Road issues that irritate me.......

The_Valeyard

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

How's that 'training before you go in the roads' working out for preventing the drivers who kill 4 or 5 people every week? You know, the ones we see breaking red lights, speeding, driving with phones in their hand every day?



Motorists don't drive on the footpath? Somebody should tell this guy:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/drivers-lucky-escape-after-terrifying-dublin-car-crash-35388559.html

But maybe that great regime of mandatory testing / training / insurance would prevent such crashes? Or should we just issue hi-vis vests to every hedge in the country?

I reported two separate spots of broken glass on the road (not cycle lane - road) to Dun Laoghaire Rathdown, one last week, one 3-4 weeks ago. Broken glass is still there. Your 'little truck' does not respond to reports from cyclists. It also doesn't reach many cycle paths, depending on their design.

It also only addresses one of the many problems with cycle paths. It doesn't stop pedestrians from dawdling across cycle paths, sometimes with their extendable dog lead stretched across the path like the old Nazi piano wire trick. It doesn't stop the crap design of some cycle lanes that just stop - no dished kerb to get back onto the road - the 'road to nowhere' cycle lanes - or the ones that lead into the precise position where drivers don't expect to see cyclists at junctions - or the ones where the cycle path has been dished at each house (like Leopardstown Road) creating a roller-coaster up-down effect for cyclists.

Are you starting to see the issue, or do I need to keep going?




How's that mandatory training and testing working out for ensuring motorists obey the rules of the road? Is there any chance you could be specific on what problem your new regime would actually fix (in the light of the high level of road deaths so far this year, all of whom were killed by motorists).

Okay so, let's get rid of it for drivers then. No need.

AndrewJRenko

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Okay so, let's get rid of it for drivers then. No need.

Given what we see on the road every day, would it make a whole lot of difference?

Jimoslimos

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Depth as with width is important.

What??

Explain so and while you're at it explain (or at least google) why car tyres are required to have minimum tread please. This will also explain why it isn't necessary on a bicycle.

Jimoslimos

To try steer the topic back on track, I'll list some of my major annoyances:

As a cyclist:
Potholes
Sunken drains
Manhole covers located at junctions (where I'm turning)
Drivers passing too close
Dangerous and inadequate cycle lanes.

As a motorist:
Blocking yellow box junctions
DRLs only at night
Trucks/lorries overtaking each other at a snails pace on a dual carriageway
Poor parking - supermarkets are the worst for this
Cyclists...with their fancy bikes overtaking me while I'm stuck in traffic - usually cos some fool is blocking the yellow box junction

mikeymouse

Jimoslimos wrote: »

To try steer the topic back on track, I'll list some of my major annoyances:

As a cyclist:
Potholes
Sunken drains
Manhole covers located at junctions (where I'm turning)
Drivers passing too close
Dangerous and inadequate cycle lanes.

As a motorist:
Blocking yellow box junctions
DRLs only at night
Trucks/lorries overtaking each other at a snails pace on a dual carriageway
Poor parking - supermarkets are the worst for this
Cyclists...with their fancy bikes overtaking me while I'm stuck in traffic - usually cos some fool is blocking the yellow box junction

Jeeps and other large wheeled vehicles with their wheels in the fully locked position after reversing into bay.

seamus

What drives me mad is the incredible accordion effect you see at lights when cars are pulling away. Everyone can see the lights, everyone should be ready to go. There's no good reason for a 20m gap to open up between you and the car in front because you waited for them to pull away before you got into gear and released your handbrake.

It's the difference between 3 cars getting through the lights and ten cars getting through.

The_Valeyard

Jimoslimos wrote: »

What??

Explain so and while you're at it explain (or at least google) why car tyres are required to have minimum tread please. This will also explain why it isn't necessary on a bicycle.

Ah ffs, would you ever cop on with your posts, you know what I mean. :rolleyes:

The_Valeyard

WestWicklow1 wrote: »

Hey mod any hope of doing something about the sh1te in this thread?

Every time I get interested in a thread on boards it turns into aul wans with hand bags.

Why the fukc do I bother me arse with boards in the first place?

Be happy this isnt in a certain other forum where if you criticise the Gods of cycling you get carded faster than a cyclist breaking a red light.

Seth Brundle

seamus wrote: »

What drives me mad is the incredible accordion effect you see at lights when cars are pulling away. Everyone can see the lights, everyone should be ready to go. There's no good reason for a 20m gap to open up between you and the car in front because you waited for them to pull away before you got into gear and released your handbrake.

It's the difference between 3 cars getting through the lights and ten cars getting through.

So when are people supposed to check their Facebook account?

JillyQ

seamus wrote: »

What drives me mad is the incredible accordion effect you see at lights when cars are pulling away. Everyone can see the lights, everyone should be ready to go. There's no good reason for a 20m gap to open up between you and the car in front because you waited for them to pull away before you got into gear and released your handbrake.

It's the difference between 3 cars getting through the lights and ten cars getting through.

