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

Seth Brundle

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?

I didn't suggest redesigning it. I'm just debunking your statement that it is a "perfectly good" cycle path.
Part of the problem with cycle paths in Ireland is that they are designed to get cyclists out of the way of motorists, not to create a safer alternative route. They also appear to be designed and built by people who have no intention ever using a bicycle. A poorly designed cycle track will be noticed by its users who will make a call on whether they were better off on the road. Which brings us back to your original point. It may appear "perfectly good" when in reality, it is not!

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.

Stark

mrcheez wrote: »

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.
.

This ^^^

I genuinely can't understand how someone can drive in Dublin and describe the worst part of their commute as "bloody cyclists". Any time I've had to drive, which I avoid as much as possible, it's the behaviour of other drivers which makes the experience so unpleasant. I see people on bikes doing stupid **** for sure but it's barely noticeable compared to the **** you get from other drivers.

Also it was raining today and you had the usual pedestrians getting splashed left right and centre from drivers not making the slightest bit of effort to slow down or steer wide of puddles.

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?

CramCycle

VonLuck wrote: »

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

And that's your opinion, but you have to accept that not everyone does and reasons why are given in other posts. I can understand why you think it's safer, but for me it's not, personal experience bares this out, it may not for everyone.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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

So all the stuff about cyclists who should be on the bike lane so as not to cause 'frustration' for drivers was just nonsense really then?

VonLuck

Thargor wrote: »

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

Is someone here claiming my opinion is more valid? I am just giving my point of view. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

And again, if you read my previous posts, I have ridden this route a large number of times.

CramCycle wrote: »

And that's your opinion, but you have to accept that not everyone does and reasons why are given in other posts. I can understand why you think it's safer, but for me it's not, personal experience bares this out, it may not for everyone.

That's totally fine. I'm just giving my opinion that being on a road where vehicles are very close to me while I'm on my bike feels more unsafe than being on a segregated lane which has a number of junctions.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So all the stuff about cyclists who should be on the bike lane so as not to cause 'frustration' for drivers was just nonsense really then?

I think you meant to quote me instead of yourself there. You also seem to be purposefully misrepresenting what I said which was the following:

VonLuck wrote: »

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.

You cannot deny that it is more frustrating to be behind a cyclist who is moving slower than vehicular traffic. I didn't say that the cyclist has to use the cycle lane, but just didn't understand why they would be on the road when, in my opinion, the segregated lane is safer.

buffalo

VonLuck wrote: »

You cannot deny that it is more frustrating to be behind a cyclist who is moving slower than vehicular traffic. I didn't say that the cyclist has to use the cycle lane, but just didn't understand why they would be on the road when, in my opinion, the segregated lane is safer.

Do you understand now?

kenmm

I think generally speaking I get frustrated with slow moving cars when on the bike more often than I do as a driver behind bicycles.

Either way - the frustration is MY problem. Not the person driving or cycling in front. And either way I have never suffered any actual consequences of being "held up".

Its funny people moan a lot more about being stuck behind cyclists than they do with "General traffic".. but its 2020 and our roads are full so what can you actually do?

VonLuck

buffalo wrote: »

Do you understand now?

That's very condescending and unnecessary.

You can have two sides to a discussion and no "right" answer.

CramCycle

kenmm wrote: »

I think generally speaking I get frustrated with slow moving cars when on the bike more often than I do as a driver behind bicycles.

Either way - the frustration is MY problem. Not the person driving or cycling in front. And either way I have never suffered any actual consequences of being "held up".

Same here. Happens daily through Shankill. I have to sit in line with traffic. There is no safe space to overtake, but I do what i am meant too and just wait, funny how some drivers can't do the same. The number who try to overtake even though I have only left braking space to the vehicle in front is insane. I usually overcome the issues of meeting traffic by leaving earlier or starting later, it is a simple but effective solution.

AndrewJRenko

VonLuck wrote: »

I think you meant to quote me instead of yourself there.

Yes, my mistake.

VonLuck wrote: »

You also seem to be purposefully misrepresenting what I said which was the following:


You cannot deny that it is more frustrating to be behind a cyclist who is moving slower than vehicular traffic. I didn't say that the cyclist has to use the cycle lane, but just didn't understand why they would be on the road when, in my opinion, the segregated lane is safer.

I can deny that it is more frustrating to be behind a cyclist. I spend far more time stuck behind cars than behind cyclists. I find it strange that drivers who spend vast periods of time stuck behind cars suddenly lose all reason when faced with a cyclist's arse for a 10 or 20 seconds.

kenmm

CramCycle wrote: »

The number who try to overtake even though I have only left braking space to the vehicle in front is insane.

ye - and that - happens often. A worrying amount of people dont look more than 3m ahead!

Kinda irrelevant now anyway - next few weeks not much cycling or driving!

CramCycle

kenmm wrote: »

ye - and that - happens often. A worrying amount of people dont look more than 3m ahead!

Kinda irrelevant now anyway - next few weeks not much cycling or driving!

