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

amcalester

pablo128 wrote: »

If only we had cycle paths and lanes to help cyclists be safer........

( cue the 'oh but we're not obliged to use them' merchants in 3...2...1...)

Cyclist died last year after being knocked off his bike while cycling in a cycling lane.

So cycle lanes on their own aren't the answer.

Seth Brundle

pablo128 wrote: »

If only we had cycle paths and lanes to help cyclists be safer........

( cue the 'oh but we're not obliged to use them' merchants in 3...2...1...)

I think the main reason that they tend not to be used is because they are usually quite badly designed and not maintained and with the occasional pedestrian, animal or vehicle on them making them more dangerous - not because cyclists prefer being on the road.

pablo128

Another thing. You have cyclists here banging on about most cyclists being motorists too, and in the next breath telling us that the big bad drunken driving, texting, bad driving motorists are all to blame.

I've seen some self righteous stuff in my time but certain posters here take the biscuit.

amcalester

pablo128 wrote: »

Another thing. You have cyclists here banging on about most cyclists being motorists too, and in the next breath telling us that the big bad drunken driving, texting, bad driving motorists are all to blame.

I've seen some self righteous stuff in my time but certain posters here take the biscuit.

No doubt you can provide examples of posters saying the big bad drunken driving, texting, bad driving motorists are all to blame?

Because what I've seen is posters pointing out that motorists kill/maim/injure more people than cyclists yet their bad behaviour is often overlooked.

While cyclists who cause on average 0 road deaths a year are vilified for breaking the same rules that many motorists do.

pablo128

amcalester wrote: »

No doubt you can provide examples of posters saying the big bad drunken driving, texting, bad driving motorists are all to blame?

Because what I've seen is posters pointing out that motorists kill/maim/injure more people than cyclists yet their bad behaviour is often overlooked.

While cyclists who cause on average 0 road deaths a year are vilified for breaking the same rules that many motorists do.

Post #1398. Just a few posts up.

Again you are making a distinction between cyclists and motorists. Other posters will tell you they are one and the same. Make yisser minds up.

SILVAMAN

When you're trying to get out into the main road, and lines of car are moving slowly by, and it's the rare person that flashes for you to pull out. A little bit of give would help ease traffic flow.
I specifically think of the turn off to or from Kinvarra at Kilcolgan Co Galway, but it's a problem all over the place.

MadDog76

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Correct - if people what to choose to be irritated by cyclists, they will continue to do so, and they don't need my permission to do that.

What I can do is make sure that they don't make this choice in ignorance. The facts of the real dangers on the road will stand, and they will choose their source of irritation as being the one group that is reducing traffic chaos on the roads.

Being irritated is a feeling, not a choice ...........

amcalester

pablo128 wrote: »

Post #1398. Just a few posts up.

Again you are making a distinction between cyclists and motorists. Other posters will tell you they are one and the same. Make yisser minds up.

I really don't know what point you're trying to make. You seem surprised that different people may have different opinions?

Do you think all cyclists have a hive mind connected by their helmets or something?

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

amcalester

Patww79 wrote: »

Some of the roads I drive are in bad nick and designed badly. But I still drive in them rather than mounting the path because it'd be handier.

Poor analogy. Driving on the footpath is illegal, cycling on the road is not.

martingriff

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Can I put that one to bed right now?

For the record, I believe many cyclists are wrong in many situations. Many cyclists make dumb mistakes, many cyclists are careless, some cyclists are aggressive, and I fit into all three of those categories from time to time.

What cyclists don't do is kill people on the roads - that's the difference.