You and me both. Had one of these fools a couple of weeks ago stuck in a long line of traffic turning right was about 10 cars back on the first turn didn't make it was about 3 cars back the second time soon as the lights turned green the second car and me blew our horns.

The_Valeyard

The breaking of a car when another car passes by them on the other side of the road is annoying.

Fian

pablo128 wrote: »

You are out cycling on public roads with slick tyres?

Just to explain - tread depth is meaningless on a bicycle. Tread depth on a car tyre prevents aquaplaning by giving the water somewhere to escape to rather than forming a film between the tyres and the road.

Bicycle tyres, because they are much narrower and because they are round rather than flat like the surface of a car tyre, displace water to the sides of the center of the tyre. So for bikes slick tyres are safer and less slippy than tyres with treads.

Now you might doubt this because no doubt you have seen some bicycle tyres (normally not on "road" bikes) which have tyre treads. why would they go the the trouble of putting treads on the tyres if they were actually counterproductive? The answer is straightforward if a little depressing - they do it because people instinctively think that tyres with treads are safer in the wet. So the tread is a marketing tool only, they include it because people will buy it thinking it is safer.

Edit: Tyres for off road (mountain bike and cyclocross tyres) do absolutely need treads- for gripping in muddy conditions rather than for dealing with standing water.

Calahonda52

The_Valeyard wrote: »

The breaking of a car when another car passes by them on the other side of the road is annoying.

This is always worth a look, however as for braking, sin ceil mile:D

Fian wrote: »

Just to explain - tread depth is meaningless on a bicycle. Tread depth on a car tyre prevents aquaplaning by giving the water somewhere to escape to rather than forming a film between the tyres and the road.

Bicycle tyres, because they are much narrower and because they are round rather than flat like the surface of a car tyre, displace water to the sides of the center of the tyre. So for bikes slick tyres are safer and less slippy than tyres with treads.

Now you might doubt this because no doubt you have seen some bicycle tyres (normally not on "road" bikes) which have tyre treads. why would they go the the trouble of putting treads on the tyres if they were actually counterproductive? The answer is straightforward if a little depressing - they do it because people instinctively think that tyres with treads are safer in the wet. So the tread is a marketing tool only, they include it because people will buy it thinking it is safer.

This argument may, and its only a may, hold water for the specific case for water on good quality road surfaces, and cannot be pawned off as purely a marketing tool.

wherearemykeys

Tractors going at a snails pace, carrying 40 bales of silage, making it near impossible to overtake them when on a country road. People out walking on roads that are clearing not suitable for pedestrians. If you have to climb a ditch to avoid a car, then that road is clearly not suitable for walking. Don't get me started on people who walk their dogs or worse still, their children on said roads.

degsie

Cars who instinctively brake when another car is approaching them on a single carriageway, even on straight sections. I have dubbed this OCD (Oncoming Car Detection) and it drives me nuts :mad:

Viscount Aggro

What about indicators? At least half of all road users dont bother their hole using indicators. Especially dangerous on roundabouts. Whats the law on this? I seem to be in a minority, a do-gooder, when I indicate while going around a corner.

GritBiscuit

I'm generally a pretty calm driver but I do get annoyed when there's a junction where a side road joins a fast single-lane road at an angle and drivers - who clearly have zero clutch control or ability to accelerate quickly nevermind look in their mirrors - ignore the "Give Way" signs and decide they're actually on a priority filter road and should propel themselves in front of traffic moving at 80-100kpm who then have to slam on the breaks, rather than wait for a suitable gap in the traffic.

ohnonotgmail

the two people who tried to run me off the road on my way to work this morning.

first eejit:

Coming up to a two lane roundabout. i was in the left lane because i was taking the second exit. there was a van in the right lane. just as we get to the roundabout he sticks on his left indicators and drives in front of me to take the first exit. cue much braking from me.

second eejit:

a woman in a big white jeep type yoke who decided to change lane in to my lane without checking if there was somebody already there. luckily i copped what she was doing and sped up to get out of her way. Of course when i looked back she was on the phone.

degsie

Traffic light creepers! Edging forward past the stop line DOES NOT make the lights change any faster.

Kintarō Hattori

I honestly don't get it- people who flash their full beams on a motorway when there's nothing actually wrong.

I was coming home on the M50 yesterday and at one point the car behind me turned on his full beams then after a few seconds turned them off. No worries says I, he must have hit it by accident.
A little further up the road and they flash on again. At this stage I'm thinking he must be trying to tell me something so I look around to make sure I hadn't somehow left my lights off- nope. I'm then thinking maybe my rear lights haven't come on for some reason.
Cue a third flash and I'm thinking maybe I should pull in on the hard shoulder and check my lights. Eventually the traffic thins out and I get up to 100kph but I can see he's moving further and further back.... sticking to 80kpn or less. When I get home I get out of the car and check all the lights are working. Everything is fine...... they were just being a dick.

