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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Near Misses Thread Volume 2 (So close you can feel it)

1…1718202223…41

Comments

  • #952
    Stark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,035 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    ED E wrote: »
    Mine:
    https://goo.gl/maps/1ontSWk5YdJAH2bX6

    The guy on the phoenix park thread who keeps saying that cyclists and pedestrians using the Park should just use the dirt trails to avoid the traffic would see nothing wrong with that :pac:
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #953
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,249 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    breezy1985 wrote: »
    All its missing is yield signs at every driveway
    i was blown at many times for not being on the cycle path; i'd often have been doing 40 along that stretch too. combining it and the one in the opposite direction, you've pretty much got the full house of bad cycle path design. poles in the middle of the cycle path, having to yield to traffic from side roads, rollercoaster from the cycle path being dipped for private driveways, etc. etc.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #954
    MojoMaker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,746 ✭✭✭MojoMaker


    ED E wrote: »
    Mine:
    https://goo.gl/maps/1ontSWk5YdJAH2bX6

    Is that an old photo? I think that stretch has moved on a good bit in recent years. One of the few cycle tracks I enjoy using to its full potential!
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #955
    hesker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,517 ✭✭✭hesker


    https://goo.gl/maps/zk6D6EW4TrDzAxES8

    Only one of my favourites. Sheer genius of forethought
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #956
    radia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 360 ✭✭radia


    I like this one: https://goo.gl/maps/uVB5MVnBPN9XbXsq7

    Not content with having cyclists bouncing up and down on a rollercoaster created by driveways, they felt the need to build a special little mini-hill into the cycle track for no apparent reason at all. The road beside it is flat.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #957
    hesker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,517 ✭✭✭hesker


    CramCycle wrote: »
    The pavement blocked by the wall, which admittedly was there before the pavement but I mean, really, it is concreted on top and hardly of any historical significance that justifies it putting pedestrians in danger.

    No, I mean the cycle lane that goes around the signpost on the inside putting you in a blind spot for drivers and then immediately throws you onto the road into their path.

    I always go on the outside taking the lane.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #958
    Skrynesaver
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,109 ✭✭✭Skrynesaver


    VonLuck wrote: »
    Do you mean that the driver hopped the kerb into the cycle lane? There's not much that can be done about that unfortunately beyond punishing the driver. I don't know if I'd blame the cycling infrastructure, but look, I don't know the details so I can't comment.

    No kerb, truck pulled ahead of me and he turned right behind it and through me, avoided breaking my skull by breaking my wrist.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #959
    Stark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,035 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    I thought it was to raise the footpath to the height of the back gardens of those houses.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #960
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,249 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    radia wrote: »
    I like this one: https://goo.gl/maps/uVB5MVnBPN9XbXsq7

    Not content with having cyclists bouncing up and down on a rollercoaster created by driveways, they felt the need to build a special little mini-hill into the cycle track for no apparent reason at all. The road beside it is flat.
    was the footpath already at that height before the cycle path was added?
    the whole road stinks of doing nothing more strenuous than lashing some paint down, i had always assumed there was no actual engineering or construction undertaken with the addition of the cycle path?
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • Advertisement
  • #961
    hesker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,517 ✭✭✭hesker


    radia wrote: »
    I like this one: https://goo.gl/maps/uVB5MVnBPN9XbXsq7

    Not content with having cyclists bouncing up and down on a rollercoaster created by driveways, they felt the need to build a special little mini-hill into the cycle track for no apparent reason at all. The road beside it is flat.

