Cork SRR - Cyclist in Middle Lane

Padraig Mor · 09-12-2013 02:59PM

corktina wrote: »

the average speed was nothing like that! Not credible as a story.

Are you saying you were there?

Bear in mind that the OP seems to be quite critical of the state of cycling infrastructure in the area - hardly a "fecking cyclists - they should pay road tax" type.

keithclancy · 09-12-2013 03:14PM

You'd want to be a complete brain doner to cycle on that stretch of road at any time.

Legal or not.

Iwannahurl · 09-12-2013 03:33PM

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Easily credible TBH. You have to picture the road packed with heavy, heavy traffic, moving at a decent clip. Stick a slow moving vehicle in there (tractor, cyclist, whatever) and the sudden huge number of lane change movements causes instant problems and a quick logjam behind, and a massive increase in collision risk.

This is the OP's description:

Jimmy Bottles wrote: »

1st lane was going quite slowly. 2nd lane was going at about 15 to 20mph and the 3rd lane was log jammed.

Eventually I got into the 3rd lane and to my amazement there was a cyclist in the 2nd lane on the SRR.

The OP switched to the "[log jammed] third lane" because the first lane was moving "quite slowly" and the second lane was moving only a little faster presumably.

If both the first and third lanes are moving, while the middle lane is going significantly more slowly because a cyclist is allegedly creating a tailback, where is the hold-up exactly?

I'm not saying the cyclist is doing the right thing, by the way, but I'm still a bit perplexed as to how one person on a push bike can single-handedly cause a three-lane "logjam" on a road already "packed with heavy heavy traffic".

Was this cyclist in a wool overcoat on a High Nelly, by the way, or was it a Lycra-clad individual on a road bike perhaps? I would have thought that a serious cyclist on a road bike could go quite fast, in which case maybe they were actually keeping pace with "rush hour" traffic.

corktina · 09-12-2013 03:34PM

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Are you saying you were there?

Bear in mind that the OP seems to be quite critical of the state of cycling infrastructure in the area - hardly a "fecking cyclists - they should pay road tax" type.

he GAVE the speeds in the OP. Nothing was moving at a decent clip. Lane one was slow, lane two 15 to 20 mph and lane three clogged solid.

Iwannahurl · 09-12-2013 03:41PM

If the lone cyclist was causing a logjam on three lanes simultaneously, we have to imagine a situation in which there are three lines of vehicles stretching out behind him, while up ahead is free-flowing traffic on all three lanes.

What I am finding it hard to understand is why, if the cyclist is holding up the middle lane, vehicles can't overtake in lanes 1 and 3.

Are the motorists immediately in front of and just beside the cyclist unwilling or unable to go faster than him. If so, why?

Viper_JB · 09-12-2013 03:44PM

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I'm not saying the cyclist is doing the right thing, by the way, but I'm still a bit perplexed as to how one person on a push bike can single-handedly cause a three-lane "logjam" on a road already "packed with heavy heavy traffic".

Was this cyclist in a wool overcoat on a High Nelly, by the way, or was it a Lycra-clad individual on a road bike perhaps? I would have thought that a serious cyclist on a road bike could go quite fast, in which case maybe they were actually keeping pace with "rush hour" traffic.

Really not that surprising given the average driver in Ireland, something like this would actually be likely to cause traffic problems on the other side of the road too, with people slowing to see what was happening.

When Douglas was flooded before the SRR backed up because people were stopping on the bridge to have a look down.

Caliden · 09-12-2013 03:45PM

You've got the volume of an entire lane spilling over into lanes 1 & 3...

Iwannahurl and corktina, I've a feeling neither of you spend much time on 3 lane carraigeways if you're struggling to understand the issue.

Join the m50 whenever there's a crash in one lane to get an idea of what the OP is on about.

