Road issues that irritate me.......

GrumpyMe

jimd2 wrote: »

Ah come off it - I drive for approx 2 hours every day and can't remember the last time I met a car driving in the dark without lights. What part of the country are you in as I don't see it in Dublin/ Meath / Louth ?

You've not seen any 'DRL only' idiots after dark? How much of the 2 hours is at night?

whoopsadoodles

jimd2 wrote: »

Ah come off it - I drive for approx 2 hours every day and can't remember the last time I met a car driving in the dark without lights. What part of the country are you in as I don't see it in Dublin/ Meath / Louth ?

Maybe there's a reason you don't see them

I saw two over the weekend. One was in front of me and was flashed by a good few cars and never copped it.

The DLR people are far too common.

Dublin, btw.

mfceiling

mikeymouse wrote: »

Would you expect a truck to
get up to 120kph on a uphill slip road ?

It's up to the person who is merging to get up to speed and join the traffic safely. It's not the "already moving" traffic that slows down to allow them to merge.
That's exactly what's wrong on irish motorways.
What would you do if a car was matching your speed and trying to merge?
Would you not move out and let it on?
Probably not , it is your bit of road after all.

You're not getting it are you?

If I merge onto a motorway it is up to me to judge my speed and to be able to filter in to the oncoming traffic. A truck is limited in its speed so your analogy of it getting to 120kmh is stupid.

If you see someone attempting to merge and it is safe and legal for you to move in to the overtaking lane then yes it is common courtesy to move out and allow them merge. However if the overtaking lane is busy then you must rely on the merger to be able to bring his vehicle up to the required speed to be able to join safely.

This is why the m50 is so built up at times....traffic in the first lane braking because the person merging is incapable of judging his speed to join the traffic.

mfceiling

mikeymouse wrote: »

That's exactly what's wrong on irish motorways.
What would you do if a car was matching your speed and trying to merge?
Would you not move out and let it on?
Probably not , it is your bit of road after all.

This is what is wrong on irish motorways. If someone is matching your speed then THEY are to blame. What if the overtaking lane is busy, should I slow to a crawl because the person merging isn't capable of judging his speed to merge? Should I speed up to let him in or should I slow down? So now the traffic on the motorway has to start trying to adjust their speed because someone merging isn't capable of judging their vehicles speed to join the regular flow of traffic.

TallGlass

Deedsie wrote: »

As I was cycling home last night I noticed a good number of cyclists without lights on their bikes. Scary.

Also cycling numbers have swelled so much at certain times the ****ty cycle drains are no longer a sufficient amount of space for people who cycle to and from work. If the authorities want the numbers of cyclist to continue to grow. They must provide improved infrastructure

Yeah I am one of them on the rear since a few days ago, some fúcking prick robbed it off my bike, wouldn't mind it was cable tided to bike. Will pick one later today.

Riva10

kbannon wrote: »

But if the cycle lanes were that good, surely they would be used.
The fact that cyclists opt to cycle closer to traffic is decided for a reason! Maybe take a moment to guess why!

Maybe insurance payout has something to do with it.

Dravokivich

TallGlass wrote: »

Yeah I am one of them on the rear since a few days ago, some fúcking prick robbed it off my bike, wouldn't mind it was cable tided to bike. Will pick one later today.

Why did you leave it on your bike?

Riva10

MadDog76 wrote: »

Motorists, and even Pedestrians, have been slated on this thread and it's taken on the chin but any hint of criticism towards a Cyclist and they get their lycra in a twist over it! Hilarious really.

Not one bit true. Do you not realise how uncomfortable it is to have your lycra in a twist in these sensitive areas. Why do you think that cyclists are almost always grimacing.

Dravokivich

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Let me guess, you are a cyclist and they are not good enough for you, so on the road you go and delay everyone else.

BTW, they are in D15 near Carpenterstown.

You mean the cycle lanes that have trees with low hanging branches next to them and force a cyclist into traffic at the junctions even if they don't intend on preceeding through them?

TallGlass

Dravokivich wrote: »

Why did you leave it on your bike?

Literally, in case I forget to take em off. Cable tides on them and there only 10€ lights.

Arseholes, should have to worry about some nack robbing me lights !

