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

mr spuckler

I've only cycled there a few times en route to Athlone and each time have regretted taking the cycle track...

tnegun

I've removed most of the N4 from my commute for this very reason where the track shares the road drivers believe the paint is some sort of invisible shield and pass within inches, also if something happened in the driving lanes it could and has ended up in the cycle lane its just not worth it.

AndrewJRenko

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Yesterday on the N4 heading home from work. 07-D-52004 Pulls in front of me, just because!
The motorcyclist and driver (driving illegally in the 24hr bus lane) behind me both offered me a level of courtesy that the CRV driver was unfortunately unable to do.

With a 24 hour bus lane, it'll be hard for them to come up with an excuse if you do report it to Gardai.

VonLuck

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Narrow path shared with pedestrians and slow cyclists (and I can often exceed 50km/h) and with junctions where I cede priority, take your pick.

Fair reasons. Although I can also understand some drivers frustrations (even as a cyclist myself) when a cyclist is on the road when there is a dedicated cycle lane. Not necessarily this situation as it's a bus lane, but for instance on the road from the KCR to Templeogue Road some cyclists tend to cycle on the road instead of the segregated lane. As the road is so narrow, it's next to impossible to overtake safely and it ultimately slows up traffic.

eeeee

VonLuck wrote: »

Fair reasons. Although I can also understand some drivers frustrations (even as a cyclist myself) when a cyclist is on the road when there is a dedicated cycle lane. Not necessarily this situation as it's a bus lane, but for instance on the road from the KCR to Templeogue Road some cyclists tend to cycle on the road instead of the segregated lane. As the road is so narrow, it's next to impossible to overtake safely and it ultimately slows up traffic.

Cyclists are traffic.
And it's not the cyclists that is delaying cars on the road, it's the link of 75% empty vehicles infront and behind each other that are causing the delay.
If they weren't there a driver could easily pass a person on a bike safely.

I rarely use cycle lanes as they are almost routinely dangerous design wise (spitting you out onto the path of left turning cars, the front of people's drives etc.), end suddenly, unable to navigate junctions safely, incredibly poorly maintained, full of puncture causing debris, surface in bits, full of glass, often poorly mixed with pedestrians...the list goes on.
I do several 100k per week, I use almost no cycle lanes bar those painted on the side of roads I'm already on for the reasons outlined above.

sy_flembeck

VonLuck wrote: »

Fair reasons. Although I can also understand some drivers frustrations (even as a cyclist myself) when a cyclist is on the road when there is a dedicated cycle lane. Not necessarily this situation as it's a bus lane, but for instance on the road from the KCR to Templeogue Road some cyclists tend to cycle on the road instead of the segregated lane. As the road is so narrow, it's next to impossible to overtake safely and it ultimately slows up traffic.

There are certain sections of certain roads where I take the lane each and every time regardless of who I may or may not delay and every one of those is due to poor experiences with impatient drivers. I make absolutely no apologies for my actions and I very much doubt I'm the only person here with that mentality.
Perhaps those that are doing the same at KCR are similarly minded.

average_runner

Duckjob wrote: »

Anyone in this age of ultra-congestion who insists on driving into city centres with an empty armchair beside them and/or an empty sofa behind them has no business getting frustrated with anyone except themselves and others that also insist on doing the same.

We drive in on a friday now, can't get a bus home in the evening, all packed.
Friday traffic is non existent thank god

Duckjob

Duckjob wrote: »

Anyone in this age of ultra-congestion who insists on driving into city centres with an empty armchair beside them and/or an empty sofa behind them has no business getting frustrated with anyone except themselves and others that also insist on doing the same.

Oh give over. If people, rightly, call for separation of traffic, don't be surprised when others complain that the separate facilities are not used.


