Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Cycling across the Eastlink

Options
124678

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Atlantic Dawn
    Registered Users Posts: 82,741 ✭✭✭✭Atlantic Dawn
    M


    It takes about 15 seconds to cycle across it, surely a car can wait behind a cyclist for this amount of time and then overtake when it's safe to do so.


  • Options
    #93
    wotswattage
    Registered Users Posts: 592 ✭✭✭wotswattage


    Atlantic Dawn wrote: »
    It takes about 15 seconds to cycle across it, surely a car can wait behind a cyclist for this amount of time and then overtake when it's safe to do so.

    You would imagine so wouldn't you, but we know how angry drivers get with cyclists disobeying the rules. One angry driver teaching a militant cyclist a lesson by overtaking dangerously and it's curtains for the cyclist.


  • Options
    #94
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,592 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Kev_2012 wrote: »
    There are many signs on the bollards as you get on the bridge.
    that was a brain fade on my part. i was thinking of the samuel beckett bridge.


  • Options
    #95
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,592 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Atlantic Dawn wrote: »
    It takes about 15 seconds to cycle across it, surely a car can wait behind a cyclist for this amount of time and then overtake when it's safe to do so.
    what's the speed limit on the bridge?


  • Options
    #96
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,248 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    wotswattage wrote: »
    I couldn't care less about being a hindrance to a motorist I'm concerned about someone knocking me off the bike if they tried to pass me, which they would if they saw the no cycling signs and formed the opinion that the bike shouldn't even be there. Its like a red rag to a bull. Self preservation goes a long way on a bike.

    Cycle in the middle of the lane and they wont attempt to pass. It only takes 30 seconds or so to cross the bridge itself and if there's heavy traffic, no one is going to even try to overtake.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,248 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    wotswattage wrote: »
    You would imagine so wouldn't you, but we know how angry drivers get with cyclists disobeying the rules. One angry driver teaching a militant cyclist a lesson by overtaking dangerously and it's curtains for the cyclist.

    So ban angry drivers from using the bridge?


  • Options
    #98
    Chuchote
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭Chuchote


    I can't understand why drivers are in such a hurry. They're sitting there comfortably in an armchair, and their only exercise will be the walk from front door to car at either end. Relax!


  • Options
    #99
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,592 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    the east link is 104m across (source: http://www.bridgesofdublin.ie/bridges/east-link-bridge ); a cyclist would cover that in 18.5s, at 20kph. a car doing 50kph would take 7.5s, or 12.5s at 30kph. so you're talking of a delay to motorised traffic of either 11s or 6s, depending on the speed limit.


  • Options
    #100
    rushfan
    Registered Users Posts: 970 ✭✭✭rushfan


    wotswattage wrote:
    You would imagine so wouldn't you, but we know how angry drivers get with cyclists disobeying the rules. One angry driver teaching a militant cyclist a lesson by overtaking dangerously and it's curtains for the cyclist.


    Militant cyclist? ? Substitute the helmet and cycling jersey for a beret and combat jacket shouting "Power to the people " , maybe? ??


  • Options
    #101
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,768 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    wotswattage wrote: »
    You would imagine so wouldn't you, but we know how angry drivers get with cyclists disobeying the rules. One angry driver teaching a militant cyclist a lesson by overtaking dangerously and it's curtains for the cyclist.

    It's interesting that the psychopathic driver you're describing here is merely "angry", while the cyclist who is just using a road that is completely unremarkable and rather like the roads he or she used to get to the bridge is "militant".


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Seaswimmer
    Registered Users Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭Seaswimmer


    Reply from Andrew Montague who also copied in Owen Keegan.


    That’s really frustrating. Cyclists should NOT be restricted from using one of the key north-south bridges in the city. All our traffic plans say that walking, cycling and public transport will take priority over other modes of transport. Here’s an example of where we are not meeting our own commitments.