What they can do and it has happened to a friend of man is hit in to them and send them to hospital. He hit his head on the wall and was in an induced coma due to bled in the brain. Luckily is now out of hospital but has never been the same since so how about you drop your more than saintly crap of we haven't killed someone (which I find hard to believe) so we are better

Riva10

amcalester wrote: »

Poor analogy. Driving on the footpath is illegal, cycling on the road is not.
Cycling on a FOOTpath is also illegal

micknail

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Seen a very dangerous version of this recently. On a 80k road, driver was doing 15. Huge backlog of traffic and cars ahead attempting to overtake on this road. People got frustrated, being horns, the driver got out and proceeded to shake his fist at drivers behind him before driving in into an nursing home. He would come to a full stop when a car passed him on the other side of the road.

The other side of this situation is when a slow moving hgv or similar will actually pull over to the hard shoulder when clear to do so, obviously when 15+ vehicles are queued up behind.

Then the first car in the queue sits there with the right indicator on and won't speed up, even though they don't even have to cross the broken white line. Fooking yaris and micras!

amcalester

Riva10 wrote: »

amcalester wrote: »

Poor analogy. Driving on the footpath is illegal, cycling on the road is not.
Cycling on a FOOTpath is also illegal

Correct. Is there a point you're trying to make?

Riva10

amcalester wrote: »

Riva10 wrote: »

Correct. Is there a point you're trying to make?

Similar point to the one you made as regards driving on the footpath but then again I am sure no cyclist cycles on the footpath. :rolleyes:

amcalester

Riva10 wrote: »

Similar point to the one you made as regards driving on the footpath but then again I am sure no cyclist cycles on the footpath. :rolleyes:

I think we both know some do use the footpath, but that's not the point I was making.

The poster was saying that when the roads are in a poor state of repair he should use the footpath implying that is what cyclists are doing when avoiding cycle lanes and using the road instead.

I was pointing out that that isn't a fair analogy because driving on the footpath is illegal whereas cycling on the road is not.

Now if you want me to say cyclists shouldn't cycle on the footpath. I will, cyclists shouldn't cycle on the footpath, and nor should motorists drive on the footpath.

AndrewJRenko

martingriff wrote: »

What they can do and it has happened to a friend of man is hit in to them and send them to hospital. He hit his head on the wall and was in an induced coma due to bled in the brain.

Yes, absolutely - such things can happen - though they don't happen often enough or seriously enough to feature in any analysis. They don't appear as a significant category in medical studies or insurance reports or Garda reports or anywhere else.

martingriff wrote: »

how about you drop your more than saintly crap of we haven't killed someone (which I find hard to believe) so we are better

If you don't believe me, why don't you go spend lots of time searching for reports of an incident where a cyclist killed a pedestrian in Ireland. The last one that I know of was around 2002 or 2003, but if you find something more recent, I'll be very interested to see it.

But just in case you haven't noticed, there are reports on the news pretty much every day of people killed by motorists in traffic collisions. There aren't reports on the news pretty much every day of people killed by cyclists - so to use your own terminology - we ARE better.

pablo128 wrote: »

If only we had cycle paths and lanes to help cyclists be safer........

( cue the 'oh but we're not obliged to use them' merchants in 3...2...1...)

3, 2, 1 - Reasons for not using cycle lanes? Do I really have to rehash this or have you heard it all before. Loads of good reasons before you even get within an asses roar of the 'not obliged to ....'.

pablo128 wrote: »

Another thing. You have cyclists here banging on about most cyclists being motorists too, and in the next breath telling us that the big bad drunken driving, texting, bad driving motorists are all to blame.

I'm not really seeing what the issue is here. Most cyclists are motorists, and most people killed on the road are killed by motorists.

I'd imagine that some of the motorists who kill people on the road are cyclists too, though I've never seen any study or research on this. If that gives you some kind of comfort, that's really very strange.

MadDog76 wrote: »

Being irritated is a feeling, not a choice ...........

No, not really. Continuing to be irritated in full knowledge of the facts and context is a clear personal choice - kinda like being racist is a choice.

pablo128

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

3, 2, 1 - Reasons for not using cycle lanes? Do I really have to rehash this or have you heard it all before.

