Indo: 'outrage' over cyclists not using bike lane

DirkVoodoo

This is the most obtuse reasoning I've ever seen.

You have said that cyclists not getting out of your way is an inconvenience on busy roads, yet when asked about traffic getting out of the way of cyclists you reply "why should anyone get out of anyone else's way?" (sic)

And the pedestrian crossing thing...really?

We all have to stop/yield on our journeys, I hate to break it to you but you're not so special that you deserve a completely unobstructed commute every day. Please deal with it like we all do, by moving forward.

Chuchote

Chuchote wrote: »

I don't understand how someone crossing a road is inconveniencing you. If the cyclist walked his or her bike across on the pedestrian crossing would you be equally pettish inconvenienced?

What don't you understand? How I'm inconvenienced by having to stop at a pedestrian crossing for a cyclist (ie fellow road user) to cycle across the road when there is very little traffic, and they could have just cycled out across the road without using a crossing?

I was wondering if I should have included that they cycled the wrong way out a one way entrance into Phoenix park to get to the crossing, but was worried I might have been called pettish :P

Anyway this thread is about bike lanes, not other stuff.

tomasrojo

I really don't see why a cyclist would go for the rather time-consuming option of using a pedestrian crossing to get to the other side of a road if they could just cycle across after a quick look around, unless it was a nervous person. In that case, it's understandable, and, from your point of view, it's irrelevant whether they cycle across or walk across. You have to stop and wait either way.

Unless you think pedestrians should similarly have a quick look around and run across, rather than impede your regal progress in your rarely used car.

Dermot Illogical

Basil3 wrote: »

What don't you understand? How I'm inconvenienced by having to stop at a pedestrian crossing for a cyclist (ie fellow road user) to cycle across the road when there is very little traffic, and they could have just cycled out across the road without using a crossing?

Yes you are inconvenienced, but that's life. You have no idea why they cross that way. Maybe to piss you off, or perhaps they are nervous. Either way it's not worth fretting over, especially when you have an engine to get you going again.

DirkVoodoo

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

This is the most obtuse reasoning I've ever seen.

You have said that cyclists not getting out of your way is an inconvenience on busy roads, yet when asked about traffic getting out of the way of cyclists you reply "why should anyone get out of anyone else's way?" (sic)

And the pedestrian crossing thing...really?

We all have to stop/yield on our journeys, I hate to break it to you but you're not so special that you deserve a completely unobstructed commute every day. Please deal with it like we all do, by moving forward.

Cyclists rarely inconvenience me. I didn't complain about cyclists not getting out of my way, either.

I also was making the point that there shouldn't be a need for anyone to get out of another person's way. On a road which is more than wide enough for cyclists and motorists to coexist, both should be aware of the other. I was pointing out examples where this is not the case. I understand that I'm in a forum where people will choose to ignore my point of view, or explain to me why I'm wrong. I'm cool with that.

tomasrojo wrote: »

I really don't see why a cyclist would go for the rather time-consuming option of using a pedestrian crossing to get to the other side of a road if they could just cycle across after a quick look around, unless it was a nervous person. In that case, it's understandable, and, from your point of view, it's irrelevant whether they cycle across or walk across. You have to stop and wait either way.

Unless you think pedestrians should similarly have a quick look around and run across, rather than impede your regal progress in your rarely used car.

What's with the sarcasm? It's fine if you don't agree with me, but why go to that level?

I was on my motorbike, for the record.

It also makes little sense to me why the cyclist would prefer to stop all traffic to use a pedestrian crossing to cross the road. It happens regularly, though.

07Lapierre

Basil3 wrote: »

It also makes little sense to me why the cyclist would prefer to stop all traffic to use a pedestrian crossing to cross the road. It happens regularly, though.

Sounds like a confidence/experience issue.

Some people don't have the confidence/experience to cross a road that has fast moving cars on it.

Chuchote

07Lapierre wrote: »

Sounds like a confidence/experience issue.

Some people don't have the confidence/experience to cross a road that has fast moving cars on it.

Slowed for a woman who was wheeling her bike along the pavement today in Terenure, and asked her if she was ok, had a puncture, etc. She said she was just too old and too nervous to cycle the bike on the main road any more, so stopped and wheeled it on main roads.

We are all brothers and sisters on the road (except sometimes cross drivers).

