.

dr.fuzzenstein

Seweryn wrote: »

Yep, only in Ireland an Engineer would approve a project like that one.

Sure, that will do . Another box ticker for the County Council for road safety improvement programmes.

Yep, and then off to the pub for extended lunch.
Utter joke, I agree with that.

Tenzor07

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

But it is something we hear over and over again. Cyclists in this country hate cycle lanes, it's unique in the world and warrants scientific study. It's a genuine oddity, along with the bullrun of Pamplona, mad Brits chasing cheese down a hill and the Japanese slaughtering thousands of Dolphins for fun.
Maybe some cycle lanes aren't fit for purpose, but some cyclists will make a point out of putting themselves into danger and doing insane things, even if alternate routes or cycle lanes are available because, erm, I think, no can't be, dunno, lemme think, no can't think of anything other than substance abuse, being dropped on their heads as babies, having serious mental issues, being blind or maybe tired of life.
It's not like there is some kind of government vendetta against cyclists that sees them being persecuted, imprisoned or executed that would necessitate them having to take such drastic steps as to endanger their lives, unless they suffer from serious delusions.
I mean, I don't see the need to drive down a pedestrianised area or a cycle lane in my car to prove some kind of point, which one, I really cannot even imagine.
Cyclists in this country have a persecution complex beyond anything that's sane or rational.
We're not out to get you, honest!

Hilarious! Such dramatic hyperbole, would make Jeremy Clarkson proud!

I loves cycle lanes me! :rolleyes: Especially as most are the equivalent of speed bumps and mini-roundabouts on the M50...

Tenzor07

Swanner wrote: »

Im a big lad and I could go to the left of that and stay in lane.

Cycle around this yea?

Tenzor07

Swanner wrote: »

No need to warp. You're on a push bike. Just go round it. Sure, it would be better if it wasn't there but it shouldn't stop you using the lane.

Anyway, that lamppost is to cyclists what cyclists are to motorists. An annoying hazard that's in the way.

Ah sure you're Only on a bike, that's only for deranged Hippies and Tree huggers who have all the time in the world to get to there destination!? :rolleyes: They should just hang up there lycra and all get out on the roads in a nice big SUV?

What's more of an annoying hazard is Taxi's cutting into lanes without indicating or tailgating you cause you're not going as fast as they want you to... Maybe take some of your anti-cyclist rhetoric over to the taxi forum? :pac:

gallag

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Cycle around this yea?

What's the problem? Is the whole lane like that? You can easily slow down a bit and go round, like a speed bump, you can't expect every meter of every lane to be a tdf route.

gallag

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Hilarious! Such dramatic hyperbole, would make Jeremy Clarkson proud!

I loves cycle lanes me! :rolleyes: Especially as most are the equivalent of speed bumps and mini-roundabouts on the M50...

What's the problem here? First pic looks like a place that's now closed, the cars will also be hamper by the closed gates! The other pics look to be a windy night, easy enough to bypass the leaves and be on your way, the cycle lane with the car parked seems to have time restrictions as per the sigh, car could legally be there out of rush hour and very little traffic so easy enough to just go round it? And the last looks like the police hhave made changes to a road for an event or something, happens to all road users but probably not the end of the world to pass on by.

SpaceTime

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Cycle around this yea?

Well, that's just local authorities being local authorities. They regularly do stuff like that and we all accept this utter incompetence by either not bothering to vote out the councillors or by voting in the same ones over and over without checking what they actually did in the last term!

Red Nissan

SpaceTime wrote: »

Well, that's just local authorities being local authorities. They regularly do stuff like that and we all accept this utter incompetence by either not bothering to vote out the councillors or by voting in the same ones over and over without checking what they actually did in the last term!

It's the office of the city or county manager who does this, he can't be voted in or out. The elected Councillors would have merely draft approved the overall broad proposals.

SpaceTime

Red Nissan wrote: »

It's the office of the city or county manager who does this, he can't be voted in or out. The elected Councillors would have merely draft approved the overall broad proposals.

Well that's the other problem, nobody's really very accountable in local government here due to the city / county manager system introduced in the 1920s.

