Dual carriageway cycling

ccmp

Cycled on normal commute route this morning. South link dual carriageway from airport roundabout to town still quiet. No hard shoulder just yellow line and kerb and concrete wall outside that.
Holding the inside lane about 1/3 out. Buzzed by 2 cars, horns blowing just as they passed me both doing about 100, even though outside lane was free.
One of them still at the next lights with window rolled down to tell me that I shouldn't be on road.
What is the story with cycling on dual carriageway?
Regardless, no excuse for driving that close at speed.

Raam

You can cycle on 'em. Some people are just jerks.

Solair

You shouldn't be able to cycle on that road, it is lethal as it is a converted rail line with high walls and no hard shoulder.

It is one of the narrowest and most dangerous stretches of dual-carriage way ever built in Ireland and is practically the same dimensions as a tunnel, other then the fact that it has no roof.

I saw a woman with a buggy walking along the outer lane once and honestly, I thought she should have been arrested.

It's a poor design and it's a pity that cycleways were not included when it was built in the early 80s, but it's just not safe for cyclists or anything other than cars.

There are signs banning pedestrians, albeit not very clear signage and I do not understand why cyclists are on it in the first place.

There are loads of alternative routes out that way.

It might be technically legal to use it on a bike, but it is not very advisable.

For those unfamiliar with it :

rp

their actions reinforces the need to stay out in the lane. They'd pass you even closer if you were nearer to the curb (scientifically proven). At least, 1/3 out, you've somewhere to go if pushed, and not be smeared on that concrete wall.

Richard

Don't think there's a problem with cycling on dual carriageways. Only motorways.

In the UK, at least, there are some dual carriageways where you can't cycle, but these are clearly marked "No cyclists" or similar.

C3PO

Regardless of the legalities I wouldn't cycle on that particular road, you're just leaving yourself open to abuse or worse!

seamus

ccmp wrote: »

Cycled on normal commute route this morning. South link dual carriageway from airport roundabout to town still quiet. No hard shoulder just yellow line and kerb and concrete wall outside that.

I would always be wary in those scenarios. The problem is not so much being buzzed, but tailgaters, particularly in convoy.
So the first guy sees you, moves around you, second guy tailgating follows his lead, third guy isn't really paying attention and he can't see you because he's tailgating and by the time he's spotted you, you're bouncing off his bonnet.

Holding the inside lane about 1/3 out. Buzzed by 2 cars, horns blowing just as they passed me both doing about 100, even though outside lane was free.

When this happens, it usually means that they weren't paying attention and got a fright. Naturally it's your fault that they nearly hit you, so they beep.

One of them still at the next lights with window rolled down to tell me that I shouldn't be on road.

Best response is always just to ask "why", because then you can laugh at whatever their lame reason is.

Solair

It's because most motorists cannot believe that Cork City Council is so irresponsible that it allows pedestrians and cyclists on a stretch of road that nearly needs tunnel rules applied to it.

Pedestrians and cyclists simply should not be on that stretch of the South Link. There are other stretches of dual-carriage way around Cork which have had hard-shoulders removed to allow for extra exit lanes and some of these also have 120km/h speed limits (Even though they're not motorway).

They're not very cyclist-friendly, but there are alternative routes. Perhaps the City Council should signpost them.

While it may be possible to pull out into the fast lane in light traffic, that road's regularly very busy.

The speed limits along that stretch of the south link are also nuts. There are 100km/h speed limits when you come off the Kinsale Road Roundabout which lead you straight into traffic lights!

That whole stretch ought to be 60km/h max from the Kinsale Road into the City Centre.

Plastik

Technically there's no law against cycling that road and it's the quickest way into town from the Kinsale roundabout, but it's a nasty stretch and I usually try to avoid it unless it's early AM.

ccmp

We all make calls on what roads to cycle. I'm comfortable with that route as I usually come in that road at 6.30. I never use it in the evening as it is too busy (and dangerous as result). This morning I came in at 7.30. At that time you have guys rushing to work. Traffic had loads of time to move into fast lane to overtake. 2 trucks had already passed me safely.
Both cars had plenty opportunity to overtake safely but chose to blow by me hooting late to give me a fright.
There are other routes which I take in evening but that run is great for a fast hard spin uninterrupted by lights etc. (i come in from ballincollig side)
Exchange at lights was quite robust but was taken aback by reference to law regarding cycling on duals.

enas

ccmp wrote: »

Exchange at lights was quite robust but was taken aback by reference to law regarding cycling on duals.