TallGlass

Deedsie wrote: »

I take my lights off when I am not with the bike. No way would I leave lights on the bike when I lock it. Too many kleptomaniacs in Irish society unfortunately.

True, as I said only a 20€ set so 10€ a light. Literally didn't think they would go to the effort with cable ties on them.

Put a load of copper grease under the front one in case they came back for it. Hasn't gone since.

Literally some people would just rob anything.

suicide_circus

frozenfrozen wrote: »

don't brake check or condone brake checking ffs

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh

AndrewJRenko

Stravos Murphy wrote: »

Right angles corners, they are too right angled.

It's a deliberate design technique to slow down traffic. Cut corners encourages drivers to speed through.

Royalty Blue Incense wrote: »

I cycle to work and on occasion take the car when there weather calls for it. So I see it from both sides.

Funnily enough, most cyclists drive too, and most of them pay motor tax for the car they leave sitting in their driveways when they're on the bike. But please don't tell that to the anti-cycling advocates, as heads would be exploding all over the place.

The_Valeyard wrote: »

My god, ive never seen so much BS in a post in a while, and ive been following the Trump thread.

It might surprise you, that you do not own the road and do not have the right to delay the flow of traffic with your slow inconsistent peddling when a perfectly good cycle path is available.

All cyclist should be fined for using the road when a cycle path is available, no excuses.

I have no need to 'identify' the exact location, you have the internet, google Carpenterstown and have a look yourself, im not your servant.

Let's just stick to the facts please.

1) You are correct that cyclists don't own the road. And motorists don't own the roads. And pedestrians don't won the road. It is either the local authorities or TII that own the roads, so I've no idea why you bring this up.

2) Cyclists have no legal obligations to use cycle lanes, thanks to former Min Transport Leo Vradakar who changed the law during his time. So you are factually incorrect, cyclists DO have the right to cycle on the road any time they choose.

It is very interesting that you keep talking about 'perfectly good cycle lanes' but you are extremely coy about the location of any of these 'perfectly good cycle lanes'. I suspect this is because you know that once you point out your 'perfectly good cycle lanes', the cyclists who actually use this lane will tell you why it's not so perfectly good when you're on a bike, as opposed to having the windscreen view. But if there is some other reason for your coyness, do feel free to correct me.

It's also very interesting how many motorists spend large parts of their day staring down the arse of the car in front, and tolerate this with zen-like attitudes. But stick them behind a cyclist for 10 or (in rare cases 20 or 30) seconds, and they lose their sense of reason. If you think that cyclists contribute to slowing down of traffic in general, you're really not a very observant driver.

jimd2 wrote: »

Ah come off it - I drive for approx 2 hours every day and can't remember the last time I met a car driving in the dark without lights. What part of the country are you in as I don't see it in Dublin/ Meath / Louth ?

I see one or two cars with one headlight out every day. I see 5+ cars with a non-functioning brake light or rear light every day. I see a car with no headlights or no back lights driving in Dublin a couple of times a week. Sometimes it is the DRLs with no back lights, sometimes it is the folks just out of the underground car park who didn't need their lights as they started up. Who knows - but it's fairly common anyway.

Riva10 wrote: »

Maybe insurance payout has something to do with it.

Really? You're suggesting that cyclists are throwing themselves under cars for insurance money?

Think again.

Pinch Flat

jimd2 wrote: »

Ah come off it - I drive for approx 2 hours every day and can't remember the last time I met a car driving in the dark without lights. What part of the country are you in as I don't see it in Dublin/ Meath / Louth ?

Common enough where I live in Dublin 15 - I leave the house these mornings about 8.15. Not dark but not bright - about 20 minutes before sunrise. The amount of numpties driving with out lights is in a high enough minority.

The_Valeyard

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's a deliberate design technique to slow down traffic. Cut corners encourages drivers to speed through.


Funnily enough, most cyclists drive too, and most of them pay motor tax for the car they leave sitting in their driveways when they're on the bike. But please don't tell that to the anti-cycling advocates, as heads would be exploding all over the place.



Let's just stick to the facts please.

1) You are correct that cyclists don't own the road. And motorists don't own the roads. And pedestrians don't won the road. It is either the local authorities or TII that own the roads, so I've no idea why you bring this up.

