Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

Spook_ie

Hurrache wrote: »

Doesn't look the safest of playgrounds, still I suppose if anything happened it will be the farmer's insurance that will pay out.

07Lapierre

07Lapierre wrote: »

Nice smooth black tarmac is not what makes a good bike/shared pedestrian pavement.

A dedicated, nice smooth, large and straight route doesn't work for you? What exactly is it missing?

Spook_ie

Hurrache wrote: »

And therein lies the problem, doesn't it? Why would you use one littered with yield signs over an adjacent road?

Why would you be asking about parked cars in a video about yield signs ( which had no effect on the cyclist as there was nothing to yield to! )

Hurrache

Hurrache wrote: »

And therein lies the problem, doesn't it? Why would you use one littered with yield signs over an adjacent road?

Accepted. But that's as I said, normal. I expected something different from the video and when I asked for clarification was accused of being blind because I couldn't see a **** load of invisible cars apparently.

I then asked if I Andrew was watching the same video as me and instead of getting clarification, I recieved another snotty answer.

Presumable Andrew was mistaken but can't admit that because that would make his original smart arse reply look silly.

Spook_ie

07Lapierre wrote: »

This might help the penny drop!

https://twitter.com/juststepsways/status/1278777179317456899?s=21

Ah I see, he was looking for somewhere to do a U Turn, penny dropped, though why he didn't do it at the lights he stopped for somewhat confuses the issue!

AndrewJRenko

Spook_ie wrote: »

I drive on whichever roads get to my destination and follow the road traffic rules as I do it. Don't you?

Have you ever driven on a road with that many Yield signs within that distance?

AndrewJRenko

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

No, that's not what you said, you said cars parked.

Yield signs are just normal for cycle lanes. Nothing strange or exciting about the video if that's what it's about

The 'parked cars' reference was a little joke on the inability of certain people to see anything on the road unless it is plastered with hi-vis. Sorry if that went over your head.

This number of yield signs over such a short distance is far from normal. Did you really need someone to spell that out for you?

Why not have the Yield signs facing the traffic exiting and entering, so each user faces one yield sign instead of one road user facing 20 odd signs?

Spook_ie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Have you ever driven on a road with that many Yield signs within that distance?

I drive on roads that have yield signs, I yield at them when it's best to do so. I also drive on roads with many unmarked junctions in housing estates that dont have yield signs in any direction and treat them as yield signs.

AndrewJRenko

Spook_ie wrote: »

I drive on roads that have yield signs, I yield at them when it's best to do so. I also drive on roads with many unmarked junctions in housing estates that dont have yield signs in any direction and treat them as yield signs.

You don't seem to have answered my question.

Spook_ie

I answered it, you're just ignoring (as usual ) the answer.

Hurrache

Spook_ie wrote: »

I drive on roads that have yield signs, I yield at them when it's best to do so. I also drive on roads with many unmarked junctions in housing estates that dont have yield signs in any direction and treat them as yield signs.

You don't drive on any roads in which you have to yield at every drive way entrance/exit or turn.

Hurrache

Hurrache wrote: »

And therein lies the problem, doesn't it? Why would you use one littered with yield signs over an adjacent road?

Just get on the footpath like everyone else. No inconvenient signage or "rules" (LOL) there at all.

That's using the old noggin that is.

AndrewJRenko

Spook_ie wrote: »

I answered it, you're just ignoring (as usual ) the answer.

So the answer is no - you've never driven on a road with that many Yield signs within a short distance. Thanks for confirming.

^ There he is there now.

Hurrache

ecoli3136 wrote: »

Just get on the footpath like everyone else. No inconvenient signage or "rules" (LOL) there at all.

That's using the old noggin that is.

This thread just swallowed itself into a black hole. It'll be studied for years by CERN.

07Lapierre

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

A dedicated, nice smooth, large and straight route doesn't work for you? What exactly is it missing?

Whats missing is :
1: Once on it, cyclists lose right-of-way at every junction
2: its a shared cycle pathway not a dedicated cycle lane (granted not too big a deal as their are rarely peds on it!)
3: to use it legally, it ends at a pedestrian crossing, which means i'd have to dismount, press the button to cross the road. to do otherwise all the motorists would simply see a lycra clad tour de france wannabie breaking tthe ROTR!.
4: the tarmac in the bus lane is just as straight and just as smooth.

Spook_ie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So the answer is no - you've never driven on a road with that many Yield signs within a short distance. Thanks for confirming.

Do you have to have a yield sign to indicate when you should yield, if so I'd say that you are a dangerous road user.

No the yield signs are needed so they don't have to use the cycle path, not to make them actually yield, as I understand it.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The 'parked cars' reference was a little joke on the inability of certain people to see anything on the road unless it is plastered with hi-vis. Sorry if that went over your head.

This number of yield signs over such a short distance is far from normal. Did you really need someone to spell that out for you?

Why not have the Yield signs facing the traffic exiting and entering, so each user faces one yield sign instead of one road user facing 20 odd signs?

So, a smart reply.

That many yields completely depends on where now doesn't it? Cycling through an industrial estate will have plenty.

