nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

KwackerJack

Driving in the dark with no lights.......the amount of people who drive around after dark with no lights on is scary!! Do they not realised that their instrument cluster does not display the headlight symbol or can they even understand the displays!

Cyclists and red lights......Heading past Connolly station, passsd the Luas tracks and stopped at red lights between the IFSC and Busaras, 3 cyclists go by and one neary gets run over by a van coming from the right, the little suicide jockey then gives out to the van for not seeing him.....am I missing something here or red lights the new green??

What are your most irritating road issues?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

NiallBoo

RayM wrote: »

But that's what it's called

If I were you, I'd start running now.

WestWicklow1

martingriff wrote: »

At night people parked at the side of the road with there full light on. Put on park light

Agree. Not only that but a***h***s parked on your side, facing you, with either dipped or full lights on.

secondrowgal

Probably been done to death, but Daylight Running Lights are (CLUE IS IN THE NAME!) for the (shock, horror) daytime only! They are not a substitute for dimmed headlights at night, on the motorway, in the fog, you absolute gob****es!!!

mikeymouse

WestWicklow1 wrote: »

Agree. Not only that but a***h***s parked on your side, facing you, with either dipped or full lights on.

I had a near miss with one of these on an straight stretch of unmarked road,
I don't know who got the bigger fright !

dan1895

A short drive to the shops and back last night and I observed 4 drivers at different junctions break red lights. I was only in the car for about 20 minutes in total.

JillyQ

Fools who don't know or aren't capable of using fog lights correctly. Also the muppets who park in the disabled parking bays with no blue badge displayed, they should be automatically clamped with at least a €100 release fee and a few points on there licence.

Kamili

I think the biggest thing has to be having all these motoring "laws" that aren't enforced.

Others have said it tenfold here - Mobile phone usage is a joke.

Carpentry

cyclists cycling in pairs slowing down the entire traffic, impossible to overtake.

Seth Brundle

Carpentry wrote: »

cyclists cycling in pairs slowing down the entire traffic, impossible to overtake.

Sigh.
If you can't overtake two then it probably isn't safe to overtake one.
Cyclists legally have as much right to occupy the road as you do!
Anyhow, if you're in that much of a hurry then leave earlier!

Carpentry

kbannon wrote: »

Sigh.
If you can't overtake two then it probably isn't safe to overtake one.
Cyclists legally have as much right to occupy the road as you do!
Anyhow, if you're in that much of a hurry then leave earlier!

I dont think you know what you're talking about

If there is a cyclist in cycle lane, you can easily and safely overtake. How would you overtake when there is another cyclist in the middle of the road next ho him/her ?

ScumLord

Since when did 80kph become the national speed limit? Absolutely everyone seems to have started driving at this speed now.

Seth Brundle

Carpentry wrote: »

I dont think you know what you're talking about

If there is a cyclist in cycle lane, you can easily and safely overtake. How would you overtake when there is another cyclist in the middle of the road next ho him/her ?

Hang on. You are now bringing cycle lanes into this which tou didn't previously refer to.
On the road, you give at least 1.5 m to overtake a cyclist. This means that you will have to travel in part on the other side of the road.
If you were trying to pass two cyclists at this spot and it was dangerous then in all likelihood it would be dangerous to overtake one cyclist.

Carpentry

kbannon wrote: »

Hang on. You are now bringing cycle lanes into this which tou didn't previously refer to.
On the road, you give at least 1.5 m to overtake a cyclist. This means that you will have to travel in part on the other side of the road.
If you were trying to pass two cyclists at this spot and it was dangerous then in all likelihood it would be dangerous to overtake one cyclist.

Why did you assume that I am talking about the road without cycle lane ?

1.5 m when overtaking cyclist that is already taking 1.5 m road width is still possible, but 2 cyclists usually takes half of the road. You can argue, but taking up all space isn't really thoughtful, its like driving in the middle of the road.

frozenfrozen

to be fair kbannon he said making it impossible to overtake, not dangerous to overtake. It would be different if he said something like ugh I hate having to nearly knock bikes off while overtaking them because they're 2 a breath but he very clearly said "slowing down the entire traffic, impossible to overtake."

so maybe leave it off rather than both of you getting into a new argument re: cycle lanes etc

Pinch Flat

Carpentry wrote: »

I dont think you know what you're talking about

If there is a cyclist in cycle lane, you can easily and safely overtake. How would you overtake when there is another cyclist in the middle of the road next ho him/her ?

Depends on the road - a bike is about 600mm wide, allowing a few hundred mm between each bike, the maximum cyclists 2 abreast will take up is about 1.5m on a road. So maybe when faced with cyclists 2 abreast on a narrow road, those is a car should wait until it's safe to do so?

The amount of people that don't understand that cyclists can legally cycle 2 abreast is pretty unreal - it;'s part of our legislation since the 1960s.

As an example, we had 3 motorists abuse us last Monday on the Dunshaughlin to Summerhill Road - a group of 5 or six of us, all double abreast.