    Regards

    Andrew


  • Options
    #103
    wotswattage
    Registered Users Posts: 592 ✭✭✭wotswattage


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    Cycle in the middle of the lane and they wont attempt to pass. It only takes 30 seconds or so to cross the bridge itself and if there's heavy traffic, no one is going to even try to overtake.

    I know how to cycle defensively but it's not the be all and end all. If you're seen to already breaking the law then a driver may have no qualms about also breaking a law and moving into the oncoming lane to overtake if they think they see a gap into coming traffic. They misjudge it and you're the one under the car. Dismount and walk and you're far safer. Common sense and self preservation.


  • Options
    #104
    Atlantic Dawn
    Registered Users Posts: 82,741 ✭✭✭✭Atlantic Dawn
    M


    Anyone know was the "requested" to dismount only changed to "required" after the bridge went in to public ownership?


  • Options
    #105
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,768 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    wotswattage wrote: »
    I know how to cycle defensively but it's not the be all and end all. If you're seen to already breaking the law then a driver may have no qualms about also breaking a law and moving into the oncoming lane to overtake if they think they see a gap into coming traffic. They misjudge it and you're the one under the car. Dismount and walk and you're far safer. Common sense and self preservation.

    You really have great empathy for psychopaths.


  • Options
    #106
    Wishbone Ash
    Registered Users Posts: 24,995 ✭✭✭✭Wishbone Ash


    Atlantic Dawn wrote: »
    Anyone know was the "requested" to dismount only changed to "required" after the bridge went in to public ownership?
    I was wondering about that myself.

    Also, did I dream this or is there a bit of a cycle lane/track to the left of the left side barrier at the toll plaza (going southbound)?


  • Options
    #107
    Chuchote
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭Chuchote


    Defensive cycling is all very well, but drivers can do stupid things – even drivers working for the State and wielding enormous vehicles. I was cycling in the centre of the right-turn lane beyond Rathmines garda station yesterday when there was a whoosh to my left as a No 18 bus passed me on the left on the way to take the right-hand fork I was heading for.
    The driver couldn't wait the five seconds for me to reach safety at Grosvenor Road before passing me out correctly on the right.


  • Options
    #108
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    wotswattage wrote: »
    I know how to cycle defensively but it's not the be all and end all. If you're seen to already breaking the law then a driver may have no qualms about also breaking a law and moving into the oncoming lane to overtake if they think they see a gap into coming traffic. They misjudge it and you're the one under the car. Dismount and walk and you're far safer. Common sense and self preservation.

    It's only against the law to drive a pedal cycle past the sign. After the sign, it's perfectly legal to cycle again.


  • Options
    #109
    Seaswimmer
    Registered Users Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭Seaswimmer


    Wishbone Ash wrote: »
    I was wondering about that myself.

    Also, did I dream this or is there a bit of a cycle lane/track to the left of the left side barrier at the toll plaza (going southbound)?

    There is a small bit of small white line to the left of both toll gates for cycles.

    to call it a cycle lane/track would be misleading but I think its there to guide you to the left.


  • Options
    #110
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,248 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    wotswattage wrote: »
    I know how to cycle defensively but it's not the be all and end all. If you're seen to already breaking the law then a driver may have no qualms about also breaking a law and moving into the oncoming lane to overtake if they think they see a gap into coming traffic. They misjudge it and you're the one under the car. Dismount and walk and you're far safer. Common sense and self preservation.

    But you could be struck by Lightening before any of that happens anyway!

    Yes I suppose that COULD happen, but IMO the chances are pretty low.


  • Options
    #111
    rushfan
    Registered Users Posts: 970 ✭✭✭rushfan


    Wishbone Ash wrote:
    Also, did I dream this or is there a bit of a cycle lane/track to the left of the left side barrier at the toll plaza (going southbound)?


