Dem cyclists all break de lights Joe!

Chuchote

RayCun wrote: »

all along here
https://www.google.ie/maps/dir/53.3086286,-6.259157/53.30802,-6.2544205/53.3104811,-6.2479303/@53.3085131,-6.2546036,17z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e2
including the bit behind the Dropping Well where the path doesn't show up, is not shared use

Ah, that needs to change.

average_runner

That bit behind the dropping well floods alot also.

josip

average_runner wrote: »

That bit behind the dropping well floods alot also.

No problem to Danny

cython

Chuchote wrote: »

What do they reckon is a spurious signal? 'Spurious' would seem to mean false?

You may have missed the "cyclist (usually hi-vized and helmeted)" (do you object to hi-viz and helmet? That's unusual among drivers) looking behind before signalling. Most drivers don't watch cyclists unwaveringly.

The general recommendation for motorists changing lane or turning is mirror-signal-mirror-manoeuvre (and blind spot checks, of course), so any cyclist would do well to check the way is (still) clear after signalling and before executing a manoeuvre. Even if they checked the way before signalling, a hand signal (no more than indicators) does confer right of way so they should not assume that a motorist in the lane is going to let them across. Expectations of courtesy should not enter into matters of self-preservation.

Chuchote

cython wrote: »

The general recommendation for motorists changing lane or turning is mirror-signal-mirror-manoeuvre (and blind spot checks, of course), so any cyclist would do well to check the way is (still) clear after signalling and before executing a manoeuvre. Even if they checked the way before signalling, a hand signal (no more than indicators) does confer right of way so they should not assume that a motorist in the lane is going to let them across. Expectations of courtesy should not enter into matters of self-preservation.

We all have to trust each other on the road, though.

cython

Chuchote wrote: »

We all have to trust each other on the road, though.

Call me a cynic if you want, but regardless of my mode of transport, the only thing I trust other road users to do is "something stupid". If you assume/anticipate the worst and act accordingly, and you'll be pleasantly surprised when it doesn't happen. If you are overly trusting and encounter someone careless or reckless enough, you risk ending up under or on top of their vehicle as a cyclist.

It's unfortunate, but the prevalence of essentially "bad road users", means that it's very difficult, and indeed potentially dangerous to trust random strangers on the road.

josip

cython wrote: »

The general recommendation for motorists changing lane or turning is mirror-signal-mirror-manoeuvre (and blind spot checks, of course), so any cyclist would do well to check the way is (still) clear after signalling and before executing a manoeuvre. Even if they checked the way before signalling, a hand signal (no more than indicators) does confer right of way so they should not assume that a motorist in the lane is going to let them across. Expectations of courtesy should not enter into matters of self-preservation.

Could you elaborate which motorists in which lanes you are referring to in the bolded part above please?

cython

josip wrote: »

Could you elaborate which motorists in which lanes you are referring to in the bolded part above please?

I thought it was pretty clear, but if a cyclist is looking to change into, or cross a lane, then they must (as any other vehicle must also) yield right of way to traffic already in that lane, so basically cars in a lane that a cyclist wants to go into or across.

josip

cython wrote: »

I thought it was pretty clear, but if a cyclist is looking to change into, or cross a lane, then they must (as any other vehicle must also) yield right of way to traffic already in that lane, so basically cars in a lane that a cyclist wants to go into or across.

Do you include the lane in which the cyclist is already cycling in the above?

cython

josip wrote: »

Do you include the lane in which the cyclist is already cycling in the above?

Do you have some non-conventional interpretation of the word change to think that I might? :rolleyes: And by cross I meant enter a lane for the purposes of transiting to one further over, not moving out in the lane that they are in. That being said, please see my points RE self-preservation for a view on moving out and why at least checking for the way being clear is prudent. For example, if overtaking in a car, you have an obligation to check that no other car is coming from behind (overtaking from further back, for whatever reason), and similarly a cyclist should check that a car is not in the process of overtaking before swinging out, and that can only be done by a check before the manoeuvre.

trellheim

From Toronto



Use of a bit of pool noodle to get the cars to keep their distance ... have to say thats lateral thinking

( context https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/10/18/cyclist-says-his-pool-noodle-makes-toronto-streets-safer-for-him.html?campaign_id=A100 )

Chuchote

cython wrote: »

I thought it was pretty clear, but if a cyclist is looking to change into, or cross a lane, then they must (as any other vehicle must also) yield right of way to traffic already in that lane, so basically cars in a lane that a cyclist wants to go into or across.

Only trouble with this is that drivers in Dublin often do not give courteous way to a cyclist who wishes to change lanes. Some even speed up to prevent a cyclist from changing lane.

rubadub

trellheim wrote: »

Use of a bit of pool noodle to get the cars to keep their distance ... have to say thats lateral thinking

reminds me of these reflectors, haven't seen them in ages, used to be on quite a few.



It would be a nuisance on cycle tracks.

I reckon people would give more room to people with kids on the back of the bike in those chair things, could be a fake doll.

cython

Chuchote wrote: »

Only trouble with this is that drivers in Dublin often do not give courteous way to a cyclist who wishes to change lanes. Some even speed up to prevent a cyclist from changing lane.