I used the cycle lane in Templeogue for years and saw so many people just use the road

Seth Brundle

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Heading home yesterday in the rain and on two separate roundabouts, a driver felt the urgent need to pass me closely in order to join the back of the queue.
I was wearing my rain jacket and had two rear lights yet speaking to one of the drivers she was unaware that she overtook me

Anyhow, both are on video but given the dickhead this morning, I'll let them pass. Just watch the impatient driver of this Roadstone truck (12-CN-2488)...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvTketWmviQ

His truck has a number of stickers warning people about blind spots and to take care :rolleyes:

Tell me that you are reporting that truck, please!!

Seth Brundle

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Yesterday on the N4 heading home from work. 07-D-52004 Pulls in front of me, just because!
The motorcyclist and driver (driving illegally in the 24hr bus lane) behind me both offered me a level of courtesy that the CRV driver was unfortunately unable to do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu4IqtkmY4g

Are you not meant to yield here?
You're the one merging with a lane


Honestly need to know this one

average_runner

Seth Brundle wrote: »

FFS
I am in primary position in the bus lane. I don't have to yield to anyone. There is no yield sign.
Even if I did have to yield (which I don't!), it is not an excuse to decide to pull in when there's someone already moving there.

It's not a bus lane though. It's a turn off for cars turning left to Tesco, a housing estate and left celbridge. ?

It was a bad manoeuvre by the car.

The cycle lane there is grand, use it often but if u feel safer on the road there, fair enough.

Bus lane ends and merges into the road, usually vehicles give way to their right but not sure there.

average_runner

Stark wrote: »

Isn't the bus lane for buses/taxis/cyclists, not private vehicles?

Honestly need to know this one.


Fair enough, it turns into a left turn lane but you still wouldn't just blindly pull into it if there was another vehicle coming up behind. Buses/taxis aren't expected to yield unless there's an explicit yield sign there. (which there isn't).

Road markings break into separate white lines into the main road. Bus lane is merging ai give way to your right when merging to another road?

blackwhite

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you not meant to yield here?
You're the one merging with a lane


Honestly need to know this one

When changing lanes, you yield to any traffic that is already in the lane (which in this case would have been immediately in front of Seth). There was no vehicle in the exit lane, so he was perfectly entitled to continue straight on when he did.

The CRV was changing lanes from the left-hand lane of the N4 into the exit lane. When they made their maneuver, there was already a vehicle (the cyclist) in the exit lane and they are required to yield to the vehicle that is already in the lane.

average_runner

blackwhite wrote: »

When changing lanes, you yield to any traffic that is already in the lane (which in this case would have been immediately in front of Seth). There was no vehicle in the exit lane, so he was perfectly entitled to continue straight on when he did.

The CRV was changing lanes from the left-hand lane of the N4 into the exit lane. When they made their maneuver, there was already a vehicle (the cyclist) in the exit lane and they are required to yield to the vehicle that is already in the lane.

True, he was in there first so car was wrong.

Something to watch there, anyone in the bus lane will have to give way there if level with traffic on the right as bus lane is joining the other lane.

average_runner

buffalo wrote: »

The bus lane is not merging - the bus lane becomes a traffic lane, so now the same lane is open to private traffic. The rules for changing lanes apply - yield to traffic already in the lane.

True it's not merging but represents the end of the bus lane.
Be an interesting one in court. Anyhow just be careful there.

tnegun

buffalo wrote: »

Here's a bus lane merging: https://goo.gl/maps/LpccU3GTKNz7rx6n6

Lol followed your link to the bus lane merging and turned around, obviously we all have it wrong and this guy is demonstrating how to travel safely with your bike
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.356134,-6.4522136,3a,75y,178.09h,80.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSMuTh0MvLU7C4kXTqGMDwA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

tnegun

Jesus https://twitter.com/i/status/1237860706449371143

buffalo

buffalo wrote: »

Here's a bus lane merging: https://goo.gl/maps/LpccU3GTKNz7rx6n6

Spot the difference: https://goo.gl/maps/QHU5DkgvHkatNugN8

Doesn't matter if the yield is there or not though.
The bus lane ends with a broken white line and you are changing lanes leaving that.