    I’d hazard a guess that the ramp or embankment provides structural support for the wall and removing it would not be a great idea. Coupled with the tree roots probably.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #962
    radia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 360 ✭✭radia


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    was the footpath already at that height before the cycle path was added?
    the whole road stinks of doing nothing more strenuous than lashing some paint down, i had always assumed there was no actual engineering or construction undertaken with the addition of the cycle path?
    As far as I remember, the footpath was where the road is. The cycle path and new footpath were put in when the road was widened, in a space that had been part of the gardens.
    Stark wrote: »
    I thought it was to raise the footpath to the height of the back gardens of those houses.
    I presume the gardens are all at a similar height, not just the middle one.
    Seaswimmer wrote: »
    Something to do with the roots of the trees maybe??
    https://www.google.com/maps/@53.2768154,-6.1873541,3a,75y,166.22h,86.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQMNcFfxKByL5ilfUyEqvWg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
    I think you could be right about that. Instead of losing the trees or messing up their roots, they slapped whatever foundations were needed for the path on top.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #963
    buffalo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,099 ✭✭✭buffalo


    buffalo wrote: »
    This Garda has now been promoted from Sergeant to Inspector! At least he's not in my area any more.
    buffalo wrote: »
    There was a hit and run near Kilcock end of September - a "silver SUV van" hit a female cyclist who "had appropriate lighting".

    Naturally the Garda then...
    encouraged other cyclists to make sure they have correct lighting and wear the right clothes.

    "Hi visible[sic] jackets on the bicycle and good cycling equipment is important," he said.

    "It is essential that people take the necessary precautions with the appropriate clothing and lighting."

    From this week's Liffey Champion. I exploded a bit while reading it.

    I raised the comments with the Garda Press Office, no response. Awaiting a response from the Commissioner's office now, because the local JPC meeting didn't go ahead (Covid).

    Got a response today. "...opportunity to offer road safety advice... a platform to improve road safety... regretful if [comments] were interpreted otherwise".

    #sorrynotsorry ?
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #964
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,351 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Don't know if people remember this video from twitter (not mine!) where the gardai apparently didn't want to know.
    Well it appears that there has since been a successful outcome (even if the driver should have faced a heftier charge)...

    https://twitter.com/rohal_/status/1359830891174985731
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #965
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,249 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    'charged with carless driving' - quite a feat!
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #966
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,351 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    I think the driver here would be better off being carless to be honest!
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • Advertisement
  • #967
    Dr_Colossus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Dr_Colossus


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    'charged with carless driving' - quite a feat!

    Wouldn't careless indicate it was unintentional or an accident whereas the driver accused the cyclist for being in his way implying he saw him and then deliberately forced him out of the way. Given all the chasing the cyclist had to do for four months there's not much hope of justice when this driver wasn't charged with dangerous driving. Deliberately colliding with a cyclist in a car could cause untold damage.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #968
    Stark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,035 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    Dr_Colossus wrote: »
    Deliberately colliding with a cyclist in a car could cause untold damage.

    Nothing a good panel beater couldn't sort out though to be fair.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #969
    Dr_Colossus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Dr_Colossus


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    Don't know if people remember this video from twitter (not mine!) where the gardai apparently didn't want to know.
    Well it appears that there has since been a successful outcome (even if the driver should have faced a heftier charge)...

    https://twitter.com/rohal_/status/1359830891174985731

    Saw this notice in the Garda Twitter thread on the Motoring forum where a driver is being prosecuted for dangerous driving for doing 104km/h in a 50 zone. Granted it's mad speed but relative to the road, there are dual carriageways on the outskirts of Galway with 50km/h limits that would be better suited to 80km/h or even 100km/h. The full gps coordinates are cropped but 9 21' 43.51 W is along the lines of between Killarney and Castlebar.

    Anyway I guess speeding is an easy prosecution but deliberately knocking someone of a bicycle with front and rear video footage of the incident isn't.
    https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/1360153587687567363
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #970
    Breezer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,228 ✭✭✭Breezer


    McGrath5 wrote: »
    I had to change my route away from that road, the "cycle lane" would destroy your bike if you build up any speed, then drivers will actually run you off the road so they can get to the traffic lights 5 seconds faster.

