Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

07Lapierre wrote: »

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.

Have to disagree with you on that, a lower bonnet would likely have lifted them into the air( like a wedge ) and just as bad injuries, my opinion anyway

Spook_ie wrote: »

Have to disagree with you on that, a lower bonnet would likely have lifted them into the air( like a wedge ) and just as bad injuries, my opinion anyway

Fair enough...hopefully i never find out either way. We can probably agreed on the fact that the driver was blind so Hi-viz/day glow makes feck all difference. Also the speed and severity of the incident also means helmets in this case were useless too.

07Lapierre wrote: »

Fair enough...hopefully i never find out either way. We can probably agreed on the fact that the driver was blind so Hi-viz/day glow makes feck all difference. Also the speed and severity of the incident also means helmets in this case were useless too.

Unknown, can't find a link detailing the injuries, so factor of head hitting road or part of vehicle is uncertain in type of injuries caused, avoided or mitigated.

Hurrache wrote: »

Er, roads and streets?

They don't have junctions that you need to give right of way at?

The beef raised is having to give right of way. This occurs in the path, cycle lanes or roads. Correct?

Spook_ie wrote: »

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.

Nice shifting of goalposts there. Are you suggesting that all Yield signs are removed now?

Podge_irl wrote: »

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.

As I said above, cycle lanes intersect with roads in other countries too. There's really no alternative.

From my door to my work, regardless of mode of transport or route, I need to stop and yield to others. Actually, using the cycle Lane helps me avoid some of the lights.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

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

No, you won't see that many Yields within such a short distance for motorists in any industrial estate or anywhere else
But some gob****e thought it was good enough for cyclists. And you had to get the problem spelled out for you?

07Lapierre wrote: »

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.

And using the road along the same route, you will encounter traffic lights at those exact same locations plus 2 pedestrian crossings which you can bypass using the cycle Lane.

There's also ample slope to safely enter and exit.

Again I repeat, there's no more of transport that allows you to go straight from A to B without having to yield to others at some point so again I ask, what is the realistic option?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

No, you won't see that many Yields within such a short distance for motorists in any industrial estate or anywhere else
But some gob****e thought it was good enough for cyclists. And you had to get the problem spelled out for you?

Pedestrians don't seem aggrieved and again, you appeared to not see that problem yourself

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Pedestrians don't seem aggrieved and again, you appeared to not see that problem yourself

Pedestrians don't have to yield.

The problem was patently obvious to anyone who looked at the video. It was so obvious that I didn't think anyone would need to have it spelt out.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Pedestrians don't seem aggrieved and again, you appeared to not see that problem yourself

No yield signs for pedestrians, only for the cyclist plebs.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

And using the road along the same route, you will encounter traffic lights at those exact same locations plus 2 pedestrian crossings which you can bypass using the cycle Lane.

There's also ample slope to safely enter and exit.

Again I repeat, there's no more of transport that allows you to go straight from A to B without having to yield to others at some point so again I ask, what is the realistic option?

Pedestrian lights are ALWAYS red for pedestrians and green for traffic

07Lapierre wrote: »

Pedestrian lights are ALWAYS red for pedestrians and green for traffic

Sometimes when they’re green for pedestrians they’re still green for some motorists. My near miss was roughly this time last year - I, as a person on foot, had a green go light, as I crossed the road an older regged Volvo ran its red light at speed and missed me by half a foot (maybe, I have no idea of the actual accurate distance as it was to the back of me). It’s ok though, the driver blared it’s horn at me, because fcuk me right.

pleasant Co. wrote: »

Sometimes when they’re green for pedestrians they’re still green for some motorists. My near miss was roughly this time last year - I, as a person on foot, had a green go light, as I crossed the road an older regged Volvo ran its red light at speed and missed me by half a foot (maybe, I have no idea of the actual accurate distance as it was to the back of me). It’s ok though, the driver blared it’s horn at me, because fcuk me right.

Was probably a cyclist driving. They love terrorizing pedestrians.

pleasant Co. wrote: »

Sometimes when they’re green for pedestrians they’re still green for some motorists. My near miss was roughly this time last year - I, as a person on foot, had a green go light, as I crossed the road an older regged Volvo ran its red light at speed and missed me by half a foot (maybe, I have no idea of the actual accurate distance as it was to the back of me). It’s ok though, the driver blared it’s horn at me, because fcuk me right.