The car is in a lane which splits and does not end, entitled to carry on unimpeded, the cyclist (or bus) is joining that lane and needs to act as if changing lanes.





No driver, in their right mind, should ram through a bike/bus coming out but it is not as clear cut as being presented.

axer

axer wrote: »

Not sure what to think about someone cycling on that road :eek:

People do, and have died, on a 120kmh stretch of National Road in Cork

blackwhite

blackwhite wrote: »

When changing lanes, you yield to any traffic that is already in the lane (which in this case would have been immediately in front of Seth). There was no vehicle in the exit lane, so he was perfectly entitled to continue straight on when he did.

The CRV was changing lanes from the left-hand lane of the N4 into the exit lane. When they made their maneuver, there was already a vehicle (the cyclist) in the exit lane and they are required to yield to the vehicle that is already in the lane.

This is it though, the CRV was not changing lanes. They were in a lane which splits, they did not cross over any lane markings.


Now all the above is my taking on the rules, honestly happy to get someone show me different.

RRM 018 line is a yield sign in and of itself though AFAIK, which is why I am asking. So instead of being rude "At what point do you admit you have no idea what you're talking about? " how about answering a question posed in earnest.

As far as I can see that termination line, at the end of the Bus Lane, is a RRM 018 and, as I said I am open to correction on that.

Seth Brundle

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Looking at the Traffic Signs Manual (C7) it says in terms of RRM 018:

As the Yield sign is not present (see my emphasis above), then we can assume that this is not a valid RRM 018 line.
I will also ask the garda when I give them the DVD of this morning's cement truck incident.

Anyhow, I think we've gone off topic anyhow.

Cheers lad, an actual answer.


I actually think it was an on topic question, because it moves the responsibility.
Thanks for the answer

buffalo

buffalo wrote: »

RRM018? Really? That's a transverse line marking that goes across a road, not a lane divider. What you're looking at is M129.

The reason I'm being rude is because several posters have told you that you are wrong, and yet you continue to persevere that you are right, despite no evidence to support yourself or contradict the points of view put to you.

People saying "You're wrong" is no answer. Seth quoted a passage stating that on N roads the triangle must be present and you quote, now, the road marking is not a yield line.


They are answers

carthoris

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Looking at the Traffic Signs Manual (C7) it says in terms of RRM 018:

In the same document it describes that a Yield is a form of Transverse marking which is at 90 degrees (or thereabouts) to the centre line (section 7.1.11). Although there can be room for speculation as to the exact intent, this should make it clearer that the Yield Line is meant to deal with on the meeting of one road and another, such as a T-Junction.

The same document covers Bus Lanes starting in section 7.7.6. The "Broken Bus Lane Line", AKA M129 is described in section 7.7.8 as a means to deflect other traffic from the bus lane.

7.7.14 and 7.7.15 explain that the end of the bus lane is indicated by the Broken Bus Lane line to "inform motorists that it is permissible to enter the bus lane prior to making the left turn".

There are two key points here;
> we are dealing with a Broken Bus Lane Line and not a Yield Line and therefore no requirement to yield;
> and that it is allowing other road users to enter the lane to use it.

As other users are entering the lane to use it, they are changing lane and must give way to traffic already in that lane.

Anyhow, I think we've gone off topic anyhow.

:pac:

tnegun

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Heading home yesterday in the rain and on two separate roundabouts, a driver felt the urgent need to pass me closely in order to join the back of the queue.
I was wearing my rain jacket and had two rear lights yet speaking to one of the drivers she was unaware that she overtook me

Anyhow, both are on video but given the dickhead this morning, I'll let them pass. Just watch the impatient driver of this Roadstone truck (12-CN-2488)...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvTketWmviQ

His truck has a number of stickers warning people about blind spots and to take care :rolleyes:

That truck has been drawing into Intel recently, did he actually turn left at the top or continue straight on the slip to skip traffic?

tnegun

Was watching on the phone and thought you were outbound on the N4, there is a school time HGV ban on that road too I think but probably a bit early for it.