07Lapierre

Chuchote wrote: »

Slowed for a woman who was wheeling her bike along the pavement today in Terenure, and asked her if she was ok, had a puncture, etc. She said she was just too old and too nervous to cycle the bike on the main road any more, so stopped and wheeled it on main roads.

We are all brothers and sisters on the road (except sometimes cross drivers).

And cross cyclists, pedestrians, truck drivers, taxi drivers, bus drivers etc. etc. a lot of grumpy and "I don't give a S*it about anyone but myself" kinda people out there.

Carawaystick

Basil3 wrote: »

- Cyclists using pedestrian crossings to stop all traffic so they can ride their bike across the road.

If the green person is lit, then people walking across the road can do so, and people walking along the road are not stopped by traffic lights, so all traffic is not stopped.

Carawaystick

Carawaystick wrote: »

If the green person is lit, then people walking across the road can do so, and people walking along the road are not stopped by traffic lights, so all traffic is not stopped.

Hilarious.

In this case, there was no pedestrians anywhere along that stretch of road. All road traffic that would not have been stopped if the cyclist didn't press the pedestrian button was stopped. The only 'traffic' that was moving was the cyclist on their bike across a pedestrian crossing.

Now waiting for you to tell me that traffic in Cork/Galway/on the moon was not stopped....

The sad thing is that you're not even trying to be funny. :rolleyes:

Chuchote

The odd thing, though, Basil, is that I've actually had motorists drive at me, screaming and blaring their horns, shouting "Get back to your own side of the road" when I signalled and moved to the right-hand lane to turn right. A lot of drivers don't really know the rules of the road; they seem to think that to go right you should teleport with your bike. Or as some have screamed… "GET OFF AND USE THE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING, YOU IDIOT!"

Chuchote

Chuchote wrote: »

The odd thing, though, Basil, is that I've actually had motorists drive at me, screaming and blaring their horns, shouting "Get back to your own side of the road" when I signalled and moved to the right-hand lane to turn right. A lot of drivers don't really know the rules of the road; they seem to think that to go right you should teleport with your bike. Or as some have screamed… "GET OFF AND USE THE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING, YOU IDIOT!"

Nothing would surprise me. I've had drivers almost squeeze me off the road, whether deliberately or through ignorance, and have given their car a tap with my hand when I inevitably catch up to them at the next set of lights, just to let them know I'm there. If car drivers tried cycling for a week, they'd probably see things differently.

I see DOZENS of examples of broken road rules, or general idiocy by cyclists, cars, and motorcyclists every single day, so I'm not singling out any one mode of transport for no particular reason.

I was merely pointing out examples of things that SOME cyclists do which would aggravate car drivers which could be avoided. I know there are some cases which can't be avoided, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'll never agree that two cyclists should go two abreast and tail back a load of traffic just because they're entitled to. Go single file, let the cars past....

Dermot Illogical

Basil3 wrote: »

I'll never agree that two cyclists should go two abreast and tail back a load of traffic just because they're entitled to. Go single file, let the cars past....

Going single-file is an invitation to motorists to squeeze through the gap between the cyclist and oncoming traffic. There's either enough room for a proper overtake, in which case it doesn't matter if they're 2 abreast, or there isn't. Cyclist's safety trumps your convenience.

Dermot Illogical

Actually, try it out on your motorbike some time. Stick to the left and tootle along at 30kph for a bit. Post back on how you get on with the close passes.

Dermot Illogical

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

Going single-file is an invitation to motorists to squeeze through the gap between the cyclist and oncoming traffic. There's either enough room for a proper overtake, in which case it doesn't matter if they're 2 abreast, or there isn't. Cyclist's safety trumps your convenience.

Basically there are no roads where a single cyclist can ride without a driver having to actually 'overtake' and pull into opposing traffic? Virtually my entire route to work would have plenty of room for both. Add a second cyclist, and that is no longer the case.