I am one of the few people in work for the next few weeks, depending on how things go, I will either get sent home eventually or be drafted in elsewhere. Not sure which will be worse.

magicbastarder

VonLuck wrote: »

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.

it was about 15 years ago i read of the idea, so i'm not going to be able to find the article now - my understanding has been that segregated lanes make cycling along the road safer *between* junctions and more dangerous *at* junctions. but junctions are the danger spots, so they make the safe part safer and the dangerous part more dangerous.

the idea was that a cyclist on a segregated lane is removed to a large extent from the mental radar of motorists, so the motorists are less likely to allow for them at junctions - and the way irish segregated infrastructure is designed, you're usually dumped back onto the road or in front of motorists mere metres before the junction.

VonLuck

magicbastarder wrote: »

it was about 15 years ago i read of the idea, so i'm not going to be able to find the article now - my understanding has been that segregated lanes make cycling along the road safer *between* junctions and more dangerous *at* junctions. but junctions are the danger spots, so they make the safe part safer and the dangerous part more dangerous.

the idea was that a cyclist on a segregated lane is removed to a large extent from the mental radar of motorists, so the motorists are less likely to allow for them at junctions - and the way irish segregated infrastructure is designed, you're usually dumped back onto the road or in front of motorists mere metres before the junction.

I can see how that can happen. But in the specific case I was referring to, vehicles have priority. It would be the cyclist's responsibility to give way to motorists. Not ideal as it interrupts the flow of cycling, but at least the expectation for motorists to be on the lookout for bicycles is removed.

John_Rambo

VonLuck wrote: »

I can see how that can happen. But in the specific case I was referring to, vehicles have priority. It would be the cyclist's responsibility to give way to motorists. Not ideal as it interrupts the flow of cycling, but at least the expectation for motorists to be on the lookout for bicycles is removed.

That's an odd thing to say. As a motorist, I'd never relax or moderate my driving to be "not on the lookout" for any other road user.

Seth Brundle

VonLuck wrote: »

I can see how that can happen. But in the specific case I was referring to, vehicles have priority. It would be the cyclist's responsibility to give way to motorists. Not ideal as it interrupts the flow of cycling, but at least the expectation for motorists to be on the lookout for bicycles is removed.

What? Have you been drinking?

RobertFoster

I'm off to lie in a ditch. It'll be uncomfortable and I won't get anywhere, but at least I won't be in the way.

VonLuck

John_Rambo wrote: »

That's an odd thing to say. As a motorist, I'd never relax or moderate my driving to be "not on the lookout" for any other road user.

Yes, because you're a responsible motorist. If you're on the road and expect every motorist to be paying attention or being perfect drivers it could end badly. It's not giving them a pass, it's just the reality of being on the road unfortunately.

You need to be cycling with the mentality that you're invisible to cars. Countless times I've been on the inside lane where a car has turned left in front of me. I don't expect that they will see me and keep cycling, I need to hold back to be sure that I don't get crushed under a car.

VonLuck

Seth Brundle wrote: »

What? Have you been drinking?

I don't follow. What have I said that would lead you to believe I've been drinking?

railer201

VonLuck wrote: »

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

It has to be safer, it's segregated. Where it joins the road is irrelevant because the segregation ceases - it really is that simple folks.

Totally in agreement with you VonLuck !

hesker

railer201 wrote: »

It has to be safer, it's segregated. Where it joins the road is irrelevant because the segregation ceases - it really is that simple folks.

Totally in agreement with you VonLuck !

Totally not in agreement with you VonLuck !

VonLuck

hesker wrote: »

Totally not in agreement with you VonLuck !

It would help if you explained why!

CramCycle

VonLuck wrote: »

I can see how that can happen. But in the specific case I was referring to, vehicles have priority. It would be the cyclist's responsibility to give way to motorists. Not ideal as it interrupts the flow of cycling, but at least the expectation for motorists to be on the lookout for bicycles is removed.

So when I wait at the pulled back crossing, and the road is clear but I am completely removed from the drivers mind on the main road, who has yet again forgotten to indicate because in ireland, left turns don't need them most of the time apparently, I push off, all clear and no indication that will change and the next thing I wake up in hospital because Dave came round the corner at speed, all to claim I came out of nowhere.

It is an insane proposition that anything about that lane makes sense, the junctions are a mess and dangerous, as dangerous, if not more dangerous than being on the road. Its counter intuitive Ill admit if you don't cycle but I can assure you, it is very poor infrastructure.

hesker

VonLuck wrote: »

It would help if you explained why!

I’ve had a few glasses of vino (within the family unit of course) and am just reacting to what I perceive as fanboyism.

I am primarily a motorist but totally understand the reluctance of cyclists to use badly designed infrastructure that compromises their safety.

Motorist frustration in these situations would be better targetted at the designers who spend our hard earned money so poorly that cyclists choose not to use these facilities

Weepsie

VonLuck wrote: »

I can see how that can happen. But in the specific case I was referring to, vehicles have priority. It would be the cyclist's responsibility to give way to motorists. Not ideal as it interrupts the flow of cycling, but at least the expectation for motorists to be on the lookout for bicycles is removed.

Can you tell me where in the road traffic act a vehicle has priority if in the same lane as a bicycle, unless I'm missing something, you're making something up entirely,


Also the expectations that motorists should ever not be on the lookout for bicycles, or any vulnerable road user/pedestrian is possibly one of the most absurd things I've seen posted in a forum (Jim Corr rambling excepted)
They should never stop being on the lookout