    I've only cycled that route a few times, but I believe you're correct there. Not sure though.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Atlantic Dawn
    Registered Users Posts: 82,741 ✭✭✭✭Atlantic Dawn
    M


    As the road is currently setup if someone wants to go south to north when they see the sign to go on to the footpath they have to stop at the side of the road and dismount, there's no ramp on the footpath, surely this is really dangerous as cars/trucks could rear end the bikes as the road narrows here? A public liability wet dream setup for some people.


  • Options
    #113
    wotswattage
    Registered Users Posts: 592 ✭✭✭wotswattage


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    You really have great empathy for psychopaths.

    Do I really? Or are you just resorting to the old 'you may as well think xyz too' argument if you don't agree with someone.

    What I do have is a bit of cop on if I'm cycling (and driving). Road users will take liberties and risks and I do what u can to keep myself out of harms way and avoid accidents.


  • Options
    #114
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,768 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    wotswattage wrote: »
    Do I really? Or are you just resorting to the old 'you may as well think xyz too' argument if you don't agree with someone.

    What I do have is a bit of cop on if I'm cycling (and driving). Road users will take liberties and risks and I do what u can to keep myself out of harms way and avoid accidents.


    Four times you've expressed how understandable it is that a motorist will take risks around a cyclist's safety. Well done. I didn't think this objectionable point of view could be said so many ways, but you did it.


  • Options
    #115
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,248 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    rushfan wrote: »
    I've only cycled that route a few times, but I believe you're correct there. Not sure though.


    https://goo.gl/maps/7nR3Hm1redw


  • Options
    #116
    wotswattage
    Registered Users Posts: 592 ✭✭✭wotswattage


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    It's interesting that the psychopathic driver you're describing here is merely "angry", while the cyclist who is just using a road that is completely unremarkable and rather like the roads he or she used to get to the bridge is "militant".

    Maybe poorly worded, the angry driver sees the cyclist as militant. I was putting things in the perspective of the angry cyclist hating driver. Unreasonable as that perspective may be, there are a lot of angry drivers who hate cyclists.


  • Options
    #117
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,768 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    wotswattage wrote: »
    Maybe poorly worded, the angry driver sees the cyclist as militant. I was putting things in the perspective of the angry cyclist hating driver. Unreasonable as that perspective may be, there are a lot of angry drivers who hate cyclists.

    Yes, as I said, you've really got into the mindscape of an "angry" driver. Funny that.

    EDIT: Actually, I'm being unfair now. I'm just not very happy about your repeated insistence on "hey, it's your funeral" posts.


  • Options
    #118
    wotswattage
    Registered Users Posts: 592 ✭✭✭wotswattage


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    Four times you've expressed how understandable it is that a motorist will take risks around a cyclist's safety. Well done. I didn't think this objectionable point of view could be said so many ways, but you did it.

    Understandable yes, but I'm not saying it's acceptable.


  • Options
    #119
    jimd2
    Registered Users Posts: 789 ✭✭✭jimd2


    Seaswimmer wrote: »
    Reply from Andrew Montague who also copied in Owen Keegan.


    That’s really frustrating. Cyclists should NOT be restricted from using one of the key north-south bridges in the city. All our traffic plans say that walking, cycling and public transport will take priority over other modes of transport. Here’s an example of where we are not meeting our own commitments.



    Regards

    Andrew

    So you ignore the point about quoting the official's name (and add more here) but conveniently take out your own name from the postings.

    Do you not see something wrong with this?


  • Options
    #120
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,768 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Andrew Montague posts under his own name here. Everyone knows who Owen Keegan is.

    I'm not sure what the rule applying to your original complaint is. I agree that that official isn't a public figure. Montague and Keegan are.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    wotswattage
    Registered Users Posts: 592 ✭✭✭wotswattage


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    Yes, as I said, you've really got into the mindscape of an "angry" driver. Funny that.

    EDIT: Actually, I'm being unfair now. I'm just not very happy about your repeated insistence on "hey, it's your funeral" posts.

    I'm just as insistent that it's my funeral when I'm on the bike. Hence my caution / fear of aggressive or inattentive drivers.


Advertisement