    I specifically remember cycling Leopardstown Road when I was about 16 (I’m from DLR, but not near enough to have been cycling that road regularly, so it sticks out). From memory, the works had been completed in the last year or two. To this day I swear I can feel my brain rattling around in my skull when I think back on it, and I can remember thinking “why on Earth do people cycle?” It was another 15 years before I’d take up cycling again in any serious fashion.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #971
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,249 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    in the car earlier, i had to slam on here - i was facing the direction the camera is, so obviously in the other lane - when a guy driving a truck cab came around that bend in the middle of the road. when i gave him that universal 'what the **** are you up to?' gesture, he gestured angrily at the cyclist he'd been overtaking.

    https://www.google.com/maps/@53.4236522,-6.3247132,3a,75y,76.66h,79.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNp-4p7pwvh_lT_1kXgIhvA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • Advertisement
  • #972
    MojoMaker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,746 ✭✭✭MojoMaker


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    in the car earlier, i had to slam on here - i was facing the direction the camera is, so obviously in the other lane - when a guy driving a truck cab came around that bend in the middle of the road. when i gave him that universal 'what the **** are you up to?' gesture, he gestured angrily at the cyclist he'd been overtaking.

    https://www.google.com/maps/@53.4236522,-6.3247132,3a,75y,76.66h,79.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNp-4p7pwvh_lT_1kXgIhvA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

    Hate that road on the bike. Dropped it from my training routes a few years ago, just not worth the hassle.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #973
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,249 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    i've been known to sit behind cyclists on that road with the express purpose of protecting them from cars behind. on a couple of occasions, i have driven that road in the dark and come across completely unlit cyclists.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #974
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,351 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Not sure if any of you saw this but Cork Twitter user RightToBikeIt has managed to get a second fine in a matter of days following his filing a complaint. The first involved him moving left slightly to allow a car to overtake him, before returning to his line. He was fined €40 for "swerving".
    Apparently this one today is for his road positioning and swerving.
    Is this to get him to stop reporting them or does anyone see an issue with how he is using the road?

    https://twitter.com/righttobikeit/status/1364258768549277697
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #975
    MojoMaker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,746 ✭✭✭MojoMaker


    Sweet Jesus, what a bully.

    Has to be hauled up for that intimidation.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #976
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,351 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Weepsie wrote: »
    Is his first fine for the pinned video? Because he does realise that signalling does not give him right of way. He signalled and moved assuming the driver (which was ****ty) would let him in. It's a petty fine nonetheless
    It is. I think he's effectively arguing that he moved left to allow a vehicle to pass and not that he ceded right of way.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #977
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,249 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Was it the same Garda who charged him both times?
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #978
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,351 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    Was it the same Garda who charged him both times?

    I don't think he said so (one way or the other) in his tweets
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #979
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,249 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    hmm; it's just twice in a few days seems a little intentional if not.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #980
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,351 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    ^^^
    this is the video Weepsie is referring to (which resulted in his first fine)

    https://twitter.com/righttobikeit/status/1350534150336507904
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #981
    hesker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,517 ✭✭✭hesker


    Agree it was sh**ty driving, particularly against a vulnerable road user. So he deserves to be done for that.

    However cyclist was merging and you can’t just assume you will be able to merge in. Cyclist or any vehicle should be prepared to stop if necessary.
    You would be better off staying in your lane to begin with as I think the guy himself now states.

    By the way I’ve been on the receiving end of this a few years back when driving and merging on to a motorway. Driver in left lane didn’t move over. There was no contact and wasn’t a very close call but I got a couple of beeps. I accepted afterwards to myself that I should have yielded. I see this as very similar without looking up the legal details.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • Advertisement
  • #982
    cletus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,056 ✭✭✭cletus


    If you're the one changing lane, there is no legal obligation on the users of the lane you want to merge into to 'allow' you to merge. It's your responsibility to do that safely. Part of that means matching your speed to the speed of the lane you are merging with. This is regardless of the type of vehicle you are using.

    I didn't see any real evidence that the van was speeding up. Looking at the video again, if the van was doing the same speed as the car that passed him before he merged, it would have caught up on him pretty quickly
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #983
    cletus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,056 ✭✭✭cletus


    breezy1985 wrote: »
    Looked pretty safe. No car driver would have considered that gap to small for a lane change

    Honestly, after looking at that video a couple of times, if I was in a car I think I would have let the van pass
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #984
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,118 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    cletus wrote: »
    If you're the one changing lane, there is no legal obligation on the users of the lane you want to merge into to 'allow' you to merge. It's your responsibility to do that safely. Part of that means matching your speed to the speed of the lane you are merging with. This is regardless of the type of vehicle you are using.