Padraig Mor · 09-12-2013 03:54PM

I think there is some misunderstanding of the OP's post here, although perhaps "log jammed" may not have been the best description to use. They've clarified that the middle lane was moving extremely slowly (~ 20 km/h) and that the left lane was going somewhat faster, with some people moving to that lane to undertake the cyclist. The right hand lane very busy ("log jammed"), but actually moving quite fast (~100 km/h). Problems arise when you have a lot of people trying to move from a very slow moving lane like the middle one in this situation, to one where the traffic is moving considerably faster (right lane in the OP). Inevitably, someone moves where they didn't quite have the gap they thought and drivers behind need to step on the brakes. Best case scenario: more and more people behind brake (rather like a wave moving backward) leading to possible gridlock in both lanes. Worst case scenario: someone doesn't hit the brakes in time.

Iwannahurl · 09-12-2013 03:54PM

Caliden wrote: »

You've got the volume of an entire lane spilling over into lanes 1 & 3...

So the OP is quite clearly saying that traffic in all three lanes up ahead was enjoying free-flow conditions during "rush" hour?

dr.fuzzenstein · 09-12-2013 03:55PM

Well, so far Boardsies have argued that undertaking is legal, a stolen car is the rightful property of the buyer and not the owner it was taken from, that one should never move aside for ambulances, if your car gets crashed into, you're not entitled to compensation for the damage and those are only some of the most recent gems that reveal an unbelievable amount of insanity amongst the people who post here.
I suppose if he really wanted to, the cyclist can claim I Am Entitled To Be On The Road!
He should also make sure to instruct his stone mason to include that on his headstone.

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/cyclist-killed-in-collision-with-car-in-co-clare-26295066.html

I used to see a cyclist almost every around that time on that stretch of road, he did not cycle on the hard shoulder, but smack bang in the middle of lane one. Caused huge chaos.
I did not see him after that incident, don't know if it was him, just saying...

corktina · 09-12-2013 03:58PM

Caliden wrote: »

You've got the volume of an entire lane spilling over into lanes 1 & 3...

Iwannahurl and corktina, I've a feeling neither of you spend much time on 3 lane carraigeways if you're struggling to understand the issue.

Join the m50 whenever there's a crash in one lane to get an idea of what the OP is on about.

getting a little personal there.

The traffic at that time is slow moving, the OP said it was, there is no way one cyclist alone could jam up three lanes, sounds to me as if he was going faster than some of the cars!

The point is the cyclist might have felt he was in the correct lane for his route (lane one peels off for Bandon we are told). He is entitled to use the roads within the law and I believe that to change out of lane 1 at the point of divergence may well be dangerous.

corktina · 09-12-2013 04:00PM

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well, so far Boardsies have argued that undertaking is legal, a stolen car is the rightful property of the buyer and not the owner it was taken from, that one should never move aside for ambulances, if your car gets crashed into, you're not entitled to compensation for the damage and those are only some of the most recent gems that reveal an unbelievable amount of insanity amongst the people who post here.
I suppose if he really wanted to, the cyclist can claim I Am Entitled To Be On The Road!
He should also make sure to instruct his stone mason to include that on his headstone.

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/cyclist-killed-in-collision-with-car-in-co-clare-26295066.html

I used to see a cyclist almost every around that time on that stretch of road, he did not cycle on the hard shoulder, but smack bang in the middle of lane one. Caused huge chaos.
I did not see him after that incident, don't know if it was him, just saying...

Cyclists should not have to cycle on the hard shoulder, and do not because that's where all the rubbish ends up, very easy to puncture a bike tyre.

Jimmy Bottles · 09-12-2013 04:04PM

I didn't say the traffic was slow moving at the time in general. I said that the cyclist was holding up everyone due to doing about 20mph in lane 2. That caused everyone to have to slow down significantly in lane 2. Once past the cyclists, the road ahead was virtually empty due to the cyclist causing such a backlog.

People in lane 1 obviously didn't know whether to undertake the cyclist in lane 2 and people doing 20mph in lane 2 were then trying to merge into traffic in lane 3 which were doing about 60mph. This cyclist caused absolute chaos.

keithclancy · 09-12-2013 04:05PM

corktina wrote: »

Cyclists should not have to cycle on the hard shoulder, and do not because that's where all the rubbish ends up, very easy to puncture a bike tyre.