Rule of thumb is whatever they say, it is bull****. If they were such good drivers that they knew every possible rule with the finest level of details, they wouldn't have any trouble changing lane and pass you safely at the first place (amazing how many drivers find this manoeuvre very hard to accomplish).

In fact, there is no situation I can see where a driver's dangerous behaviour can be justified and the cyclist is to be blamed (apart from the obvious illegalities, such as running red lights and cycling on the motorway, but even then it doesn't provide any grounds for taking the law into your hands and apply any sort of punitive action).

Solair, your saying that cycling on this road is crazy is just your own judgement. I wouldn't cycle there either (South Douglas road is more direct for me). But it is perfectly legal as you say, and should cause no distress to any normal driver. I never had any sort of difficulty safely passing cyclists on that stretch of road while driving. In fact, as a driver, I'd rather encounter cyclists on dual carriageways where I can easily pass, even in heavy traffic (unless it's so heavy that anyway I won't go any much faster than the cyclist, which is usually the case at rush hours), than on a busy two-lane road, with heavy oncoming traffic. I'm not getting your point about tunnel rules either. Are there any specific rule concerning tunnels that I'm unaware of? Do you reckon tunnels as such are dangerous for cyclists altogether?

Raam

enas wrote: »

I'm not getting your point about tunnel rules either. Are there any specific rule concerning tunnels that I'm unaware of?

Probably: in tunnels you shouldn't change lanes.

Canis Lupus

Dual carriageways are cool unless signposted otherwise (I've seen some around Waterford for example). However as said above just because you can doesn't mean you should. Some carriageways are just not suitable unless you're some kind of adrenaline junky or enjoy cycling in incredibly uncomfortable situations.

enas

Raam wrote: »

Probably: in tunnels you shouldn't change lanes.

Is there a rule (in Ireland) that you shouldn't change lanes in tunnels, or is it a common practice to put solid lines in tunnels to prevent doing so? And is there a rule for this common practice, or that's just the way it is?

My point is that Solair's argument is the same (I believe) that leads to the logic behind the driver's behaviour. It doesn't look right to me, so there must be a rule against that. And if there's not, let's just pretend there should be some (here with the alleged special tunnel regulations - which might exist, I was genuinely asking for details). Not that I'm claiming at any point that Solair would have had a punitive behaviour, not even that he's defending the driver. I'm just trying to cheerfully challenge his reasoning, because the same reasoning taking place in some drivers head at the moment of the incident is what leads them to behave the way they do. I've stopped counting the number of very respectable persons, and otherwise good drivers, that are genuinely convinced that cycling on the South Ring is illegal, and that cyclists on it deserve to be killed. They generally accept my point that not only it is not illegal, but how dangerous it is lies completely in their hands. (And it is true that it is quite hard to plan an alternative route when the most direct uses the South Ring.)

(Off topic: Having said that, I would hate to cycle on the South Ring, and I believe that not having provided any proper segregated cycle road on it was a major oversight at the time of construction, and will be regarded as a "historical" mistake when, inevitably, utility cycling will have to "go mainstream" and such infrastructures will have to be retrofitted (at a much higher cost of course)).

Raam

I know in the Port Tunnel it instructs you not to change lanes.

It advises here that one should not overtake.

snottybridge

that stretch of road is lethal for cyclists,of course you can use it but as canus lupus says just because you can doesnt mean you should.I cycle that way occasionally but i always take the Turners Cross exit a few hundred yards before that stretch of road,might add a few minutes to youre commute but its much safer.

corblimey

Was planning on taking a spin this weekend that comes in that route on the way home to Carrigtwohill. I see I can jump off just before the lights as you say snotty, but then going via Southern Star and the South Infirmary to get back to the quays looks fairly complicated with a few nasty looking junctions. I suppose still better than being squashed against a wall by a car or lorry.

Malari

corblimey wrote: »

Was planning on taking a spin this weekend that comes in that route on the way home to Carrigtwohill. I see I can jump off just before the lights as you say snotty, but then going via Southern Star and the South Infirmary to get back to the quays looks fairly complicated with a few nasty looking junctions. I suppose still better than being squashed against a wall by a car or lorry.