I was turning right from Kevin Street in to Patrick St this morning, safely in my car I hasten to add and stopped at the lights on the side street thingy, where you turn left to turn right.

Anyway, just me and a guy on a bike at the lights, so I pick up my phone to skip to the next track on the playlist, look up and the lights have turned green.

Fair enough, so off I go giving the cyclist in front of me plenty of time, next thing there is a screech of brakes and an Avensis has come up Patrick street and gone straight through a red light, narrowly avoiding the guy on the bike. Thankfully the cyclist braked in time, as did the Avensis, but it was one of those two seconds from disaster type things.

I have the reg of the car by the way.

CramCycle

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh give over. If people, rightly, call for separation of traffic, don't be surprised when others complain that the separate facilities are not used.
I used the cycle lane in Templeogue for years and saw so many people just use the road

The one in Templeogue is rubbish and brings you i not massive conflict with parked cars, pedestrians and is generally unsafe, taking the lane for the 20 seconds is the safe thing to do.

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you not meant to yield here?
You're the one merging with a lane

Honestly need to know this one

The CRV is literally crossing a lane divider in the video, no matter what you think the lines Seth crosses mean, they were passed theirs as the CRV mergede in on top of them, unless we are looking at very different videos.

average_runner wrote: »

Road markings break into separate white lines into the main road. Bus lane is merging ai give way to your right when merging to another road?

Nope, even if that were true (it isn't, but lets say it was), Seth had crossed that line into, and after this, the CRV starts merging across.

Deleted User wrote: »

This is it though, the CRV was not changing lanes. They were in a lane which splits, they did not cross over any lane markings.

Now all the above is my taking on the rules, honestly happy to get someone show me different.

They were not, they were crossing broken white lines, broken white lines that indicate a different lane, not a splitting lane.

blackwhite

Deleted User wrote: »

This is it though, the CRV was not changing lanes. They were in a lane which splits, they did not cross over any lane markings.


Now all the above is my taking on the rules, honestly happy to get someone show me different.

The lane doesn't split though - an exit lane branches off from it which requires you to indicate left before changing lane.

The ROTR (I know, I know - an interpretation of law, as opposed to the law itself) even use an illustration that bears a striking resemblance to the N4 junction to illustrate the rules on changing lanes. (see page 55 - https://www.rsa.ie/Documents/RotR%20BOOK%20for%20web%202019.pdf

RobbieMD

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I will also ask the garda when I give them the DVD of this morning's cement truck incident.

Anyhow, I think we've gone off topic anyhow.

That’s a poorly designed ambiguous piece of road.

I imagine the Garda will either be reluctant to offer an opinion or will say something like you’ve both potentially committed an offence.

The earlier reference to M129 road marking was incorrect. That signals the commencement of a bus lane, in your instance the bus lane has finished. In theory, the car driver overtook you and endangered you, and/or you failed to yield right of way to the car. Reference Sections 19 and 22 of SI no 294/1964.

CramCycle

I thought today would be nicer with the severely reduced traffic. Car went to undertake me coming through the roundabout on the Bray side of Shankill. Heard the engine getting close, turned around and they were trying to squeeze through between me and the kerb. I let a roar, I swear they were asleep. Overall it was a nicer commute for me, but one car went through a red 6 seconds after it changed, with a parent and pram starting to walk out. Another at the pedestrian crossing between Whites cross and Stillorgan, caught up and they were on their phone, probably never even seen the light, there was an elderly person crossing at the time.

Last night a guy in a BMW SUV drifted into the bus lane, busy on his phone, my roar gave him a fright but him nearly hitting me gave me more of one.

AndrewJRenko

Aegir wrote: »

I was turning right from Kevin Street in to Patrick St this morning, safely in my car I hasten to add and stopped at the lights on the side street thingy, where you turn left to turn right.

Anyway, just me and a guy on a bike at the lights, so I pick up my phone to skip to the next track on the playlist, look up and the lights have turned green.