Consideration trumps safety when safety isn't an issue.

magicbastarder

Basil3 - i had this discussion with a colleague recently - he lives near maynooth and was complaining about bunches of 12 or so cyclists riding two abreast, making it hard to overtake.
look at it this way; say they're cycling two abreast, one bike length apart, and a bike length is 2m. two abreast is six bike lengths plus five gaps, i.e. 22m long - plus it's moving at 30km/h.
so if they want to move to single file to accomodate you, single file now means 12 bike lengths plus 11 gaps - i.e. 46m long moving cordon. so what you're overtaking has more than doubled in length, and it's still moving at 30km/h. that's the length of probably ten cars nose to tail.

now consider this too - allowing the cyclists say 1m to ride from the edge of the road (this includes width of handlebars, shoulders, etc.) and a safe overtaking gap of 1.5m - your left wing mirror will be (should be) at least 2m from the left hand side of the road. are you able to do this without putting your wheel over the middle line? if not, *you should not be overtaking*.

the overall implication is - whether or not the cyclists are riding single file or double, you are almost certainly going to need to put your wheel over the line, unless it's an unusually wide lane. and if you've to put your wheel over the line, you are pulling out into the oncoming lane. and that means you've to wait till the oncoming lane is clear.

magicbastarder

Basil3 wrote: »

Virtually my entire route to work would have plenty of room for both. Add a second cyclist, and that is no longer the case.

it's hard to find how wide a typical road lane in ireland is, but let's take a motorway lane as an example. the m50 lanes are 3.5m wide, iirc.

here's a reasonable scenario - a cyclist cycling 0.3m from the edge, cyclist takes up an effective 0.6m, 1.5m safe overtaking distance, 1.8m car, plus say a buffer of 0.3m between the car and the edge of the lane (because we're talking about a motorist passing without leaving the lane).

that's 4.5m.

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote: »

Basil3 - i had this discussion with a colleague recently - he lives near maynooth and was complaining about bunches of 12 or so cyclists riding two abreast, making it hard to overtake.
look at it this way; say they're cycling two abreast, one bike length apart, and a bike length is 2m. two abreast is six bike lengths plus five gaps, i.e. 22m long - plus it's moving at 30km/h.
so if they want to move to single file to accomodate you, single file now means 12 bike lengths plus 11 gaps - i.e. 46m long moving cordon. so what you're overtaking has more than doubled in length, and it's still moving at 30km/h. that's the length of probably ten cars nose to tail.

now consider this too - allowing the cyclists say 1m to ride from the edge of the road (this includes width of handlebars, shoulders, etc.) and a safe overtaking gap of 1.5m - your left wing mirror will be (should be) at least 2m from the left hand side of the road. are you able to do this without putting your wheel over the middle line? if not, *you should not be overtaking*.

the overall implication is - whether or not the cyclists are riding single file or double, you are almost certainly going to need to put your wheel over the line, unless it's an unusually wide lane. and if you've to put your wheel over the line, you are pulling out into the oncoming lane. and that means you've to wait till the oncoming lane is clear.

Yeah, I understand that. There's plenty of examples where there would be plenty of room for one, but two makes it impossible to pass. This includes roads with cycling lanes painted on the side, but riders still go two abreast, knowing full well that traffic would flow better if they sit behind each other.

Don't talk to me about out around Maynooth way. I actually started refusing to go out to the mother-in-laws on a certain night of the week, because I knew the cycling club would be taking over a lot of the roads with a group cycle or even worse - time trials

AlreadyHome

Basil3 wrote: »

In this case, there was no pedestrians anywhere along that stretch of road. All road traffic that would not have been stopped if the cyclist didn't press the pedestrian button was stopped. The only 'traffic' that was moving was the cyclist on their bike across a pedestrian crossing.

Just how often does this really happen?! Really?!

Who's to say this person wasn't a nervous cyclist? Ill? Had a puncture? Heading into a shop the other side of the road? Lost?

As a self-proclaimed cyclist and human being, you seem to lack any degree of empathy.

AlreadyHome

AlreadyHome wrote: »

Just how often does this really happen?! Really?!

Who's to say this person wasn't a nervous cyclist? Ill? Had a puncture? Heading into a shop the other side of the road? Lost?

As a self-proclaimed cyclist and human being, you seem to lack any degree of empathy.

They could have been nervous, although not too nervous to ride the wrong way out a one way entrance into Phoenix Park. Possibly ill, although no idea what using a pedestrian crossing would do to help that. There's no shops there, and I really don't know why a lost person would decide they need to ride their bike across a pedestrian crossing.

It's not a big deal, but it does happen quite regularly. I would put it up there alongside no indication on roundabouts, running red lights and talking on mobile phones while driving amongst my frequent annoyances when out and about.