Get off your high horse Andrew and spend just a little time with us less intelligent people. You are coming across like the cycling version of adda now

07Lapierre

07Lapierre wrote: »

Whats missing is :
1: Once on it, cyclists lose right-of-way at every junction
2: its a shared cycle pathway not a dedicated cycle lane (granted not too big a deal as their are rarely peds on it!)
3: to use it legally, it ends at a pedestrian crossing, which means i'd have to dismount, press the button to cross the road. to do otherwise all the motorists would simply see a lycra clad tour de france wannabie breaking tthe ROTR!.
4: the tarmac in the bus lane is just as straight and just as smooth.

1. The only junction between the old airport road and the first entrance is the entrance to kealys.. Completely straight run apart from that. The bus Lane meets more junctions.

2. It's massive. You could fit a two way system and still have space.

3. It actually continues into the airport and around. You could join the road and wait for a green light instead.

4. Not really, it's not tarmac for starters and has been maintained that well.

You aren't being realistic. You want a large dedicated cycle Lane from your front door to everywhere? Pedestrians meet junctions, cars meet junctions and guess what, cyclists meet junctions.

Our entire transport system meets junctions and overlaps. I haven't cycled all over the world but I have in a few places across Europe. They also share paths and meet junctions. Maybe not as much but still happens.

Spook_ie

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

1. The only junction between the old airport road and the first entrance is the entrance to kealys.. Completely straight run apart from that. The bus Lane meets more junctions.

2. It's massive. You could fit a two way system and still have space.

3. It actually continues into the airport and around. You could join the road and wait for a green light instead.

4. Not really, it's not tarmac for starters and has been maintained that well.

You aren't being realistic. You want a large dedicated cycle Lane from your front door to everywhere? Pedestrians meet junctions, cars meet junctions and guess what, cyclists meet junctions.

Our entire transport system meets junctions and overlaps. I haven't cycled all over the world but I have in a few places across Europe. They also share paths and meet junctions. Maybe not as much but still happens.

Perhaps they are looking for some variant of this, adapted to a bicycle that lays down their personal dedicated cycle lane that also picks it back up after they've cycled on it

07Lapierre

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

1. The only junction between the old airport road and the first entrance is the entrance to kealys.. Completely straight run apart from that. The bus Lane meets more junctions.

2. It's massive. You could fit a two way system and still have space.

3. It actually continues into the airport and around. You could join the road and wait for a green light instead.

4. Not really, it's not tarmac for starters and has been maintained that well.

You aren't being realistic. You want a large dedicated cycle Lane from your front door to everywhere? Pedestrians meet junctions, cars meet junctions and guess what, cyclists meet junctions.

Our entire transport system meets junctions and overlaps. I haven't cycled all over the world but I have in a few places across Europe. They also share paths and meet junctions. Maybe not as much but still happens.

Kealys, the Airport entrance at ALSAA and the Airport entrance/exit at the Coachmans ?

I could join the road? penny beginning to drop?

Hows your "bunny hopping" skills?

https://goo.gl/maps/hwXoC5wB9CjqMnoN6

"You want a large dedicated cycle Lane from your front door to everywhere?" I already have this..their called ROADS.

Hurrache

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

You want a large dedicated cycle Lane from your front door to everywhere?

Er, roads and streets?

^ and footpaths.

Hurrache

ecoli3136 wrote: »

^ and footpaths.

Only if you want to pull a wheelie, it would be madness to do that on a road.

FinnC

ecoli3136 wrote: »

^ and footpaths.

That made me laugh in fairness!

Pinch Flat

ecoli3136 wrote: »

^ and footpaths.

yep. and cycling with kids. Some older folks as well. Just generally cyclists who feel too intimidated to use the roads due to aggressive drivers.

07Lapierre

Spook_ie wrote: »

Perhaps they are looking for some variant of this, adapted to a bicycle that lays down their personal dedicated cycle lane that also picks it back up after they've cycled on it

Yes that's it... lay it along every road. A bit like a "Hard Shoulder" only with a physical barrier between me and the cars/HGV's doing 100+kph. Thanks

Spook_ie

07Lapierre wrote: »

Yes that's it... lay it along every road. A bit like a "Hard Shoulder" only with a physical barrier between me and the cars/HGV's doing 100+kph. Thanks

You don't need to lay it along all the roads, the idea is you take it with you.

DoraDelite

Pinch Flat wrote: »

yep. and cycling with kids. Some older folks as well. Just generally cyclists who feel too intimidated to use the roads due to aggressive drivers.

Shame the footpaths are also taken up with those same aggressive drivers.

Walking past this today on a very busy pedestrian route between Drumcondra and Fairview. The bonnet of this tank was about 10cm off the height of my shoulder (I'm 166cm). In the wrong set of circumstances, when the driver of this tank moves off from their free parking spot, there is seriously potential not to even see a child in front of them and run them over. The risk of this is reasonable given the massive blind spot due to the height of the vehicle and also the fact this route is so busy for peds. No doubt if this happens, "tragic accident" will be rolled out as par for the course, even though there's nothing accidental about creating a situation where there is a deliberate increase in risk to a child getting killed.

What I want to see is:
- Cars off footpaths: Zero tolerance, pedestrian space is already limited and the dominance of vehicles in this space is ridiculous.
- Safe cycle infra so people cycling don't feel they need to be on a footpath to be safer
- Zero tolerance for aggressive driving (speeding, road rage, dangerous driving)