Please keep your phone out of reach when you're driving. It is illegal to pick up your phone, even when stopped at lights.

De Bhál

5uspect wrote: »

Left home early today to enjoy the nice weather and hopefully the quieter roads. All was well until Lucan

that first guy had a ladder on the top of his hatchback which might mean he was off to save someone from a fire or get a cat down from a tree...you know, important stuff.

John_Rambo

There's a serious sense of panic around supermarkets since the C-19 outbreak.

I've taken to the bikes with my 8 year old boy for spins and various "messages" (how Irish) and shopping with him staying outside the shops, away from contact.

After being scared ****less when we were blown off the road by a 60+ year old woman for cycling two abreast (my front wheel overlapping his back one) he insisted on cycling on the path with me on the road.

He's been roared at on two occasions by "brave" middle aged male pedestrians both of who not so bravely slinked off to A - a church and B - a busy shop when confronted by me. On both occasions he was over 20 metres away from them.

VonLuck

Duckjob wrote: »

Anyone in this age of ultra-congestion who insists on driving into city centres with an empty armchair beside them and/or an empty sofa behind them has no business getting frustrated with anyone except themselves and others that also insist on doing the same.

That "us versus them" mentality never helps the situation. Only leads to aggravating people. Car drivers are completely entitled to drive into the city centre if they want to. If they want to sit in traffic, that's their choice and problem!

I know plenty of people who need to drive to work because they need to, not by choice. Largely due to having to hop from meeting to meeting outside of the city.

My point is that when there is infrastructure put specifically in place for cyclists, and then it doesn't get used, of course it's going to be frustrating for a driver. The specific area I'm talking about is more than adequate for cyclists to use. Sure, there are junctions where the cyclist has to yield to traffic, but this is a minor inconvenience for an ultimately safer journey. The problem is that a lot of cyclists don't want to stop at any junction, hence the danger!

kenmm

VonLuck wrote: »

That "us versus them" mentality never helps the situation

This is prevalent and it winds me up all the time.
I get shout at by a driver because of some imagined cycling infraction or whatever - but I drive too and I am single so when I need to drive I am generally alone in the car (sounds really sad lol)..

But you dont know me - I cycle nearly everywhere, but to anyone passing when I do drive, I'm just another single seat driver...

But in general it happens all the time (Taxi drivers are XXX, Busses always..) - no - (unts are (unts no matter how they transport themselves..

AndrewJRenko

VonLuck wrote: »

My point is that when there is infrastructure put specifically in place for cyclists, and then it doesn't get used, of course it's going to be frustrating for a driver. The specific area I'm talking about is more than adequate for cyclists to use. Sure, there are junctions where the cyclist has to yield to traffic, but this is a minor inconvenience for an ultimately safer journey. The problem is that a lot of cyclists don't want to stop at any junction, hence the danger!

Same for motorways, right? Cyclists should be getting frustrated at any motorists on roads around the M50, the M1, the M11 because they're not using the infrastructure put specifically in place for motorists?

VonLuck

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Same for motorways, right? Cyclists should be getting frustrated at any motorists on roads around the M50, the M1, the M11 because they're not using the infrastructure put specifically in place for motorists?

I'm not sure what your point is here. Do you mean motorists using roads that aren't motorways? If so, that's an illogical argument. You can't take the M50 to every destination you need to go to!

AndrewJRenko

VonLuck wrote: »

I'm not sure what your point is here. Do you mean motorists using roads that aren't motorways? If so, that's an illogical argument. You can't take the M50 to every destination you need to go to!

But they should use motorways over local roads every chance they get, to avoid causing frustration to other road users, right?


Did the thought strike you that perhaps cycle lanes don't always go where cyclists want to go? Like the one along Wyckham Way in Dundrum, that goes down below the road to the river, then back up to street level, then just stops - with no dished kerb or route back into traffic for the cyclist;


https://goo.gl/maps/ZiM8L3a9Zx9bmDXH7


Why would I take such a cycle lane to avoid 'frustration' to others? Do you choose your car route based on minimising frustration to other people?