It's not like I'm going to record it, yell at them, then post a video with their bike rego number on YouTube

Edit: I know bikes don't have rego numbers, before someone has a go at me about that....

07Lapierre

The obvious solution is to ban pedestrian crossings!

AlreadyHome

Basil3 wrote: »

It's not a big deal, but it does happen quite regularly. I would put it up there alongside no indication on roundabouts, running red lights and talking on mobile phones while driving amongst my frequent annoyances when out and about.

Ok, you've got to be either trolling or really are just a bit dim.

Anyone who'd put it alongside those potentially fatal driving offences genuinely needs re-education on some level.

AlreadyHome

AlreadyHome wrote: »

Ok, you've got to be either trolling or really are just a bit dim.

Anyone who'd put it alongside those potentially fatal driving offences genuinely needs re-education on some level.

Not trolling, guess I'm dim. I didn't know general annoyance was equally proportional to how potentially fatal an offence is.

steamengine

07Lapierre wrote: »

The obvious solution is to ban pedestrian crossings!

Many a true word is spoken in jest ! I've learned the hard way as a pedestrian or cyclist to not proceed across on the green man or green bicycle alone, without also looking to check all traffic is stopped. Too many breaches of red at pedestrian crossings in my experience, by cars and bikes.

magicbastarder

is it just me, or have motorists become more aware of zebra crossings in the last ten years or so?

07Lapierre

steamengine wrote: »

Many a true word is spoken in jest ! I've learned the hard way as a pedestrian or cyclist to not proceed across on the green man or green bicycle alone, without also looking to check all traffic is stopped. Too many breaches of red at pedestrian crossings in my experience, by cars and bikes.

If memory serves me correctly ROTR state that when a traffic light is green you should "proceed with caution if safe to do so".

steamengine

07Lapierre wrote: »

If memory serves me correctly ROTR state that when a traffic light is green you should "proceed with caution if safe to do so".

..........and keep proceeding with caution until you reach the far side is the present reality.

NiallBoo

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's hard to find how wide a typical road lane in ireland is, but let's take a motorway lane as an example. the m50 lanes are 3.5m wide, iirc.

here's a reasonable scenario - a cyclist cycling 0.3m from the edge, cyclist takes up an effective 0.6m, 1.5m safe overtaking distance, 1.8m car, plus say a buffer of 0.3m between the car and the edge of the lane (because we're talking about a motorist passing without leaving the lane).

that's 4.5m.

You're being very generous here.

Motorway lanes are much wider than normal. Normal is about 2.5m, smaller isn't too unusual.

180 is too small for a car including mirrors. A yaris is 187, a mondeo about 208.

You'd also do well to keep only 30 out from the edge, your feet would nearly hit the kerb at that.

magicbastarder

NiallBoo wrote: »

You're being very generous here.

deliberately so. i didn't want the margin of error to work in the other direction.
i googled the width of skoda cars, but it was vague on whether that included wing mirrors. an octavia is just over 1.8m in the sources i could find; any sources i can find on the yaris max out at about 1.65m?

the 30cm i proposed from the edge is the width of the 60cm 'window' i placed the cyclist in - would be interested to measure the little toe to little toe distance on a bike.

Chuchote

Basil3 wrote: »

They could have been nervous, although not too nervous to ride the wrong way out a one way entrance into Phoenix Park. Possibly ill, although no idea what using a pedestrian crossing would do to help that. There's no shops there, and I really don't know why a lost person would decide they need to ride their bike across a pedestrian crossing.

It's not a big deal, but it does happen quite regularly. I would put it up there alongside no indication on roundabouts, running red lights and talking on mobile phones while driving amongst my frequent annoyances when out and about.

It's not like I'm going to record it, yell at them, then post a video with their bike rego number on YouTube

Edit: I know bikes don't have rego numbers, before someone has a go at me about that....

Basil3 wrote: »

Yeah, I understand that. There's plenty of examples where there would be plenty of room for one, but two makes it impossible to pass. This includes roads with cycling lanes painted on the side, but riders still go two abreast, knowing full well that traffic would flow better if they sit behind each other.

Don't talk to me about out around Maynooth way. I actually started refusing to go out to the mother-in-laws on a certain night of the week, because I knew the cycling club would be taking over a lot of the roads with a group cycle or even worse - time trials

This is a troll, a motorist who has an irrational hatred of cyclists.