2) Cyclists have no legal obligations to use cycle lanes, thanks to former Min Transport Leo Vradakar who changed the law during his time. So you are factually incorrect, cyclists DO have the right to cycle on the road any time they choose.

It is very interesting that you keep talking about 'perfectly good cycle lanes' but you are extremely coy about the location of any of these 'perfectly good cycle lanes'. I suspect this is because you know that once you point out your 'perfectly good cycle lanes', the cyclists who actually use this lane will tell you why it's not so perfectly good when you're on a bike, as opposed to having the windscreen view. But if there is some other reason for your coyness, do feel free to correct me.

It's also very interesting how many motorists spend large parts of their day staring down the arse of the car in front, and tolerate this with zen-like attitudes. But stick them behind a cyclist for 10 or (in rare cases 20 or 30) seconds, and they lose their sense of reason. If you think that cyclists contribute to slowing down of traffic in general, you're really not a very observant driver.

I see one or two cars with one headlight out every day. I see 5+ cars with a non-functioning brake light or rear light every day. I see a car with no headlights or no back lights driving in Dublin a couple of times a week. Sometimes it is the DRLs with no back lights, sometimes it is the folks just out of the underground car park who didn't need their lights as they started up. Who knows - but it's fairly common anyway.


Really? You're suggesting that cyclists are throwing themselves under cars for insurance money?

Think again.

Drivel of a post.


Leo's decision was a bad one and should be changed by the current Minister. Cyclists need to held to the same standards as other roads users are.

AndrewJRenko

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Drivel of a post.


Leo's decision was a bad one and should be changed by the current Minister.

Opinions are great, aren't they?

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Cyclists need to held to the same standards as other roads users are.

So presumably all road users should be held to the same standards then?

So when will you be fitting your tachograph, undergoing mandatory annual training and taking mandatory rest periods?

Because your idea is that all road users carry the same risk, so there should be the same rules for HGV drivers, and ordinary motorists, and cyclists - right?

Or maybe when you think about it, you can see that the difference in risk between a 20 ton HGV being driven long distances is different to the risk of a 1-2 tonne car being driven for the school run? And that difference in risk justifies different rules.

And likewise, perhaps you can even see that the risk of a 1-2 tonne car driven at 60-120 kmph is different to the risk of a 10kg bike being ridden at 10-20 kmph? And that difference in risk justifies different rules.

The_Valeyard

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Opinions are great, aren't they?


So presumably all road users should be held to the same standards then?

So when will you be fitting your tachograph, undergoing mandatory annual training and taking mandatory rest periods?

Because your idea is that all road users carry the same risk, so there should be the same rules for HGV drivers, and ordinary motorists, and cyclists - right?

Or maybe when you think about it, you can see that the difference in risk between a 20 ton HGV being driven long distances is different to the risk of a 1-2 tonne car being driven for the school run? And that difference in risk justifies different rules.

And likewise, perhaps you can even see that the risk of a 1-2 tonne car driven at 60-120 kmph is different to the risk of a 10kg bike being ridden at 10-20 kmph? And that difference in risk justifies different rules.

No it does not. Tax cyclists and mandatory insurance. And you could be right, mandatory testing and training for cyclists to use the road to cycle to work is a great idea. Theory test on braking distance, tyre depth, hand signals, all good stuff.

AndrewJRenko

The_Valeyard wrote: »

No it does not. Tax cyclists and mandatory insurance. And you could be right, mandatory testing and training for cyclists to use the road to cycle to work is a great idea. Theory test on braking distance, tyre depth, hand signals, all good stuff.

So when are you installing your tachograph on your car?

Have you booked in for your mandatory annual driver training yet this year?

Jimoslimos

The_Valeyard wrote: »

No it does not. Tax cyclists and mandatory insurance. And you could be right, mandatory testing and training for cyclists to use the road to cycle to work is a great idea. Theory test on braking distance, tyre depth, hand signals, all good stuff.

Tyre depth, on a bicycle, lol!

So tell me what would be difference between my tyres (zero tread depth) and ones with say 1mm tread?

Do you even understand what their function is on car tyres?

pablo128

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And likewise, perhaps you can even see that the risk of a 1-2 tonne car driven at 60-120 kmph is different to the risk of a 10kg bike being ridden at 10-20 kmph? And that difference in risk justifies different rules.