VonLuck

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

But they should use motorways over local roads every chance they get, to avoid causing frustration to other road users, right?


Did the thought strike you that perhaps cycle lanes don't always go where cyclists want to go? Like the one along Wyckham Way in Dundrum, that goes down below the road to the river, then back up to street level, then just stops - with no dished kerb or route back into traffic for the cyclist;


https://goo.gl/maps/ZiM8L3a9Zx9bmDXH7


Why would I take such a cycle lane to avoid 'frustration' to others? Do you choose your car route based on minimising frustration to other people?

Well that's just a terrible design, or more like no design. But the comparison there would be telling a motorist to use a cul-de-sac instead of the M50!

But I was specifically referring to a perfectly good segregated cycle lane between the KCR and Templeogue Road:

https://goo.gl/maps/4qFsdo5ioR55DyHQ6

kenmm

VonLuck wrote: »

Well that's just a terrible design, or more like no design. But the comparison there would be telling a motorist to use a cul-de-sac instead of the M50!

But I was specifically referring to a perfectly good segregated cycle lane between the KCR and Templeogue Road:

https://goo.gl/maps/4qFsdo5ioR55DyHQ6

Like here:

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.2997476,-6.3095866,3a,75y,140.3h,80.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfhSXMov0CJic-ENO3nXzLQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

'perfectly good' - might seem that way, try using them!

Issues:
-Every junction has priority.
-Shared with pedestrians (so instead of cycling at normal speed have to slow down to < 20)
-Too narrow
-Poorly maintained

CramCycle

VonLuck wrote: »

Well that's just a terrible design, or more like no design. But the comparison there would be telling a motorist to use a cul-de-sac instead of the M50!

But I was specifically referring to a perfectly good segregated cycle lane between the KCR and Templeogue Road:

https://goo.gl/maps/4qFsdo5ioR55DyHQ6

That lane is awful, a waste of time and money, anyone woh has ridden it will understand why it is not used.

tnegun

@vonluck not having a go but here's a few examples of why I typically stay out of what looks like a perfectly good cycle lane to most

Left hook
https://streamable.com/bplto


Shared lane is just dangerous
https://streamable.com/06g39


What right of way its a bike
https://streamable.com/edpjn

Cycle lane has been dug up and filled with leaves!! I didn't know this until I cycled into it and nearly ended up on the road!
https://streamable.com/tt1yk

I've loads of examples and some of these lanes are only months old showing no lessons are learned or thought given to their implementation in 2019/2020

VonLuck

Seth Brundle wrote: »

How did you conclude that it is "perfectly good"?
How many times have you cycled it and how did you find it compared to cycling on the road?

A good few times in fact!

Cycling on the road is better from a speed perspective, that's a given. The segregated lane may be a bit of a pain with junctions, but is infinitely safer than being on that road. If you cycle on the road you have to rely on cars to behave in a safe and responsible manner, which you and I both know is not often the case.

At least on a segregated lane you are in control of your own safety. As long as you're responsible you'll be fine. It may be an inconvenience, sure, but I'd rather arrive alive and take longer than to risk it with cars overtaking me on a narrow stretch of road.

VonLuck

MojoMaker wrote: »

From his car it looks "perfectly good".

Again, this "us versus them" mentality. I'm a cyclist!

buffalo wrote: »

If speed's not an issue, why don't you walk? And how can you call something that you admit is a pain in several places and inconvenient, "perfectly good"?

That's just a silly argument. You can't expect to have it all. In an ideal world, yes, but the reality is that compromises have to be made somewhere to ensure the safety of the cyclist. How would you redesign that particular stretch of road for the good of everyone?

Seth Brundle wrote: »

So cycling on the road is faster.
Cycling on the road is dangerous because many drivers (not cars!) do not drive safely. Thia could be remedied through proper enforcement.
So both of the above points have nothing to do with making a cycle path "perfectly good".