Apparently it was easier (in their mind) to abuse us from behind with their horn, continue to abuse us as they passed (one too kthe time to unwind his window and verbally abuse us), then pull in sharply in front of us - some into oncoming traffic that had to slow down to cater for their crazy overtaking maneuvers.

NiallBoo

ScumLord wrote: »

Since when did 80kph become the national speed limit? Absolutely everyone seems to have started driving at this speed now.

Well...that is the speed limit on most of our roads.

NiallBoo

Carpentry wrote: »

Why did you assume that I am talking about the road without cycle lane ?

You did a bit of a bait-and-switch in fairness.

Anyone reading your earlier post would assume it's a standard road - without cycle lanes.

Carpentry

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Depends on the road - a bike is about 600mm wide, allowing a few hundred mm between each bike, the maximum cyclists 2 abreast will take up is about 1.5m on a road. So maybe when faced with cyclists 2 abreast on a narrow road, those is a car should wait until it's safe to do so?

The amount of people that don't understand that cyclists can legally cycle 2 abreast is pretty unreal - it;'s part of our legislation since the 1960s.

As an example, we had 3 motorists abuse us last Monday on the Dunshaughlin to Summerhill Road - a group of 5 or six of us, all double abreast.

Apparently it was easier (in their mind) to abuse us from behind with their horn, continue to abuse us as they passed (one too kthe time to unwind his window and verbally abuse us), then pull in sharply in front of us - some into oncoming traffic that had to slow down to cater for their crazy overtaking maneuvers.

Never said this is illegal, but the title says "Road issues that irritate me......."

This is what irritates me.

When I cycle next to my wife and hear car coming from behind I simply move behind her and let the car pass. Its doable.

Carpentry

Carpentry wrote: »

cyclists cycling in pairs slowing down the entire traffic, impossible to overtake.

NiallBoo wrote: »

You did a bit of a bait-and-switch in fairness.

Anyone reading your earlier post would assume it's a standard road - without cycle lanes.

How would you assume that ? What, where, why ?

NiallBoo

Carpentry wrote: »

When I cycle next to my wife and hear car coming from behind I simply move behind her and let the car pass. Its doable.

If there's a cycle lane, then great. I'd do that too.

If there isn't then you're making it harder for someone to overtake you safely.

Pinch Flat

Carpentry wrote: »

Never said this is illegal, but the title says "Road issues that irritate me......."

This is what irritates me.

When I cycle next to my wife and hear car coming from behind I simply move behind her and let the car pass. Its doable.

True, we'll single up as a group when it's safe to do so, and it doesn't invite a dangerous overtaking maneuver.

What irritates me is that drivers approach fast from behind, then use their horns to abuse us as they pass. Not just irritating, but illegal as well.

NiallBoo

Carpentry wrote: »

How would you assume that ? What, where, why ?

Because it's the much more likely scenario.

Carpentry

NiallBoo wrote: »

Because it's the much more likely scenario.

Still honestly cannot see how ?

Carpentry

Pinch Flat wrote: »

True, we'll single up as a group when it's safe to do so, and it doesn't invite a dangerous overtaking maneuver.

What irritates me is that drivers approach fast from behind, then use their horns to abuse us as they pass. Not just irritating, but illegal as well.

I witnessed that as both driver and cyclist, so fcuking stupid.

[Deleted User]

Carpentry wrote: »

cyclists cycling in pairs slowing down the entire traffic, impossible to overtake.

How much time to you spend stuck behind cyclists in pairs compared to the time you spend stuck behind the car in front?

NiallBoo

Carpentry wrote: »

Still honestly cannot see how?

The overwhelming majority of the road network doesn't have cycle lanes.

Carpentry

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

How much time to you spend stuck behind cyclists in pairs compared to the time you spend stuck behind the car in front?

If you compare possible speeds of both you have the answer.

[Deleted User]

Carpentry wrote: »

When I cycle next to my wife and hear car coming from behind I simply move behind her and let the car pass. Its doable.

Doable, and with the added bonus that it generally encourages dangerous overtaking. Passing two cyclists side by side is generally easier that two in single file, as it is a shorter obstruction to pass.

Do you do the same in busy traffic when you see a cycling coming up behind? Do you move over to let the faster cyclist through?

astrofool

Pinch Flat wrote: »

The amount of people that don't understand that cyclists can legally cycle 2 abreast is pretty unreal - it;'s part of our legislation since the 1960s.

I think this is where road etiquette comes in, and the cyclists should switch to single file to allow traffic through at regular intervals, just as a farmer driving a tractor should, and just as a car will give way to other cars.

This also means it can happen when safe to do so, and reduces the risk of an accident by the idiot who was beeping you and then braking heavily in front of you. Yes you were technically in the right, but did you have to risk a crash to prove your point? Same idiot will just do the same next week, had you gone single file, that idiot may learn something about road etiquette themselves and be more allowing of cyclists the following week.

[Deleted User]

Carpentry wrote: »

If you compare possible speeds of both you have the answer.

Except that 'possible speeds' are of no relevance in busy traffic. But it is interesting to see that you avoid the answer.