    I didn't see any real evidence that the van was speeding up. Looking at the video again, if the van was doing the same speed as the car that passed him before he merged, it would have caught up on him pretty quickly

    The vehicles in the lane you are merging with though are under an obligation to anticipate what other road users in front of them are likely to do and leave themselves enough space to react and not run over those road users.

    A narrowing road ahead and a cyclist to your left then you are still 100% obliged not to run them over, and that supercedes any potential right of way of one road user over another.

    A right of way is not a right to run over.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #985
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,351 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Apparently Ciaran Cannon will raise this in the Dáil...

    https://twitter.com/ciarancannon/status/1364483757512736768


    Edit: he also states further down in that twitter thread that he will raise it with the RSA.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #986
    cletus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,056 ✭✭✭cletus


    robinph wrote: »
    The vehicles in the lane you are merging with though are under an obligation to anticipate what other road users in front of them are likely to do and leave themselves enough space to react and not run over those road users.

    A narrowing road ahead and a cyclist to your left then you are still 100% obliged not to run them over, and that supercedes any potential right of way of one road user over another.

    A right of way is not a right to run over.

    I didn't suggest it was. Simply pointing out that the signal he made did not give him automatic access to that lane, and tbh, if it was me, I would've slowed down and looked for a better moment to merge.

    Also, he was in the narrowing (merging) lane himself, so there is also an obligation there to be aware of what's coming up on the road ahead, and being aware he may need to slow before merging
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #987
    buffalo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,099 ✭✭✭buffalo


    cletus wrote: »
    I didn't suggest it was. Simply pointing out that the signal he made did not give him automatic access to that lane, and tbh, if it was me, I would've slowed down and looked for a better moment to merge.

    Also, he was in the narrowing (merging) lane himself, so there is also an obligation there to be aware of what's coming up on the road ahead, and being aware he may need to slow before merging

    It was a fine moment as any to merge. Watch the video and you'll see he indicates, waits for the first car to pass, and then moves into the space between the car and van.

    It's only after he is in the lane that the van driver then accelerates to overtake and squeeze, not as the cyclist is merging.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #988
    hesker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,517 ✭✭✭hesker


    Paul Kiernan wrote: »
    He couldn't stay in his lane, it had ended!.

    Have a look at the video again and then read his own Twitter account. He moved left into the merging lane right at the start of that video. He did this to accommodate other road users but placed himself at a disadvantage by doing so. That’s the unfortunate reality of the situation.

    Once in there he does have a choice. Merge safely or stop.

    If he seeks to argue his case against the Gardai on this one I think he’ll lose.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #989
    cletus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,056 ✭✭✭cletus


    Again, I don't see any actual evidence that the van was speeding up.

    He may have moved lanes to allow the car past, but he still had to re-merge with his lane. in which case my previous post on merging still stands.

    If he wasn't merging, why signal?

    I've seen a number of his videos, and he has had some really bad close calls, there's no doubt. I just think, on this one, he is not blameless
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #990
    buffalo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,099 ✭✭✭buffalo


    cletus wrote: »
    Again, I don't see any actual evidence that the van was speeding up.

    You can gauge it from the relative speeds.

    Do you not agree that he's completed his merge before the van driver starts his overtake?
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • Advertisement
  • #991
    cletus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,056 ✭✭✭cletus


    buffalo wrote: »
    You can gauge it from the relative speeds.

    Do you not agree that he's completed his merge before the van driver starts his overtake?

    I don't see the speeding up.

    I agree he was back in the lane, but a merge is not the same as a safe merge. Looking at it, his merge could've caused the van driver to slow down. In fairness, this is what the van driver should have done, and his driving was shîtty.

    However, if your merging causes another vehicle to have to react by slowing down (as opposed to him allowing you into the lane as a courtesy) then you are merging wrong.

    I'm not absolving the driver of blame here, his reaction once the cyclist was in the lane was wrong, but the cyclist is not blameless here
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #992
    hesker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,517 ✭✭✭hesker


    a_squirrelman wrote: »
    I think the lesson here is just don't be nice and move in to let someone pas.