No, that's entirely untrue. Even if you had the best enforcement in the world you would still have unpredictable "drivers". Accidents happen, people drive tired, people get distracted. Always assume you're invisible when you cycle as you can't predict what someone else will do.

Seth Brundle wrote: »

You have no control over someone who decides to suddenly turn left into their driveway.

This is the same situation if you're on the road. You can still be side swiped by a car turning into their driveway.

Seth Brundle wrote: »

You have no control over a driver who decides to drive on a cycle path (see the recent tragic death on S2S).

Again, you can still encounter idiots if you're cycling on the road. Someone who runs someone down on a cycle path is just a danger to everyone, no matter where they are.

Seth Brundle wrote: »

So again another negative which you believe makes the track "perfectly good".
I'm really not understanding your logic VonLuck.

As I say above, you can't expect to have it all. How would you redesign that particular stretch of road for the good of everyone? What arrangement would make it perfectly good in your eyes?

mrcheez

Driving into town yesterday for the first time with the new car I picked up a few months ago (I've only really driven on M50 and N11 since I got it) I was shocked by the standard of driving in the city. I thought I was just getting the impression that drivers are bad while cycling in the city and thought the drivers were just giving me punishment passes, but no I was getting the same MGIF crap while I was in my car too.

Full driving on bike lanes, going through reds, beeping me to move on despite traffic light being red...some elderly woman swerving about the place because she could barely see over the steering wheel.

Fricking embarrassing to watch. I now give 0 fscks if some asshole beeps me while I'm on the bike since it's everyone for themselves and no one seems to give a ****

.

CramCycle

VonLuck wrote: »

A good few times in fact!

Cycling on the road is better from a speed perspective, that's a given. The segregated lane may be a bit of a pain with junctions, but is infinitely safer than being on that road. If you cycle on the road you have to rely on cars to behave in a safe and responsible manner, which you and I both know is not often the case.

You may not realise this but even in that segregated lane you have too as well.

At least on a segregated lane you are in control of your own safety. As long as you're responsible you'll be fine. It may be an inconvenience, sure, but I'd rather arrive alive and take longer than to risk it with cars overtaking me on a narrow stretch of road.

That's in no way true, based on my experience of this very lane.

VonLuck wrote: »

As I say above, you can't expect to have it all. How would you redesign that particular stretch of road for the good of everyone? What arrangement would make it perfectly good in your eyes?

stop the pulling of the bike lane around the corner at junctions, level it with the road and put in pillars at the junctions to impede fast cornering. High speed bumps to the left of this new bike lane for lanes that are meeting the main thoroughfare. Make the surface the same as the road (it's better than that red ****e). ANPR cameras at various junctions with average speed calculators.

I say this as someone who has used this road frequently, I never realised how much safer the road was until a few years ago, that's my opinion, others may differ.

AndrewJRenko

VonLuck wrote: »

Again, this "us versus them" mentality. I'm a cyclist!



That's just a silly argument. You can't expect to have it all. In an ideal world, yes, but the reality is that compromises have to be made somewhere to ensure the safety of the cyclist. How would you redesign that particular stretch of road for the good of everyone?



No, that's entirely untrue. Even if you had the best enforcement in the world you would still have unpredictable "drivers". Accidents happen, people drive tired, people get distracted. Always assume you're invisible when you cycle as you can't predict what someone else will do.



This is the same situation if you're on the road. You can still be side swiped by a car turning into their driveway.



Again, you can still encounter idiots if you're cycling on the road. Someone who runs someone down on a cycle path is just a danger to everyone, no matter where they are.



As I say above, you can't expect to have it all. How would you redesign that particular stretch of road for the good of everyone? What arrangement would make it perfectly good in your eyes?

So do you choose your car routes based on causing least inconvenience to others?

VonLuck

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So do you choose your car routes based on causing least inconvenience to others?

No. But I would choose a cycling route which I feel is safer for me, which I think the segregated one is.

Thargor

Why is your opinion more valid than that of the people who've actually ridden on this badly designed lane?