I think we all get that. I do anyway. And it's for that reason that cycle lanes were first introduced. Now whether or not you are required by law to use them is another argument. I have heard cyclists complain about debris and leaves etc , but you don't have motorist drive on the footpath to avoid sh1te on the roads.

I have seen cycle lanes being cleaned quite recently as it happens. It was a little narrow road sweeping truck. I'm sure if you gave your local council a shout, they would act on it. If no-one let them know, well how would they know to go out cleaning them?

pablo128

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Tyre depth, on a bicycle, lol!

So tell me what would be difference between my tyres (zero tread depth) and ones with say 1mm tread?

Do you even understand what their function is on car tyres?

You are out cycling on public roads with slick tyres?

TheQuietFella

pablo128 wrote: »

You are out cycling on public roads footpaths with slick tyres?

Again and again...

WestWicklow1

Hey mod any hope of doing something about the sh1te in this thread?

Every time I get interested in a thread on boards it turns into aul wans with hand bags.

Why the fukc do I bother me arse with boards in the first place?

The_Valeyard

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Tyre depth, on a bicycle, lol!

So tell me what would be difference between my tyres (zero tread depth) and ones with say 1mm tread?

Do you even understand what their function is on car tyres?

I'm really not sure you do. Maybe you need training, before you go in the roads.

Jimoslimos

pablo128 wrote: »

You are out cycling on public roads with slick tyres?

Yes I am.

The_Valeyard wrote: »

I'm really not sure you do. Maybe you need training, before you go in the roads.

So explain what tyre tread would do on a bicycle...

Pinch Flat

The_Valeyard wrote: »

No it does not. Tax cyclists and mandatory insurance.

I'm not sure what basis cyclists could be taxed. They cause no pollution and have no motors. Maybe one way would be to tax them in proportion to their weight compared to a car - that's only fair given the wear and tear they cause? So my bike weights about 1% that of my car which costs €200 to tax annually - any idea who'd collect my €2? And maybe a tax rebate for the 5 days my car sits on the drive, adding nothing to pollution or congestion in the process, effectively creating more space for you to drive on. Other countries have considered this approach.

Insurance I'm in agreement with - as are 20,000 other cyclists who have voluntary insurance. But it's not to sort out dings to cars and missing wing mirrors, although as a third party policy is quite useful in this regard if the cyclist is negligent. No most cyclists elect to have voluntary insurance to cover them for medical expenses and time off work in the case of a collision with a car where they'll come off worse.

What's a bigger problem on our roads is uninsured drivers - about 5% or 120,000 and growing. They add about 6% to my car insurance premium and the cost of the fund set up to deal with the accidents they cause pays out about €60m annually. For some reason those who call for mandatory insurance for cyclists rarely call for this to be sorted out. I'd rather not be paying this.

Maybe another way would be to bring in strict liability - we and the UK, both with similar car centric cultures, are the only EU countries without this. You'll know when you cycle in other EU countries wit this - generally a lot more civilised and mature on the roads.

The_Valeyard wrote: »

And you could be right, mandatory testing and training for cyclists to use the road to cycle to work is a great idea. Theory test on braking distance, tyre depth, hand signals, all good stuff.

I'm in agreement with this. The verkeersexam (traffic exam) in the Netherlands is an example I s taken by all 12 year olds. A lot more also cycle - they broke their link with car dependency in the early 1970s. So because a lot more cycle and do so for years before graduating to a car, you have less polarised views on the roads. You need to go there to see the fruits of their investment in this. Of course the fact that about 80% of cyclists also drive glances over this, but for the attitudes on our roads to change it's probably worth rolling out. When I query road education in our local primary school, I'm informed it's done on an ad hoc basis due to lack of funding. So the political will is not there to fund this education.

So that brings me to another road issue that irritates me - people who seem to think they have some sort of exclusivity or entitlement to use the roads over others - they are public roads, not some sort of private club.

pablo128 wrote: »

You are out cycling on public roads with slick tyres?