And how exactly is that a problem or trouble with my point that any vehicle (and class of vehicle does not change this, despite what some would have you believe) changing lane must give way to traffic already in the lane they are moving into? Keeping this in mind, surely it's all the more reason to give an extra look immediately before your manoeuvre, rather than assuming that conditions are still the same as before you gave any indication of your intention to move (if you looked then as you suggested), or that you are going to be given "courteous right of way" because you issued a hand signal? I'd make neither of those assumptions driving a car or cycling a bike personally.

For what it's worth, trying to barge your way across a lane with motorised vehicles in it carries with it a significant chance of serious injury or death as a cyclist, so I try to give myself every chance of avoiding that. I'm also fully aware of driver behaviour around cyclists in Dublin, as I commute over 100km most week in and out of the city centre, and I factor that into how I cycle, and my comments on here.

Chuchote

Cython, if you're crossing two lanes, and the lane to your right won't let you in, what do you do? Do you stop in the middle of the road, as a car driver does, signalling to the right, and expect the drivers in the lane behind you to pause until someone lets you across, as a car driver does?

cython

Typically if you are looking to cross 2+ lanes, you're probably looking to turn right or something. I've a couple of such places on my commute, specifically (on the way home) turning from High Street towards Bridge Street, getting across the quays to turn right on the bridge at Heuston, and getting across to turn up into the Phoenix Park. I also turn at O'Connell Bridge heading into town, but typically the traffic there is slow moving and jammed up, so not really an issue/challenge. In all three other instances, I achieve it by observing behind me from a couple of hundred metres back from the junction, and looking for a gap. Going hell for leather (40km/h+ if necessary) can help heading for Heuston too to be able to match traffic speeds. Generally there will be such a gap, or the traffic is sufficiently bumper-to-bumper to be able to move between it. I can probably count on one hand the number of times I've had issues (and they have only been at Heuston and because I misjudged the traffic queue and timing), and in those cases I've gone up to the traffic lights, gotten off the road and walked the bike across when they turned. Not an ideal scenario, I'll grant you, and it's regrettable to have to do it, but it is an option nonetheless.

Having said that, I still fail to see the "trouble" or fault you were trying to find with my other post - are you suggesting that cyclists should have right of way over everyone and just be able to move where they want if they indicate? Or what exactly are you proposing that doesn't have such a "trouble"?

CramCycle

cython wrote: »

I can probably count on one hand the number of times I've had issues (and they have only been at Heuston and because I misjudged the traffic queue and timing), and in those cases I've gone up to the traffic lights, gotten off the road and walked the bike across when they turned. Not an ideal scenario, I'll grant you, and it's regrettable to have to do it, but it is an option nonetheless.

Having said that, I still fail to see the "trouble" or fault you were trying to find with my other post - are you suggesting that cyclists should have right of way over everyone and just be able to move where they want if they indicate? Or what exactly are you proposing that doesn't have such a "trouble"?

Its not always possible though, not every road has a set of lights at it's junction (there is one on my commute).

The other is that, as in a car, when I cycle and indicate, someone generally gives you space (not right of way, huge difference). I think the points you and Chucote are largely semantics. Chucote calls it cuorteous right of way, legally what is happening is that other vehicles in the lane have acknowledged the possibility of the maneuvre and have given space for it to occur, they have not seeded right of way, just given space for the maneuvre to occur, as to not do so would be dangerous driving. If I see someone indicating to pull out and it is safe for me to allow it I do, because not to is a huge failing as a driver and a cyclist.

cython

CramCycle wrote: »

Its not always possible though, not every road has a set of lights at it's junction (there is one on my commute).

The other is that, as in a car, when I cycle and indicate, someone generally gives you space (not right of way, huge difference). I think the points you and Chucote are largely semantics. Chucote calls it cuorteous right of way, legally what is happening is that other vehicles in the lane have acknowledged the possibility of the maneuvre and have given space for it to occur, they have not seeded right of way, just given space for the maneuvre to occur, as to not do so would be dangerous driving. If I see someone indicating to pull out and it is safe for me to allow it I do, because not to is a huge failing as a driver and a cyclist.

Agree completely with your description and summary. However the main point that I was trying to make was simply that as a cyclist (as it would be as a driver also) it's also a huge failing to make the assumption that you will be given the space just because you have signalled, or even that your signal has been seen and also heeded, and that a look after you have signalled your intention is also crucial. Hence cyclists not checking their shoulder after signalling and simply trusting other road users have clear scope for improvement in their roadcraft.

2RockMountain

RayCun wrote: »

all along here
https://www.google.ie/maps/dir/53.3086286,-6.259157/53.30802,-6.2544205/53.3104811,-6.2479303/@53.3085131,-6.2546036,17z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e2
including the bit behind the Dropping Well where the path doesn't show up, is not shared use

Is there a route behind the Dropping Well? If so, where does it leave you out?

Chuchote

cython wrote: »

Having said that, I still fail to see the "trouble" or fault you were trying to find with my other post - are you suggesting that cyclists should have right of way over everyone and just be able to move where they want if they indicate? Or what exactly are you proposing that doesn't have such a "trouble"?

