Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

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.

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.

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

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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 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.

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
51970e1720fbb135547b6984d1b8dc3f--carpet-layers-funny-tanks.jpg

51970e1720fbb135547b6984d1b8dc3f--carpet-layers-funny-tanks.jpg

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.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

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

Er, roads and streets?

^ and footpaths.

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.

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

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)

Casey78

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.

And we have gone full circle again!

Spook_ie wrote: »

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

Not good enough so.

Podge_irl

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

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

Yield signs are normal for cycle lanes in Ireland, cause cycle lanes in Ireland are utterly useless. The idea that the person on the main road should have to yield to people coming out of side streets or private property is utterly asinine. Not least because the person coming out of the side entrances has no priority onto the road so will have to just sit there blocking the cycle path until they can proceed onto the road.

DoraDelite wrote: »

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)

SUV's can cause serious, SERIOUS injuries!

#https://twitter.com/Cycliq/status/1258269135840174080?s=20

https://upride.cc/incident/his-by-distracted-legally-blind-driver/

07Lapierre wrote: »

SUV's can cause serious, SERIOUS injuries!

#https://twitter.com/Cycliq/status/1258269135840174080?s=20

Yep but then again so can

Hit by distracted legally blind driver

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yep but then again so can

https://upride.cc/incident/his-by-distracted-legally-blind-driver/

if he had been driving a regular car, like a Mondeo or passat, The impact would have been lower. A "normal" car would have taken the bike out from under the cyclists and the impact would have been spread over a larger area. As you can see from the video, the SUV smashed into the cyclist at waist/above waist height. crushed pelvis/cracked crushed vertebrae are among the most obvious injuries. as the article says.. the cyclists are "recovering". this is true..its a long. long road to rehabilitation. they are lucky to be alive.

As for the fact that the driver was legally blind? well, that's a different discussion.