I do too. The tyres on my bike are as bald as a babies arśe. A lot of bike tyres come without a thread. They have lots of different compounds that enhance grip. Threads are really only useful when they're on mountain bikes where they need do dig into dirt and muck for traction. Explained here

https://cyclingtips.com/2014/08/rubber-side-down-the-function-of-road-tyre-tread-patterns/

Bogfairy

People who use their phones whilst driving drives me fookin nuts, if you need to text/take a call pull in or call them back FFS. I have had a few near misses driving to work in the morning, where some bellend is happily texting (on corners) while they are oblivious to the fact they are over the white line.

AndrewJRenko

The_Valeyard wrote: »

I'm really not sure you do. Maybe you need training, before you go in the roads.

How's that 'training before you go in the roads' working out for preventing the drivers who kill 4 or 5 people every week? You know, the ones we see breaking red lights, speeding, driving with phones in their hand every day?

pablo128 wrote: »

I think we all get that. I do anyway. And it's for that reason that cycle lanes were first introduced. Now whether or not you are required by law to use them is another argument. I have heard cyclists complain about debris and leaves etc , but you don't have motorist drive on the footpath to avoid sh1te on the roads.

I have seen cycle lanes being cleaned quite recently as it happens. It was a little narrow road sweeping truck. I'm sure if you gave your local council a shout, they would act on it. If no-one let them know, well how would they know to go out cleaning them?

Motorists don't drive on the footpath? Somebody should tell this guy:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/drivers-lucky-escape-after-terrifying-dublin-car-crash-35388559.html

But maybe that great regime of mandatory testing / training / insurance would prevent such crashes? Or should we just issue hi-vis vests to every hedge in the country?

I reported two separate spots of broken glass on the road (not cycle lane - road) to Dun Laoghaire Rathdown, one last week, one 3-4 weeks ago. Broken glass is still there. Your 'little truck' does not respond to reports from cyclists. It also doesn't reach many cycle paths, depending on their design.

It also only addresses one of the many problems with cycle paths. It doesn't stop pedestrians from dawdling across cycle paths, sometimes with their extendable dog lead stretched across the path like the old Nazi piano wire trick. It doesn't stop the crap design of some cycle lanes that just stop - no dished kerb to get back onto the road - the 'road to nowhere' cycle lanes - or the ones that lead into the precise position where drivers don't expect to see cyclists at junctions - or the ones where the cycle path has been dished at each house (like Leopardstown Road) creating a roller-coaster up-down effect for cyclists.

Are you starting to see the issue, or do I need to keep going?

The_Valeyard wrote: »

No it does not. Tax cyclists and mandatory insurance. And you could be right, mandatory testing and training for cyclists to use the road to cycle to work is a great idea. Theory test on braking distance, tyre depth, hand signals, all good stuff.

How's that mandatory training and testing working out for ensuring motorists obey the rules of the road? Is there any chance you could be specific on what problem your new regime would actually fix (in the light of the high level of road deaths so far this year, all of whom were killed by motorists).

degsie

Ah, so it's turned into another cyclist vs motorist thread. Warms the cockles...

The_Valeyard

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Yes I am.


So explain what tyre tread would do on a bicycle...

Depth as with width is important.

The_Valeyard

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

How's that 'training before you go in the roads' working out for preventing the drivers who kill 4 or 5 people every week? You know, the ones we see breaking red lights, speeding, driving with phones in their hand every day?



Motorists don't drive on the footpath? Somebody should tell this guy:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/drivers-lucky-escape-after-terrifying-dublin-car-crash-35388559.html

But maybe that great regime of mandatory testing / training / insurance would prevent such crashes? Or should we just issue hi-vis vests to every hedge in the country?

I reported two separate spots of broken glass on the road (not cycle lane - road) to Dun Laoghaire Rathdown, one last week, one 3-4 weeks ago. Broken glass is still there. Your 'little truck' does not respond to reports from cyclists. It also doesn't reach many cycle paths, depending on their design.

It also only addresses one of the many problems with cycle paths. It doesn't stop pedestrians from dawdling across cycle paths, sometimes with their extendable dog lead stretched across the path like the old Nazi piano wire trick. It doesn't stop the crap design of some cycle lanes that just stop - no dished kerb to get back onto the road - the 'road to nowhere' cycle lanes - or the ones that lead into the precise position where drivers don't expect to see cyclists at junctions - or the ones where the cycle path has been dished at each house (like Leopardstown Road) creating a roller-coaster up-down effect for cyclists.

Are you starting to see the issue, or do I need to keep going?