Those junctions are fine, I cycle them all the time. Just make sure you signal and are seen by the traffic. You have to take up a prominent position on the road and be assertive.

I find the same on that stretch of the dual carriageway. You won't be squashed if you travel far enough into the lane that you have plenty of room to move in if necessary.

You are technically right, and those motorists are indeed selfish idiots. The problem however is that you are likely to meet more. Who needs that kind of stress in the morning? I would recommend finding an alternative route. If you're coming from ballincollig it might actually be quicker to come in the straight road and go across town.

I almost never cycle that stretch of road, it's just not pleasant and there are plenty of alternatives.

Keep_Her_Lit

rp wrote: »

their actions reinforces the need to stay out in the lane. They'd pass you even closer if you were nearer to the curb (scientifically proven). At least, 1/3 out, you've somewhere to go if pushed, and not be smeared on that concrete wall.

Looking at that road, there is no way I would position myself such that following traffic was forced either to change lanes or reduce its speed to match mine. Quite simply, putting yourself in harm's way is not the best way to ensure your own safety.

Saying that you've somewhere to go if pushed doesn't make sense in this situation. It's not as if you're going to have the luxury of deciding for each approaching vehicle whether or not you'll move over on this particular occasion. The traffic may be closing on you at a relative speed of 60-70km/h. If things go wrong, it will happen too quickly for you to do anything about it.

And it's very easy to see how it could all go horribly wrong. Regardless of the legal speed limit there, it's certainly believable that traffic will move at ~100km/h given the opportunity. As suggested above, it's only a matter of time before someone approaches from behind at speed, is being tailgated by some dozey/aggressive muppet and is also unable to move to the outside lane because it is in use. That leaves them with no option but to reduce their speed by >50% before they reach you. They might manage it but the muppet hanging off their rear bumper probably won't. You're now in big trouble. If it's wet and/or dark, the risk is further heightened.

I might be prepared to use that road (hard to tell just from the picture) but if I did, I would stay well in - not in the gutter, riding in all the grit and crap, but far enough in to let most traffic past without having to alter position. I would also move as briskly as possible - the lower the speed differential, the lower the risk.

doozerie

As has already been said, there is no excuse for that behaviour by the drivers concerned. They themselves would be justifiably horrified if a large truck behaved the very same way towards them in their relatively puny car, the fact that they don't apply the same kind of logic to the effect of their own driving behaviour towards others is the real issue here and not the fact that someone is cycling on the road. People that are willing to be so aggressive towards others simply shouldn't be allowed to drive, in my view, but as long as others are willing to make excuses for their behaviour they'll never feel the need to change - I realise that people are not condoning their behaviour on here, but taking the view that the cyclist shouldn't be there in the first place effectively supports the view of those idiots in the cars and it is that view that they use to justify their illegal and dangerous actions.

Incidentally, I cycled on that road a lot when I was a teenager, including that narrow stretch at times, and I don't recall meeting such hostility while on it (did meet other forms of muppet though). It probably carries more traffic now but I'm not sure that the speed limit has changed since my time. It makes no sense to me that a road that was safe to cycle in my day should be deemed completely unsuitable for cyclists now - if is no longer safe now then it is due to the behaviour of the road users on it, not the road itself, and rather than arguing that cyclists should be removed from it for their own safety we should be arguing that action be taken against those whose behaviour makes it unsafe. Removing cyclists from it entirely is a stereotypical irish "solution", where you tackle a symptom of the problem rather than the real problem itself because the symptom is a lot easier to deal with.

Malari

Deleted User wrote: »

You are technically right, and those motorists are indeed selfish idiots. The problem however is that you are likely to meet more. Who needs that kind of stress in the morning? I would recommend finding an alternative route. If you're coming from ballincollig it might actually be quicker to come in the straight road and go across town.

I almost never cycle that stretch of road, it's just not pleasant and there are plenty of alternatives.