Seriously, don't bother. I've heard all the pathetic excuses already.

TimeToShine

amcalester wrote: »

I reverse into my drive way as it faces on to a busy road so I indicate we'll in advance and pull in just past the entrance to reverse in.

The amount of times people drive right my arse and sit there waiting for me to move forward is ridiculous.

Now I can't reverse into the driveway and they won't cross the broken white line to go round me. Eejits.

Ive had to get out of the car and tell them to go round a few times. They usually say "oh I thought you were turning left".

There's no left turn

To be honest the only part of that which is annoying is that people won't overtake you. There is no way you can have your indicator blaring "well in advance" on a busy road expecting people to anticipate a 1 in 1000 maneuver and give you enough clearance to reverse into your driveway.

pablo128

TimeToShine wrote: »

To be honest the only part of that which is annoying is that people won't overtake you. There is no way you can have your indicator blaring "well in advance" on a busy road expecting people to anticipate a 1 in 1000 maneuver and give you enough clearance to reverse into your driveway.

I wonder if using the hazard lights and if you come to a stop before your drive if there are motorists following. My reasoning is if someone stops right up your hole, you can drive forward a bit then leaving room to back into the drive?

MadDog76

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

No, not really. Continuing to be irritated in full knowledge of the facts and context is a clear personal choice - kinda like being racist is a choice.

Well .......... you're wrong ......... seems to be a habit of yours on this thread.

TimeToShine

pablo128 wrote: »

I wonder if using the hazard lights and if you come to a stop before your drive if there are motorists following. My reasoning is if someone stops right up your hole, you can drive forward a bit then leaving room to back into the drive?

That would probably work better if you ask me.

martingriff

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yes, absolutely - such things can happen - though they don't happen often enough or seriously enough to feature in any analysis. They don't appear as a significant category in medical studies or insurance reports or Garda reports or anywhere else.




If you don't believe me, why don't you go spend lots of time searching for reports of an incident where a cyclist killed a pedestrian in Ireland. The last one that I know of was around 2002 or 2003, but if you find something more recent, I'll be very interested to see it.

But just in case you haven't noticed, there are reports on the news pretty much every day of people killed by motorists in traffic collisions. There aren't reports on the news pretty much every day of people killed by cyclists - so to use your own terminology - we ARE better.



3, 2, 1 - Reasons for not using cycle lanes? Do I really have to rehash this or have you heard it all before. Loads of good reasons before you even get within an asses roar of the 'not obliged to ....'.


I'm not really seeing what the issue is here. Most cyclists are motorists, and most people killed on the road are killed by motorists.

I'd imagine that some of the motorists who kill people on the road are cyclists too, though I've never seen any study or research on this. If that gives you some kind of comfort, that's really very strange.


No, not really. Continuing to be irritated in full knowledge of the facts and context is a clear personal choice - kinda like being racist is a choice.

So because it happens really we should let you on. How about prevention is better.

So now I have to do your research seems you backed down from never to 2003

I am done with this now anyway as this is going completly of track of the thread sorry Mods

amcalester

pablo128 wrote: »

I wonder if using the hazard lights and if you come to a stop before your drive if there are motorists following. My reasoning is if someone stops right up your hole, you can drive forward a bit then leaving room to back into the drive?

I didn't think of that, will give it a go.

I usually pull in immediately past the drive way, and if there are cars behind wait for them to pass then reverse in.

Danjamin1

Driving back to Dublin from Cavan after the match today, the amount of cars camped in the overtaking lane matching the speed of the cars in the driving lane was infuriating.

seanin4711

Flicking cigarette buts out the window still lit

VonLuck

I was driving around Dublin city centre today and I was the 2nd car behind another turning right. The guy in front of me (taxi driver) got impatient and decided to turn right before the other car did!

The risks people take just to shave a couple seconds off their journey, boggles the mind.