How's that mandatory training and testing working out for ensuring motorists obey the rules of the road? Is there any chance you could be specific on what problem your new regime would actually fix (in the light of the high level of road deaths so far this year, all of whom were killed by motorists).

Okay so, let's get rid of it for drivers then. No need.

AndrewJRenko

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Okay so, let's get rid of it for drivers then. No need.

Given what we see on the road every day, would it make a whole lot of difference?

Jimoslimos

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Depth as with width is important.

What??

Explain so and while you're at it explain (or at least google) why car tyres are required to have minimum tread please. This will also explain why it isn't necessary on a bicycle.

Jimoslimos

To try steer the topic back on track, I'll list some of my major annoyances:

As a cyclist:
Potholes
Sunken drains
Manhole covers located at junctions (where I'm turning)
Drivers passing too close
Dangerous and inadequate cycle lanes.

As a motorist:
Blocking yellow box junctions
DRLs only at night
Trucks/lorries overtaking each other at a snails pace on a dual carriageway
Poor parking - supermarkets are the worst for this
Cyclists...with their fancy bikes overtaking me while I'm stuck in traffic - usually cos some fool is blocking the yellow box junction

mikeymouse

Jimoslimos wrote: »

To try steer the topic back on track, I'll list some of my major annoyances:

As a cyclist:
Potholes
Sunken drains
Manhole covers located at junctions (where I'm turning)
Drivers passing too close
Dangerous and inadequate cycle lanes.

As a motorist:
Blocking yellow box junctions
DRLs only at night
Trucks/lorries overtaking each other at a snails pace on a dual carriageway
Poor parking - supermarkets are the worst for this
Cyclists...with their fancy bikes overtaking me while I'm stuck in traffic - usually cos some fool is blocking the yellow box junction

Jeeps and other large wheeled vehicles with their wheels in the fully locked position after reversing into bay.

seamus

What drives me mad is the incredible accordion effect you see at lights when cars are pulling away. Everyone can see the lights, everyone should be ready to go. There's no good reason for a 20m gap to open up between you and the car in front because you waited for them to pull away before you got into gear and released your handbrake.

It's the difference between 3 cars getting through the lights and ten cars getting through.

The_Valeyard

Jimoslimos wrote: »

What??

Explain so and while you're at it explain (or at least google) why car tyres are required to have minimum tread please. This will also explain why it isn't necessary on a bicycle.

Ah ffs, would you ever cop on with your posts, you know what I mean. :rolleyes:

The_Valeyard

WestWicklow1 wrote: »

Hey mod any hope of doing something about the sh1te in this thread?

Every time I get interested in a thread on boards it turns into aul wans with hand bags.

Why the fukc do I bother me arse with boards in the first place?

Be happy this isnt in a certain other forum where if you criticise the Gods of cycling you get carded faster than a cyclist breaking a red light.

Seth Brundle

seamus wrote: »

What drives me mad is the incredible accordion effect you see at lights when cars are pulling away. Everyone can see the lights, everyone should be ready to go. There's no good reason for a 20m gap to open up between you and the car in front because you waited for them to pull away before you got into gear and released your handbrake.

It's the difference between 3 cars getting through the lights and ten cars getting through.

So when are people supposed to check their Facebook account?

JillyQ

seamus wrote: »

What drives me mad is the incredible accordion effect you see at lights when cars are pulling away. Everyone can see the lights, everyone should be ready to go. There's no good reason for a 20m gap to open up between you and the car in front because you waited for them to pull away before you got into gear and released your handbrake.

It's the difference between 3 cars getting through the lights and ten cars getting through.

You and me both. Had one of these fools a couple of weeks ago stuck in a long line of traffic turning right was about 10 cars back on the first turn didn't make it was about 3 cars back the second time soon as the lights turned green the second car and me blew our horns.

The_Valeyard

The breaking of a car when another car passes by them on the other side of the road is annoying.

Fian

pablo128 wrote: »

You are out cycling on public roads with slick tyres?

Just to explain - tread depth is meaningless on a bicycle. Tread depth on a car tyre prevents aquaplaning by giving the water somewhere to escape to rather than forming a film between the tyres and the road.