    That’s a personal choice. You can move over but you need to realise you have changed your situation and merge back safely, conceding priority if necessary.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #993
    hesker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,517 ✭✭✭hesker


    Paul Kiernan wrote: »

    My main argument here is that the road layout should not put the cyclist in this position in the first place!

    The road layout didn’t put the cyclist in that position. The cyclist put himself in that position.

    What would you change in the road layout.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #994
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,118 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    hesker wrote: »
    The road layout didn’t put the cyclist in that position. The cyclist put himself in that position.

    What would you change in the road layout.

    End the right hand lane rather than the left hand one and make the vehicles from that lane merge into the left.

    Edit: not as many instances of it in Ireland as the UK, but motorways with changes from 2/3/4/5 lanes it will be the right hand lane which is removed when the number of lanes are reduced. Depending on the junctions and such like extra lanes such as on going up hill may be added to either the left or right, but the left lane is never the one removed.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #995
    cletus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,056 ✭✭✭cletus


    robinph wrote: »
    End the right hand lane rather than the left hand one and make the vehicles from that lane merge into the left.

    Is that based on knowing the the road? I don't personally know the road he was on, so I don't know whether your suggestion would help improve the road there.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #996
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,118 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    cletus wrote: »
    Is that based on knowing the the road? I don't personally know the road he was on, so I don't know whether your suggestion would help improve the road there.

    Don't know the road, and there may be issues with merging right into left and visibility for right hand drive vehicles, but roads should always be designed with priority given to the more vulnerable and usually slower vehicles.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • Advertisement
  • #997
    cletus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,056 ✭✭✭cletus


    breezy1985 wrote: »
    He did move back safely. No one except the completely biased would say that wasnt a perfectly normal lane change. Loads of room for a bike or car or whatever to change lane and you would see similar every day without incident

    I don't see myself as being biased in this instance (although maybe that's part of my bias...), and I think you'd be hard pressed to go through my posts on this forum and find any inherent biases towards (or would that be against) cyclists.

    I've already said I wouldn't have merged there on a bike, and from the video footage, probably wouldn't have done it in a car either
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #998
    cletus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,056 ✭✭✭cletus


    robinph wrote: »
    Don't know the road, and there may be issues with merging right into left and visibility for right hand drive vehicles, but roads should always be designed with priority given to the more vulnerable and usually slower vehicles.

    The reason I asked is because I don't know why its a merging lane. It could literally be that, a lane leading off a junction, allowing traffic to get up to speed before merging.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #999
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,118 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    cletus wrote: »
    The reason I asked is because I don't know why its a merging lane. It could literally be that, a lane leading off a junction, allowing traffic to get up to speed before merging.

    True, but the road markings didn't seem to be for a junction merging lane and it would be a bit of a long one for anywhere other than a motorway for how long they were cycling along it. None of that would help the van drivers case, and I don't see how it would effect the cyclist case either.
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1000
    cletus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,056 ✭✭✭cletus


    robinph wrote: »
    True, but the road markings didn't seem to be for a junction merging lane and it would be a bit of a long one for anywhere other than a motorway for how long they were cycling along it. None of that would help the van drivers case, and I don't see how it would effect the cyclist case either.

    No, you're right. I was just following the conversation regarding changing the layout of the road, and musing on some of the replies
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • #1001
    cletus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,056 ✭✭✭cletus


    breezy1985 wrote: »
    You're be waiting an awful long time on a city road to change lane if that's too short a distance

    Grand, you may or may not be be right. I'm basing it off the space there seems to be in a video clip, which can be misleading. It was my inital reaction that it was tight, and I haven't changed from that in subsequent viewings.

    I suppose, just to point out, I don't think the merging lane needed to be longer, just that at the speed the van was travelling, and the distance between it and the car in front, I'd be inclined to let the van bass before merging, even if that requires me to slow down until the van is gone by

    I still don't see any bias in my posts
    Post edited by CramCycle on


  • Advertisement
Advertisement