Tenzor07

gallag wrote: »

What's the problem? Is the whole lane like that? You can easily slow down a bit and go round, like a speed bump, you can't expect every meter of every lane to be a tdf route.

Ah yea sure it's a bit of craic when street furniture is placed onto bicycle lanes, I personally enjoy the challenge they present, and it's great fun avoiding them by hopping into the path of moving bus! Gives me extra sprint training for my pre-Tour De France routine! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I guess you would also find this acceptable? "Ah sure all you have to do is move to one side a bit eh??"



Anyways..these are just a small example of the jigsaw with 100's of missing pieces which pass off as "cycle lanes" around the city, of which the total amount could go into pages and pages of pictures...

It's not acceptable and will force people off cycle lanes and onto main roads..

RainyDay

SpaceTime wrote: »

Well that's the other problem, nobody's really very accountable in local government here due to the city / county manager system introduced in the 1920s.

Actually, it was the City/County Manager system brought in by the last FF Government that removed almost all power from Councillors because they didn't want their poor Councillors to take the blame for waste charges.

Seweryn

Tenzor07 wrote: »

It's not acceptable and will force people off cycle lanes and onto main roads..

No, it is not.
But hey, this is Ireland, so, it is then? Sure, that will do.

IMO, until the local governments learn how to design roads and junctions, any money spent on these "cycle lanes" is just pure waste. These cycle paths are a bit like our celtig tiger special, the ghost housing estates. Allowed to be built by people with no idea about proper planning and are now no good to anybody.

Why can't we learn from countries that do things well . Why do we not hire consultants to tell us what to do and how to do, if we can't manage to do things properly ourselves? Surely, this would be money well spent. But instead we choose to waste our own money on facilites that have no function.

Some examples of how cycle lanes and junctions should look like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFTd8kuVrHY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuOiKCBO1hU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEXD0guLQY0

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

Tenzor07

Seweryn wrote: »

No, it is not.
But hey, this is Ireland, so, it is then? Sure, that will do.
IMO, until the local governments learn how to design roads and junctions, any money spent on these "cycle lanes" is just pure waste. These cycle paths are a bit like our celtig tiger special, the ghost housing estates. Allowed to be built by people with no idea about proper planning and are now no good to anybody.
Why can't we learn from countries that do things well . Why do we not hire consultants to tell us what to do and how to do, if we can't manage to do things properly ourselves? Surely, this would be money well spent. But instead we choose to waste our own money on facilites that have no function.
Some examples of how cycle lanes and junctions should look like:

Apparently in Ireland and the UK, once 95% of the budget for a road project is spent and the design around motorised transport is complete, then cycle infrastructure gets the crumbs of what's left in terms of design and what's left out of the budget..

Until there is a massive shift from an "American style" car culture in Ireland to a more typical European style transport system then we can look forward to many more avoidable road deaths, more out of town shopping mall's, gridlock and increasing levels of childhood and adult obesity...

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Apparently in Ireland and the UK, once 95% of the budget for a road project is spent and the design around motorised transport is complete, then cycle infrastructure gets the crumbs of what's left in terms of design and what's left out of the budget..

Perhaps they should bring in a cycle tax, then the cyclists would be afforded more of the budget for roads.

Tenzor07

ok, ill feed the troll..

Here you go: http://ipayroadtax.com/

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Tenzor07 wrote: »

ok, ill feed the troll..

Here you go: http://ipayroadtax.com/

Ok Troll
It is a motor tax, required to use a vehicle ON THE PUBLIC ROADS.

Seweryn

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Ok Troll
It is a motor tax, required to use a vehicle ON THE PUBLIC ROADS.

True, and because it is a motor tax, it applies to motorised vehicles only. Non motorised vehicles are subject to all other taxes, except motor tax.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Seweryn wrote: »

True, and because it is a motor tax, it applies to motorised vehicles only. Non motorised vehicles are subject to all other taxes, except motor tax.

Yes and all non motorized vehicles are not currently required to pay taxes to use the roads.
But what I am proposing is that they should. They use the roads and complain (and rarely obey rules anyway) so should have to pay the same taxes as all other road users. Especially when they complain about not being accomodated when roads are being designed.