Were you wearing hi viz? Did you have a valid road tax disc on display?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Nice shifting of goalposts there. Are you suggesting that all Yield signs are removed now?

No I'm saying I have to yield or prepare to yield in numerous places, you seem to think it needs a sign to be required, you're a danger to yourself and other road users.

07Lapierre wrote: »

Were you wearing hi viz? Did you have a valid road tax disc on display?

My backpack actually did have a reflective strip on it. Oh and it was day time.

Spook_ie wrote: »

No I'm saying I have to yield or prepare to yield in numerous places, you seem to think it needs a sign to be required, you're a danger to yourself and other road users.

You have to yield to every single driveway and side road while driving along the main road?

Spook_ie wrote: »

No I'm saying I have to yield or prepare to yield in numerous places, you seem to think it needs a sign to be required, you're a danger to yourself and other road users.

I think you're misunderstanding Andrew, he's specifically referring to yield signs - where you are obligated to come to a stop before proceeding. Yielding (or being prepared to yield but continuing) in the course of a drive by exercising common sense is not the same thing.

You are / were? a taxi driver so of course you know how to drive yourself, but there definitely appears to be a miscommunication in the point you're making Vs what Andrew has said.

Stark wrote: »

You have to yield to every single driveway and side road while driving along the main road?

Imagine if the left lane on the m50 directed traffic up every slip road at every junction. Every car had to go up the slip road, stop at the lights, then once the light went green, the car could then drive down the slip road and rejoin the M50. Now imagine the left lane is covered in broken glass, gravel, debris and pedestrians. imagine that their is no legal requirement to use the left lane.
How many people would do this, when they could just as easily move into lane 2 and bypass the slip roads and stay on the M50?

This is exactly what is expected of cyclists and our cycle lanes. They are badly designed, not fit for purpose and It's more convenient to stay on the road.

pleasant Co. wrote: »

I think you're misunderstanding Andrew, he's specifically referring to yield signs - where you are obligated to come to a stop before proceeding. Yielding (or being prepared to yield but continuing) in the course of a drive by exercising common sense is not the same thing.

You are / were? a taxi driver so of course you know how to drive yourself, but there definitely appears to be a miscommunication in the point you're making Vs what Andrew has said.

You getting confused between yield and stop signs? Don't worry one of the cyclists who drive will be along to explain the difference to you.

Stark wrote: »

You have to yield to every single driveway and side road while driving along the main road?

Where the priority of the roads isn't marked then yes, as in numerous housing and industrial estates, they are called unmarked junctions.

I take it that you are the type of road user that assumes a road is the main road without any indication of that fact.

Spook_ie wrote: »

You getting confused between yield and stop signs? Don't worry one of the cyclists who drive will be along to explain the difference to you.

Yes I possibly am, you are correct. You know there's also a polite why to conduct yourself in a discussion too, why you would you choose to get other peoples back's up I guess is beyond me.

pleasant Co. wrote: »

Yes I possibly am, you are correct. You know there's also a polite why to conduct yourself in a discussion too, why you would you choose to get other peoples back's up I guess is beyond me.

Do you drive or cycle? Then you should be aware of the basics of the road. If you've only ever been a pedestrian then maybe you might be forgiven for the confusion but even pedestrians should know the basics.

Hurrache

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

They don't have junctions that you need to give right of way at?

The beef raised is having to give right of way. This occurs in the path, cycle lanes or roads. Correct?

Are you purposely or pretending you don't know what the issue is?

Spook_ie wrote: »

Where the priority of the roads isn't marked then yes, as in numerous housing and industrial estates, they are called unmarked junctions.

Bull****. I would not yield for every single driveway in a housing estate, marked or unmarked.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Do you drive or cycle? Then you should be aware of the basics of the road. If you've only ever been a pedestrian then maybe you might be forgiven for the confusion but even pedestrians should know the basics.

I should be more aware of the basics, you’re right, and I do appreciate being corrected on a mistake.

Stark wrote: »

Bull****. I would not yield for every single driveway in a housing estate, marked or unmarked.

I never said I yield for driveways, I said I prepare to yield at unmarked junctions, as all road users should.

Spook_ie wrote: »

I never said I yield for driveways, I said I prepare to yield at unmarked junctions, as all road users should.

Well you answered a different question to the one I asked then didn't you.