Quazzie

kbannon wrote: »

I think the main reason that they tend not to be used is because they are usually quite badly designed and not maintained and with the occasional pedestrian, animal or vehicle on them making them more dangerous - not because cyclists prefer being on the road.

So... there might be vehicles on the cycle lane, so you don't use them, and instead you use the roads where there will be definitely vehicles because somehow that's safer. I don't get the logic.

Chips Lovell

As a motorist I've never had to justify which lane or road I've legally used. Yet as a cyclist, you get randomers demanding you explain yourself all the time.

amcalester

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

As a motorist I've never had to justify which lane or road I've legally used. Yet as a cyclist, you get randomers demanding you explain yourself all the time.

You've must not be following the dashcam thread!

Great craic in there whenever someone posts a video of a roundabout or driving along in the overtaking lane:D.

Quazzie

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

As a motorist I've never had to justify which lane or road I've legally used. Yet as a cyclist, you get randomers demanding you explain yourself all the time.

As a motorist I've never driven through a field to get somewhere because I know as a motorist I have a responsibility to drive where I'm supposed to.

Chips Lovell

Neither have I

Seth Brundle

Quazzie wrote: »

So... there might be vehicles on the cycle lane, so you don't use them, and instead you use the roads where there will be definitely vehicles because somehow that's safer. I don't get the logic.

Erm yes. Plenty of cars, vans, trucks, etc, park on cycle lanes.

Pherekydes

Quazzie wrote: »

So... there might be vehicles on the cycle lane, so you don't use them, and instead you use the roads where there will be definitely vehicles because somehow that's safer. I don't get the logic.

No pedestrians walking in front of you!

The_Valeyard

Pherekydes wrote: »

No pedestrians walking in front of you!

Is it illegal for a Pedestrian to be walking in a cycle lane, actual Q, do not know the answer??

Pherekydes

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Is it illegal for a Pedestrian to be walking in a cycle lane, actual Q, do not know the answer??

I have no clue, either. I generally avoid all cycle paths which are shared with pedestrians. I'd rather be on the road, where the traffic tends to be going in the same direction and is (generally) paying attention to where they're going.

AndrewJRenko

pablo128 wrote: »

Seriously, don't bother. I've heard all the pathetic excuses already.

Doesn't really matter whether you consider the many reasons why some cyclists avoid some cycle lanes are pathetic or not. The fact remains that they have their reasons, and they don't need to justify their choice of route to you or anyone else.

MadDog76 wrote: »

Well .......... you're wrong ......... seems to be a habit of yours on this thread.

If you'd like to point out any factual error in my post, I'll be happy to stand corrected. Being irritated, and in particular, posting about being irritated is most certainly a personal choice.

martingriff wrote: »

So because it happens really we should let you on. How about prevention is better.

I'm really struggling to make sense of this. I presume that 'really' should be 'rarely', but I've no idea what is meant by 'let you on'.

In general, I agree with you that 'prevention is better' and we should focus our prevention activities on the big, serious issues - like the killing of 200 people each year by motorists.

martingriff wrote: »

So now I have to do your research seems you backed down from never to 2003

Again, I'm struggling to make sense here. I've no idea how someone else's question becomes 'my research.' If other people have other questions, surely it is up to them to go digging.

And as for the 'backing down' - I don't believe that I ever said 'never', but if you'd like to point out where I said that, I'll again be happy to stand corrected. So just to clarify - there have been very rare events where pedestrians have been killed by cyclists in Ireland. The most recent one was around 2002 or 2003. I think there was one in 1998 as well.

Since the 2003 death, over 5,000 have been killed by motorists on the road - just for context.

osarusan

Signs telling you road splits into two lanes, one is straight only and the other is left or right turn only...but the sign doesn't tell you which lane is for what town/place.

ohnonotgmail

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Doesn't really matter whether you consider the many reasons why some cyclists avoid some cycle lanes are pathetic or not. The fact remains that they have their reasons, and they don't need to justify their choice of route to you or anyone else.