Definitely if you are coming from Ballincollig, I'd go the Model Farm Road or Lee Road even. Since they narrowed the straight road, drivers are almost as aggressive there! It's definitely 4 or 5km shorter than going the South Ring, and I wouldn't like to go near a road where the speed limit is 120kph.

crashoveroid

ccmp wrote: »

Cycled on normal commute route this morning. South link dual carriageway from airport roundabout to town still quiet. No hard shoulder just yellow line and kerb and concrete wall outside that.
Holding the inside lane about 1/3 out. Buzzed by 2 cars, horns blowing just as they passed me both doing about 100, even though outside lane was free.
One of them still at the next lights with window rolled down to tell me that I shouldn't be on road.
What is the story with cycling on dual carriageway?
Regardless, no excuse for driving that close at speed.

I cycle the South link every week mainly at weekends and maybe twice during the week never had an issue or drivers giving out. Its not against the law i have as much right to be there as any car. Its the driver that's at fault for road rage and lack of respect for other road users.

bigjohnny80

Its legal for me to walk along the edge of a cliff. Doesn't mean I'd do it though.

I'd have no problem with a cyclist on a dual carraigeway but only on the hard shoulder. There is no hard shoulder in that pic.

doozerie

Malari wrote:

It's definitely 4 or 5km shorter than going the South Ring, and I wouldn't like to go near a road where the speed limit is 120kph.

I am open to correction on this but I believe that the highest speed limit on any stretch of the South Ring road is 100kph.

Solair

doozerie wrote: »

I am open to correction on this but I believe that the highest speed limit on any stretch of the South Ring road is 100kph.

The southlink is 100km/h

The Ballincollig Bypass is 120km/h for most of it, despite not being a M-road and parts of the N25 past Little Island / Carrigtwohill is also 120km/h. It's this one which has hard-shoulders removed to allow for long queuing exit lanes to cope with rush-hour traffic. It's very dangerous for cyclists as it's both very fast and has no hard shoulders at points.

I am not sure if these are the only roads in Ireland that are not motorway officially but have 120km/h speed limits?

The South-Link pictured above is a spur from the South Ring road (4 and sometimes 6-lane dual carriageway) that skirts the Southside of Cork City. It was built in the early 80s and links the city centre to the ring and to the airport. It's extremely narrow as it comes into the city as it uses the old railway cutting with steep sides. So there are no hard-shoulders and really dangerous slip ways which aren't long enough / turn directly into the slow lane.

enas

doozerie wrote: »

taking the view that the cyclist shouldn't be there in the first place effectively supports the view of those idiots in the cars and it is that view that they use to justify their illegal and dangerous actions.
[...]
It makes no sense to me that a road that was safe to cycle in my day should be deemed completely unsuitable for cyclists now - if is no longer safe now then it is due to the behaviour of the road users on it, not the road itself

Very sensibly said, thanks!

doozerie wrote: »

I am open to correction on this but I believe that the highest speed limit on any stretch of the South Ring road is 100kph.

If I remember correctly, it increases to 120 km/h after the Bandon road roundabout. Definitely the last stretch to Ballincollig anyway.

bigjohnny80 wrote: »

I'd have no problem with a cyclist on a dual carraigeway but only on the hard shoulder.

What happens then with those cyclists you have a problem with?

Malari wrote: »

Since they narrowed the straight road

Sorry for being off-topic, but do you know why they did that?

enas

Solair wrote: »

I am not sure if these are the only roads in Ireland that are not motorway officially but have 120km/h speed limits?

It's a fairly recent development, but not unique to Cork. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_speed_limits_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland#Special_speed_limits and also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Quality_Dual_Carriageway#High_Quality_Dual_Carriageways_with_Motorway_Speed_Limits_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

redzone

Raam wrote: »

You can cycle on 'em. Some people are just jerks.

I agree, some people are just jerks. We all encounter them at some time or another when out on the bike.
However when cycling you have to weigh up risk against gain. When you can account for your own actions and accept the results thats fine, but you cannot forecast the actions of others. All it takes is someone tailgating as mentioned or distracted on the phone or by the kids fighting in the back or changing the cd etc. All things motorists shouldn'd do but happen all the time.
If your hit at that speed at best you will survive and probably have severe injuries with a long recovery.
What I'm saying is use your cop on and see the danger, you are responsable for your own safety first.
No good being in the right when your dead.

bigjohnny80

Re: Enas

What happens then with those cyclists you have a problem with?

Since you are being pedantic.

The natural flow of what I said, meant that I would have a problem with a cyclist on a dual carraigeway which had no hard shoulder.