Imagining things here. I didn't find any "trouble" or "fault". Unless this is a linguistic problem? "The trouble with this" isn't attacking your statement but saying that there is a problem with the suggested method.

Typically, I'd be crossing at New Bride Street to turn right into Kevin Street.

If I do as you suggest, and go hell for leather, and switch into the right-hand lane early on, drivers freak out and blare their horns, convinced that I'm in the wrong lane. That's dangerous.

If I wait until about 20 feet before the turn, signal for right and try to cross, the drivers often speed up - they're mostly either going ahead or themselves trying to cross into the right-hand-turn lane. Sometimes drivers do cede right of way, but a lot of the time, you're facing a wall of cars.

RayCun

2RockMountain wrote: »

Is there a route behind the Dropping Well? If so, where does it leave you out?

There's a path behind the pub, goes under the bridge, and the next bridge, comes out at O'sheas . Too narrow for shared use and steps in one section. the path on the other side of the river is shared use

Chuchote

RayCun wrote: »

There's a path behind the pub, goes under the bridge, and the next bridge, comes out at O'sheas . Too narrow for shared use and steps in one section. the path on the other side of the river is shared use

Which bank is shared use? The right or left as you're facing downriver (towards the sea)?

RayCun

Chuchote wrote: »

Which bank is shared use? The right or left as you're facing downriver (towards the sea)?

Right

jpm4

I thought it was pretty clear, but if a cyclist is looking to change into, or cross a lane, then they must (as any other vehicle must also) yield right of way to traffic already in that lane, so basically cars in a lane that a cyclist wants to go into or across.

Cyclists have a problem that motorists don't have when changing lanes to get into a position to turn right - when a car does this the car behind going straight ahead will either wait behind the turning car, or move out to the other lane to pass if they can.

If you are doing the same on a bike, the car behind may do as above or else start beeping the horn, cursing and generally frightening the life out of you.

You have no way of knowing in advance which is going to happen so what can you do? Be a reverse Zoolander?

beauf

I've been blocked from merging into a lane as a car driver a lot. I don't think I've ever been blocked as a cyclist. But I'd have to match speed with the traffic. You might have to get in lane a lot earlier on a bicycle. If it's especially fast moving I dismount. In heavy traffic it's usually much slower than the bike though

Firedance

cython wrote: »

Typically if you are looking to cross 2+ lanes, you're probably looking to turn right or something. I've a couple of such places on my commute, specifically (on the way home) turning from High Street towards Bridge Street, getting across the quays to turn right on the bridge at Heuston, and getting across to turn up into the Phoenix Park. I also turn at O'Connell Bridge heading into town, but typically the traffic there is slow moving and jammed up, so not really an issue/challenge. In all three other instances, I achieve it by observing behind me from a couple of hundred metres back from the junction, and looking for a gap. Going hell for leather (40km/h+ if necessary) can help heading for Heuston too to be able to match traffic speeds. Generally there will be such a gap, or the traffic is sufficiently bumper-to-bumper to be able to move between it. I can probably count on one hand the number of times I've had issues (and they have only been at Heuston and because I misjudged the traffic queue and timing), and in those cases I've gone up to the traffic lights, gotten off the road and walked the bike across when they turned. Not an ideal scenario, I'll grant you, and it's regrettable to have to do it, but it is an option nonetheless.

I have those two on my commute home too, the quays one is the scarier of the two and the only time on the bike I ever feel unsafe (except today when some whippersnapper in a supped up yoke almost killed me at Clonsilla ). I stay in the bus lane up along Guinness and then watch the traffic behind me signalling my intent from a long way off as I keep glancing over my shoulder. Usually someone will let me cross although I've had some close encounters with some really ignorant drivers. What's the problem with letting a cyclist across into the lane they want? They're not going to hold you up in any way, or 'take your place' in the traffic Q. Plenty of decent folk out there but equally plenty not. Has anyone ever gone up these quays in the far right lane or is that absolutely not the thing to do here? The phoenix park one is usually easier due to heavier/slower moving traffic.

beauf

Same for me, its the junction I dislike the most. I have seen cyclists on the far right. I tend to stay far left then merge to the left lane going right. But I do it about 2/3 between the bridges. Got knocked off going into the park when the road was empty ironically, except for one taxi. I know a few others that do that Guinness to Park and they don't find it as bad as I do.

2RockMountain

RayCun wrote: »

There's a path behind the pub, goes under the bridge, and the next bridge, comes out at O'sheas . Too narrow for shared use and steps in one section. the path on the other side of the river is shared use

Thanks, yeah, I know that one. I thought you meant there was a path going upriver from the Dropping Well.

RayCun

2RockMountain wrote: »

Thanks, yeah, I know that one. I thought you meant there was a path going upriver from the Dropping Well.

oh, no, isn't there a golf course on the other side of the river?

2RockMountain

RayCun wrote: »

oh, no, isn't there a golf course on the other side of the river?

Yeah, but there is a gate/entrance there behind the Dropping Well, so I was wondering if there was a route through that way.