Bicycle tyres, because they are much narrower and because they are round rather than flat like the surface of a car tyre, displace water to the sides of the center of the tyre. So for bikes slick tyres are safer and less slippy than tyres with treads.

Now you might doubt this because no doubt you have seen some bicycle tyres (normally not on "road" bikes) which have tyre treads. why would they go the the trouble of putting treads on the tyres if they were actually counterproductive? The answer is straightforward if a little depressing - they do it because people instinctively think that tyres with treads are safer in the wet. So the tread is a marketing tool only, they include it because people will buy it thinking it is safer.

Edit: Tyres for off road (mountain bike and cyclocross tyres) do absolutely need treads- for gripping in muddy conditions rather than for dealing with standing water.

Calahonda52

The_Valeyard wrote: »

The breaking of a car when another car passes by them on the other side of the road is annoying.

This is always worth a look, however as for braking, sin ceil mile:D

Fian wrote: »

Just to explain - tread depth is meaningless on a bicycle. Tread depth on a car tyre prevents aquaplaning by giving the water somewhere to escape to rather than forming a film between the tyres and the road.

Bicycle tyres, because they are much narrower and because they are round rather than flat like the surface of a car tyre, displace water to the sides of the center of the tyre. So for bikes slick tyres are safer and less slippy than tyres with treads.

Now you might doubt this because no doubt you have seen some bicycle tyres (normally not on "road" bikes) which have tyre treads. why would they go the the trouble of putting treads on the tyres if they were actually counterproductive? The answer is straightforward if a little depressing - they do it because people instinctively think that tyres with treads are safer in the wet. So the tread is a marketing tool only, they include it because people will buy it thinking it is safer.

This argument may, and its only a may, hold water for the specific case for water on good quality road surfaces, and cannot be pawned off as purely a marketing tool.

wherearemykeys

Tractors going at a snails pace, carrying 40 bales of silage, making it near impossible to overtake them when on a country road. People out walking on roads that are clearing not suitable for pedestrians. If you have to climb a ditch to avoid a car, then that road is clearly not suitable for walking. Don't get me started on people who walk their dogs or worse still, their children on said roads.

degsie

Cars who instinctively brake when another car is approaching them on a single carriageway, even on straight sections. I have dubbed this OCD (Oncoming Car Detection) and it drives me nuts :mad:

Viscount Aggro

What about indicators? At least half of all road users dont bother their hole using indicators. Especially dangerous on roundabouts. Whats the law on this? I seem to be in a minority, a do-gooder, when I indicate while going around a corner.

GritBiscuit

I'm generally a pretty calm driver but I do get annoyed when there's a junction where a side road joins a fast single-lane road at an angle and drivers - who clearly have zero clutch control or ability to accelerate quickly nevermind look in their mirrors - ignore the "Give Way" signs and decide they're actually on a priority filter road and should propel themselves in front of traffic moving at 80-100kpm who then have to slam on the breaks, rather than wait for a suitable gap in the traffic.

ohnonotgmail

the two people who tried to run me off the road on my way to work this morning.

first eejit:

Coming up to a two lane roundabout. i was in the left lane because i was taking the second exit. there was a van in the right lane. just as we get to the roundabout he sticks on his left indicators and drives in front of me to take the first exit. cue much braking from me.

second eejit:

a woman in a big white jeep type yoke who decided to change lane in to my lane without checking if there was somebody already there. luckily i copped what she was doing and sped up to get out of her way. Of course when i looked back she was on the phone.

degsie

Traffic light creepers! Edging forward past the stop line DOES NOT make the lights change any faster.

Kintarō Hattori

I honestly don't get it- people who flash their full beams on a motorway when there's nothing actually wrong.

I was coming home on the M50 yesterday and at one point the car behind me turned on his full beams then after a few seconds turned them off. No worries says I, he must have hit it by accident.
A little further up the road and they flash on again. At this stage I'm thinking he must be trying to tell me something so I look around to make sure I hadn't somehow left my lights off- nope. I'm then thinking maybe my rear lights haven't come on for some reason.
Cue a third flash and I'm thinking maybe I should pull in on the hard shoulder and check my lights. Eventually the traffic thins out and I get up to 100kph but I can see he's moving further and further back.... sticking to 80kpn or less. When I get home I get out of the car and check all the lights are working. Everything is fine...... they were just being a dick.