Does that clear it up for you, or can you find a way of playing with those words too?

rp

bigjohnny80 wrote: »

The natural flow of what I said, meant that I would have a problem with a cyclist on a dual carraigeway which had no hard shoulder.

I think the question was about what action you take toward those you do have a problem with.

TinyExplosions

bigjohnny80 wrote: »

Since you are being pedantic.

The natural flow of what I said, meant that I would have a problem with a cyclist on a dual carraigeway which had no hard shoulder.

Does that clear it up for you, or can you find a way of playing with those words too?

Not really, as the question was what happens to the cyclists that you have a problem with, and you've not answered.

I guess he may be questioning if you think that they are 'fair game' for cycling somewhere that has no hard shoulder, or something else entirely, but it's a fair (and not very pedantic) question

Malari

Malari wrote: »

Since they narrowed the straight road, drivers are almost as aggressive there!

enas wrote: »

Sorry for being off-topic, but do you know why they did that?

To make an extra wide footpath that you are also allowed ride a bike on! I don't use it to cycle on though, as there are pedestrians all over it, and people walking dogs, and you can't cycle properly on it. So I don't know why they did it. As far as I'm aware it's not mandatory to use it if you are on a bike? Maybe someone could confirm?

Malari wrote: »

It's definitely 4 or 5km shorter than going the South Ring, and I wouldn't like to go near a road where the speed limit is 120kph.

To clarify (although others have pointed out) I was referring to the section of the South Ring from the Bandon roundabout to Ballincollig, which is 120kph.

bigjohnny80

TinyExplosions wrote: »

Not really, as the question was what happens to the cyclists that you have a problem with, and you've not answered.

I guess he may be questioning if you think that they are 'fair game' for cycling somewhere that has no hard shoulder, or something else entirely, but it's a fair (and not very pedantic) question

Are you guys for real? What do you think I’m going to do? For Crissake guys cop on.

carthoris

bigjohnny80 wrote: »

Are you guys for real?

Yes we are real! We may "only" be on bikes but we are real, have lives (mostly)

When I read your comment which implied you would have a problem with a cyclist who was cycling on a dual carriageway without a hard shoulder it was far to easy to see it as attempt to justify the actions of the drivers in the original post. I imagine many others see it this way and would like to know how you would deal with these "problem" cyclists. Would you want to let them know of your problem ? How would you do that ?

fenris

bigjohnny80 wrote: »

I'd have no problem with a cyclist on a dual carraigeway but only on the hard shoulder. There is no hard shoulder in that pic.

You know the way that "dual" means two, that means that you have two lanes going in the same direction to choose from, that will still get you where you are going.
The speed limit is the same as on most other national roads, some of which have no hard shoulders, does that mean that cyclists should only be allowed cycle on hard shoulders?

So on your average DC you have the same top legal speed, a road with more lane options that you can exercise without going head to head with oncoming traffic and yet you begrudge the effort to flick on an indicator and overtake the person ahead of you i.e. there before you and with right of way?

God help us all if you ever have to drive on a country road during the summer when the green stuff grows out beyond the edge of the tarmac.

bigjohnny80

Ok guys, I get it - I’m being trolled.

You are getting into semantics. It was a colloquial expression. Enjoy your discussion.

Malari

Malari wrote: »

To make an extra wide footpath that you are also allowed ride a bike on! I don't use it to cycle on though, as there are pedestrians all over it, and people walking dogs, and you can't cycle properly on it. So I don't know why they did it. As far as I'm aware it's not mandatory to use it if you are on a bike? Maybe someone could confirm?

It has that shared use (bike+people holding hands) sign that has no basis in Irish law. Seeing as it does not have the correct signage to make it a cycle lane/track the mandatory use law does not apply. That road was absolutley fine to cycle on before. Then they made some "improvements" to make it "cycle friendly" with the result that it is now a lot more stressful to cycle on.

Normally this kind of poor planning muppetry is largely confined to Dublin but it's beginning to creep into Cork as well.

Malari

Deleted User wrote: »

It has that shared use (bike+people holding hands) sign that has no basis in Irish law. Seeing as it does not have the correct signage to make it a cycle lane/track the mandatory use law does not apply. That road was absolutley fine to cycle on before. Then they made some "improvements" to make it "cycle friendly" with the result that it is now a lot more stressful to cycle on.