Deer

The attitude to roundabouts in my town. I don't just use caution I use extreme caution because there is always some twonk zooming through without looking, or in the wrong lane and not indicating. It now explains why my car insurance went up when I moved here.

pablo128

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

I honestly don't get it- people who flash their full beams on a motorway when there's nothing actually wrong.

I was coming home on the M50 yesterday and at one point the car behind me turned on his full beams then after a few seconds turned them off. No worries says I, he must have hit it by accident.
A little further up the road and they flash on again. At this stage I'm thinking he must be trying to tell me something so I look around to make sure I hadn't somehow left my lights off- nope. I'm then thinking maybe my rear lights haven't come on for some reason.
Cue a third flash and I'm thinking maybe I should pull in on the hard shoulder and check my lights. Eventually the traffic thins out and I get up to 100kph but I can see he's moving further and further back.... sticking to 80kpn or less. When I get home I get out of the car and check all the lights are working. Everything is fine...... they were just being a dick.

I had that recently. In fact we came to a stop side by side at a junction and I asked him why he was flashing me. He apologised and told me there was a problem with the headlights. I can only assume it was an aftermarket HID kit.

dr.fuzzenstein

wherearemykeys wrote: »

Tractors going at a snails pace, carrying 40 bales of silage, making it near impossible to overtake them when on a country road. People out walking on roads that are clearing not suitable for pedestrians. If you have to climb a ditch to avoid a car, then that road is clearly not suitable for walking. Don't get me started on people who walk their dogs or worse still, their children on said roads.

It has to be said though, I moved back to Germany and it was a revelation. You have the motorway, the main road, the cycle lane beside the road (actually separated from the main road by a good bit, well maintained and cyclists do use it) and a lot of backroads that don't allow cars or only locals and you can walk the length of the country without having to cross a main road.
In Ireland there's one road and it will have to do for cars, trucks, buses, pedestrians, cyclists, tractors, livestock and of course dogs and prams. This would be locally, it has been improved somewhat by motorways, but in Ireland it would never occur to anyone to walk or cycle from one town to the next, because it's genuinely dangerous. There is usually no hard shoulder and walls and fences right up beside the road. And certainly no little road beside the main one that pedestrians and cyclists could use. And how would there be? The farmers would have a fit if you went near their land.
How hundreds of people aren't killed every single week is astonishing.
I could walk or cycle to any of the surrounding villages here without having to share any space with main traffic, except for in the village itself and not even there for some of it.

The problem in Ireland is that the entire infrastructure has been designed by drunk people on the back of napkins in pubs. I'm not talking recently, this has been going on for the last 100 years. There have been attempts at fixing this with cycle paths (well, paint) and motorways, but its like trying to fix a wedding cake that fell off the back of a truck from a great height and then was reversed over by said truck.

Gavinz

WestWicklow1 wrote: »

Hey mod any hope of doing something about the sh1te in this thread?

Every time I get interested in a thread on boards it turns into aul wans with hand bags.

Why the fukc do I bother me arse with boards in the first place?

100% agree with this.

Every thread decends into ****ty bickering and kills itself.

There are some awful boring, nit-picking, multi-quoting bastards here tbh.

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

I'm sure it's been mentioned already. My pet hate... idiots 'driving' in the middle lane of a 3 lane motorway (left lane is free/empty). M50 *cough* Worse again... idiots in the middle lane doing 60-80kph. M50 *cough*

Get the f**k off the road or move the f**k over to the left most lane. *GRRRRR* :mad: :mad: :mad:

degsie

Gavinz wrote: »

100% agree with this.

Gavinz wrote: »

Every thread decends into ****ty bickering and kills itself.

Gavinz wrote: »

There are some awful boring, nit-picking, multi-quoting bastards here tbh.

Totally not true.

Pinch Flat

degsie wrote: »

Totally not true.

I agree

Gavinz wrote: »

100% agree with this.

Please see post above

degsie wrote: »

Every thread decends into ****ty bickering and kills itself.

It is after hours after all. Motors thread is this way >>>> http://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?query=motors

degsie wrote: »

There are some awful boring, nit-picking, multi-quoting bastards here tbh.

outrageous accusation

:pac::pac::pac::)

The_Valeyard

Pinch Flat wrote: »

It is after hours after all. Motors thread is this way >>>> http://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?query=motors

Arse!

At least in AH you can talk about motoring issues without getting carded by cycle Stasi folk. AH allows for a wide range of free thinking opinion, not just those acceptable by certain folk

degsie

Pinch Flat wrote: »

There are some awful boring, nit-picking, multi-quoting bastards here tbh

Disagree

fg1406

Pedestrians and cyclists without hi-vis clothing (and in the case cyclists without lights). I live opposite a secondary school and during the winter months I can't believe the amount of kids cycling on the road in the dark with no lights at all or no hi-vis/reflective gear. I met a man walking his dog this morning at 7:30 on a dark country road while I was driving to work, wearing black from head to toe.