Beggars can't be choosers

I'm an occasional cyclist, but to be fair my annual motor tax bill is north of 3k.

Tenzor07

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Yes and all non motorized vehicles are not currently required to pay taxes to use the roads.
But what I am proposing is that they should. They use the roads and complain (and rarely obey rules anyway) so should have to pay the same taxes as all other road users. Especially when they complain about not being accomodated when roads are being designed.
Beggars can't be choosers
I'm an occasional cyclist, but to be fair my annual motor tax bill is north of 3k.

What a great idea, how come this is not done worldwide...all calculated by the amount of pollution they produce?

and maybe,

While you're at it stick a sh..t tax disc on the back of a horses behind, they use the roads and dump huge amounts of sh..t on it..

Maybe tax joggers those feckers wear out the grass on the site of paths in search of somewhere soft to jog on, maybe a "Nike tax" to pay for rubberised pathways?

A skateboard tax, those young whippersnappers are always looking for skate parks to be built..

And a buggy tax, though parents can save on that by putting two kids into one buggy?

An OAP tax, to pay for the extending the green man sequence at pedestrian lights and the subsequent additional delays to you in your SUV because of the longer light sequence, god knows those old codgers should pay!

Pedestrian shoe leather/pavement wearing out tax, it costs a lot to make a safe surface for people to walk on, why should it be free!?


Ah but maybe you are right, those Tax-dodging renegade hippy cyclists, living off the grid, in communes up the Dublin mountains living off nature, with all their relatives who pay Zero tax either... how dare they demand a safe place to cycle on.. sure they have no jobs to go to anyways!

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Hmm
So the cyclists currently do not pay a usage tax on the public roads, but yet want to be included and accomodated in the planning, and then reject rudely any suggestion that they should be included in the tax base. After all they do use the roads.

Anyway as this is a motors forum, I have no interest in discussing cyclists with cyclists who obviously have no interest in listening to the discussion (about the same level of interest that they have in obeying the ROTR :P)

I'll bow out of this one at this point, and leave you to your lycra and helmets, and me to my cars and motor tax bill!

dr.fuzzenstein

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Apparently in Ireland and the UK, once 95% of the budget for a road project is spent and the design around motorised transport is complete, then cycle infrastructure gets the crumbs of what's left in terms of design and what's left out of the budget..

Until there is a massive shift from an "American style" car culture in Ireland to a more typical European style transport system then we can look forward to many more avoidable road deaths, more out of town shopping mall's, gridlock and increasing levels of childhood and adult obesity...

Except we don't have a car culture here, unless you count a heritage of letting bog-standard sh*te-boxes rust to fcuk in the rain as a car culture.
No, here you simply get punished for wanting to get around.
"Ah jaysus, you'll be drivin' around in your car, ah jaysus now, t'will cosht you big that road tax now and wait till ya fill up!"
Public transport, same attitude, but if you're on a bike, you just get punished by sh*t infrastructure.
In other countries there is an idea what should be encouraged and supported, the way it is here is just to punish people for driving, having a job, buying a house, opening a business, having any kind of savings, or getting on in any way shape or form.
The Irish Don't Do Encouragement! Only "You think you're getting on, just wait till I fix your wagon!"
Unless you are a dole scrounger with 17 kids, of course. Then you get everything shoved up yer arse by the state. And if you don't get down there and start yelling at people till you do!
Other than that, you have to be in the top 1%, the cream of society, rich and thick.

Iwannahurl

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Yes and all non motorized vehicles are not currently required to pay taxes to use the roads.
But what I am proposing is that they should. They use the roads and complain (and rarely obey rules anyway) so should have to pay the same taxes as all other road users. Especially when they complain about not being accomodated when roads are being designed.

Beggars can't be choosers

I'm an occasional cyclist, but to be fair my annual motor tax bill is north of 3k.

This is getting well OT, but since you raise the usual hares...

I'm a car owner and motorist. My (motor) taxed and insured car stays in the driveway ?99% of the time, and I commute by bike where it makes sense, eg the school run on Galway's car-clogged roads.

Am I a beggar or a chooser?