Normally this kind of poor planning muppetry is largely confined to Dublin but it's beginning to creep into Cork as well.

That's what I figured. It's a pain now. It's probably more "cycle-friendly" to anyone who never goes over 10kph and uses pedestrian lights to cross junctions, or is walking with a child on a bike, but not to actual cyclists who know how to use the roads properly.

Lusk Doyle

enas wrote: »

Is there a rule (in Ireland) that you shouldn't change lanes in tunnels, or is it a common practice to put solid lines in tunnels to prevent doing so? And is there a rule for this common practice, or that's just the way it is?

My point is that Solair's argument is the same (I believe) that leads to the logic behind the driver's behaviour. It doesn't look right to me, so there must be a rule against that. And if there's not, let's just pretend there should be some (here with the alleged special tunnel regulations - which might exist, I was genuinely asking for details). Not that I'm claiming at any point that Solair would have had a punitive behaviour, not even that he's defending the driver. I'm just trying to cheerfully challenge his reasoning, because the same reasoning taking place in some drivers head at the moment of the incident is what leads them to behave the way they do. I've stopped counting the number of very respectable persons, and otherwise good drivers, that are genuinely convinced that cycling on the South Ring is illegal, and that cyclists on it deserve to be killed. They generally accept my point that not only it is not illegal, but how dangerous it is lies completely in their hands. (And it is true that it is quite hard to plan an alternative route when the most direct uses the South Ring.)

(Off topic: Having said that, I would hate to cycle on the South Ring, and I believe that not having provided any proper segregated cycle road on it was a major oversight at the time of construction, and will be regarded as a "historical" mistake when, inevitably, utility cycling will have to "go mainstream" and such infrastructures will have to be retrofitted (at a much higher cost of course)).

Remember what happened in Die Hard 4.0 when somebody changed lanes in the tunnel? Ended up crashing into a helicopter 50ft up in the air above the road! All I'm saying is you never know....:rolleyes:

TinyExplosions

bigjohnny80 wrote: »

Ok guys, I get it - I’m being trolled.

You are getting into semantics. It was a colloquial expression. Enjoy your discussion.

Not even a little bit, you made a fairly ambiguous statement that could have been taken in many ways (as highlighted by a couple of people already), and when asked for clarification, thought that Enas was being pedantic.

All you needed to say was that you thought it was a bad idea and all would have been grand!

doozerie

redzone wrote:

I agree, some people are just jerks. We all encounter them at some time or another when out on the bike.
However when cycling you have to weigh up risk against gain. When you can account for your own actions and accept the results thats fine, but you cannot forecast the actions of others. All it takes is someone tailgating as mentioned or distracted on the phone or by the kids fighting in the back or changing the cd etc. All things motorists shouldn'd do but happen all the time.
If your hit at that speed at best you will survive and probably have severe injuries with a long recovery.
What I'm saying is use your cop on and see the danger, you are responsable for your own safety first.
No good being in the right when your dead.

I certainly agree that everyone should put safety considerations towards the top of their list of concerns, but the scenarios you describe can happen just as easily on wide, largely empty, and slow moving, roads. When considering the risk of an impact with a car, a slow moving car that runs over you is, to my mind, as dangerous as a fast moving car that throws you over its roof or somewhere else out of the path of the car. Every time you put yourself in the vicinity of moving traffic, as any form of road user, you are putting yourself at risk. Some people draw the line at riding a bike at all, deeming it to be simply too dangerous, using what they would consider to be a logical extension of what you say in your post.

Personally I think that so long as you stick to the rules of the road, which all road users are required to know and understand, other road users *should* not create situations where they (unknowingly) put you at risk. All of us that use roads rely on this assumption every day, otherwise we wouldn't be able to use the roads purely out of fear for our own safety. Sure, people do actually do stupid things which sometimes result in others being badly hurt or killed. People have died on the roads already this year and more will die before the year is out, but I believe it is an over-reaction to say that people shouldn't use the roads because of that, even taking a specific case of cyclists using this particular stretch of road in Cork. Everyone will make their own mind up whether they feel safe in cycling that stretch of road but there is a danger in this thread of cyclists being criticised for choosing to ride on it when that is a perfectly reasonable choice for them to make.

bigjohnny80

TinyExplosions wrote: »

Not even a little bit, you made a fairly ambiguous statement that could have been taken in many ways (as highlighted by a couple of people already), and when asked for clarification, thought that Enas was being pedantic.