If you'd like to point out any factual error in my post, I'll be happy to stand corrected. Being irritated, and in particular, posting about being irritated is most certainly a personal choice.


I'm really struggling to make sense of this. I presume that 'really' should be 'rarely', but I've no idea what is meant by 'let you on'.

In general, I agree with you that 'prevention is better' and we should focus our prevention activities on the big, serious issues - like the killing of 200 people each year by motorists.


Again, I'm struggling to make sense here. I've no idea how someone else's question becomes 'my research.' If other people have other questions, surely it is up to them to go digging.

And as for the 'backing down' - I don't believe that I ever said 'never', but if you'd like to point out where I said that, I'll again be happy to stand corrected. So just to clarify - there have been very rare events where pedestrians have been killed by cyclists in Ireland. The most recent one was around 2002 or 2003. I think there was one in 1998 as well.

Since the 2003 death, over 5,000 have been killed by motorists on the road - just for context.

Where are you getting the figure of over 5000 from? As of september last year there have been approx 3500 deaths on our roads.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

When you're driving down a narrow country road with lots of bends, sticking to the speed limit and some muppet is driving up your arse, furious that you're not belting around corkscrew bends so that they can break the speed limit.

punisher5112

Cyclists invest in a bell it saves a lot of issues.

Quazzie

punisher5112 wrote: »

Cyclists invest in a car it saves a lot of issues.

FYP

xckjoo

Road signs and markings that are too close to the junction. It's ok if you know where you're going but if you're in an unfamiliar place and the lines of traffic are long you can't see what lane you're supposed to be in until you're on top of it.

Also, those bloody "Caution" signs. "Caution slippery surface", "Caution road liable to flooding", etc. They seem to go up but are never taken down. Do I need to be careful because the road flooded once in 2010? Loose chipping signs left on a road that's long since been resurfaced. There's so many they've become meaningless.

Quazzie wrote: »

FYP

Jesus dude. Let one go past. We get that you don't like bicycles.

mikhail

xckjoo wrote: »

Jesus dude. Let one go past. We get that you don't like bicycles.

Just as bells are useful on bicycles, ignore lists are useful on boards.

AndrewJRenko

Quazzie wrote: »

So... there might be vehicles on the cycle lane, so you don't use them, and instead you use the roads where there will be definitely vehicles because somehow that's safer. I don't get the logic.

Do you really need someone to explain the difference in finding your route blocked by a parked van and cycling alongside a moving van?

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Where are you getting the figure of over 5000 from? As of september last year there have been approx 3500 deaths on our roads.

Apologies, my error, 3,620 I make it - I was going on a faulty memory.

1 in fifteen years vs 3,620 or 5,000 in fifteen doesn't honestly make a huge difference.

degsie

......lack of compassion between motorists and cyclists.

StudentDad

The impatience of some drivers just makes me laugh. Lets see, when I'm reversing out of a car park space and can't because I get blocked in by some idiot who fails to realise that giving me room to manoeuvre is in his own best interests!

Parallel parking is another one, I indicate, go to reverse into the space and the muppet behind me drives right up behind me preventing me reversing. The bit that really makes me laugh is that when said driver realises I'm not moving and trying to reverse into the space, then proceeds to get all annoyed because he has to either reverse himself or go around me. If he'd just stopped and let me reverse there wouldn't be an issue for him at all.

SD

DrumSteve

People cutting corners on a turn.

Thats one way of driving head first into me.

MadDog76

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you really need someone to explain the difference in finding your route blocked by a parked van and cycling alongside a moving van?

The moving van is more likely to hit you than the parked one?

AndrewJRenko

MadDog76 wrote: »

The moving van is more likely to hit you than the parked one?

OK, so I do need to explain it. A van parked in a cycle lane is a direct obstruction. A van driving beside a cyclist in normal traffic conditions is not an obstruction to a cyclist.