All you needed to say was that you thought it was a bad idea and all would have been grand!

To clarify;
I think it is a bad idea to cycle on a dual carriageway that has no hard shoulder on it. To me this is common sense. The same way I said earlier that although it is legal for me to walk along the edge of a cliff, I wouldn’t choose to do it.

To further clarify;
I would not ‘do’ anything to anybody who was cycling on a dual carriageway which had no hard shoulder on it. I would pull out into the outside lane and pass them out.

Back to the motors forum I guess!

coolbeans

bigjohnny80 wrote: »

To clarify;
I think it is a bad idea to cycle on a dual carriageway that has no hard shoulder on it. To me this is common sense. The same way I said earlier that although it is legal for me to walk along the edge of a cliff, I wouldn’t choose to do it.

To further clarify;
I would not ‘do’ anything to anybody who was cycling on a dual carriageway which had no hard shoulder on it. I would pull out into the outside lane and pass them out.

Back to the motors forum I guess!

You dug your own hole in fairness. No need to pull a strop. Before you clarified your position you implied that you would only tolerate cyclists if there was a hard shoulder present. It's reasonable to ask why you would have a problem when there is no hard shoulder present particularly when no law was being broken and there was no possibility of anyone being inconvenienced due to the presence of two lanes. I'd avoid using such a road completely as I hate assholes but It doesn't mean ****ers trying to bully me off the road should be tolerated.

bigjohnny80

coolbeans wrote: »

You dug your own hole in fairness. No need to pull a strop. Before you clarified your position you implied that you would only tolerate cyclists if there was a hard shoulder present. It's reasonable to ask why you would have a problem when there is no hard shoulder present particularly when no law was being broken and there was no possibility of anyone being inconvenienced due to the presence of two lanes. I'd avoid using such a road completely as I hate assholes but It doesn't mean ****ers trying to bully me off the road should be tolerated.

No I didn't actually imply that whatsoever. You have taken that to be your own interpretation. Didn't pull a strop either. You are the one using foul language, not me.

enas

bigjohnny80 wrote: »

To clarify;
I think it is a bad idea to cycle on a dual carriageway that has no hard shoulder on it. To me this is common sense. The same way I said earlier that although it is legal for me to walk along the edge of a cliff, I wouldn’t choose to do it.

To further clarify;
I would not ‘do’ anything to anybody who was cycling on a dual carriageway which had no hard shoulder on it. I would pull out into the outside lane and pass them out.

Back to the motors forum I guess!

Just to clarify myself. I didn't think or implied you would "do" anything. It was more of a rhetorical, or provocative question really (but pedantic it wasn't). What I really intended was to make you react and elaborate on why you think it is a bad idea. A previous poster (fenris) elaborated his point that cycling on a dual carriageway is "better" than on a standard two lane national road. You're making the opposite point, but the only argument you provide is that it's "common sense", which shows nothing really. I'm disappointed

on_the_nickel

coolbeans wrote: »

You dug your own hole in fairness. No need to pull a strop. Before you clarified your position you implied that you would only tolerate cyclists if there was a hard shoulder present.

Eh, no, he said he'd have a problem with it, not that he "wouldn't tolerate it".

The first question asked of him was then "what happens to cyclists you do have a problem with?" which has the sinister implication something might happen to cyclists he has a problem with, which is a bit of jump to say the least.

It's no wonder some drivers have issues with us when every comment is jumped on by sanctimonious cyclists.

enas

Sigh... I think we've all made clear what our thoughts were and removed any ambiguity that our first post could have had. In fact, I think this topic has pretty well answered the OP's question.

charlemont

Solair wrote: »

That whole stretch ought to be 60km/h max from the Kinsale Road into the City Centre.

No it shouldnt, 100KM is adequate.

SleepDoc

charlemont wrote: »

No it shouldnt, 100KM is adequate.

I suppose a decent spliff will make 100kph seem like 10.

SleepDoc

SleepDoc wrote: »

I suppose a decent spliff will make 100kph seem like 10.

Tends to do the opposite actually.