Indeed, you should cycle in the driving lane and pull in when its safe for you to do so.

corktina · 09-12-2013 04:07PM

Jimmy Bottles wrote: »

I didn't say the traffic was slow moving at the time in general. I said that the cyclist was holding up everyone due to doing about 20mph in lane 2. That caused everyone to have to slow down significantly in lane 2. Once past the cyclists, the road ahead was virtually empty due to the cyclist causing such a backlog.

People in lane 1 obviously didn't know whether to undertake the cyclist in lane 2 and people doing 20mph in lane 2 were then trying to merge into traffic in lane 3 which were doing about 60mph. This cyclist caused absolute chaos.

cyclists? typo?

That's a very different version to the first post. How far was he from the Bandon Rd exit?

Jimmy Bottles · 09-12-2013 04:13PM

corktina wrote: »

cyclists? typo?

That's a very different version to the first post. How far was he from the Bandon Rd exit?

Sorry, typo. Was just one cyclist.

I did say: "I couldn't at first work out what was going on. 1st lane was going quite slowly. 2nd lane was going at about 15 to 20mph and the 3rd lane was log jammed.". I thought what I wrote would indicate that the slow pace was due to the cyclist.

At a guess it was about here

https://maps.google.com/?ll=51.875951,-8.494079&spn=0.000007,0.003449&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=51.875965,-8.49549&panoid=11u-x2YaGQ6lxkx956V5Eg&cbp=12,282.58,,0,13.18

Just after passing the Togher Road flyover. Well before even the Sarsfield Roundabout.

Iwannahurl · 09-12-2013 04:27PM

Jimmy Bottles wrote: »

It was rush hour. If the cyclist was in the middle lane, that is the middle lane blocked. If you follow the rules of the road, you cannot undertake the cyclist so that is lane 1 also down to the speed of the cyclist. Every motorist was trying to get into lane 3 so that was lane 3 blocked.

OP, is this a reasonably accurate illustration of what occurred at 5:45 pm during rush hour on the South Ring Road last Thursday?

EDIT: Just saw this post:

Jimmy Bottles wrote: »

I didn't say the traffic was slow moving at the time in general. I said that the cyclist was holding up everyone due to doing about 20mph in lane 2. That caused everyone to have to slow down significantly in lane 2. Once past the cyclists, the road ahead was virtually empty due to the cyclist causing such a backlog.

People in lane 1 obviously didn't know whether to undertake the cyclist in lane 2 and people doing 20mph in lane 2 were then trying to merge into traffic in lane 3 which were doing about 60mph. This cyclist caused absolute chaos.

Iwannahurl · 09-12-2013 04:33PM

Jimmy Bottles wrote: »

At a guess it was about here

https://maps.google.com/?ll=51.875951,-8.494079&spn=0.000007,0.003449&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=51.875965,-8.49549&panoid=11u-x2YaGQ6lxkx956V5Eg&cbp=12,282.58,,0,13.18

Just after passing the Togher Road flyover. Well before even the Sarsfield Roundabout.

Is that a hard shoulder?

Did you say the road alignment has been changed, OP? If so, was the hard shoulder removed as part of the modifications?

dr.fuzzenstein · 09-12-2013 04:34PM

corktina wrote: »

Cyclists should not have to cycle on the hard shoulder, and do not because that's where all the rubbish ends up, very easy to puncture a bike tyre.

Cyclists should not cycle on any lane of a dual carriageway because, well, if I even have to say it, here are some other safety hints that people like that will find useful:

1: Never take a hammer and bash your own head in
2: Do not jump out of windows, especially if they are high up
3: Domestos is not a delicious and refreshing drink
4: Do not look down the barrel of a loaded gun and squeeze the trigger

You can do these things if you want to, but you can't seriously complain if they go wrong, well, you could, but you'll be complaining to St Peter at the Pearly Gates.

Jimmy Bottles · 09-12-2013 04:37PM

Iwannahurl wrote: »

OP, is this a reasonably accurate illustration of what occurred at 5:45 pm during rush hour on the South Ring Road last Thursday?

Accurate enough I guess. People in lane 1 didn't know wether to undertaking the cyclist. All did eventually but the lane was crawling compared to usual.

100kph may be an exaggeration about lane 3. The biggest problem there were people in lane 2 having to pull out into gaps in lane 3. The speed difference seemed quite large.

Jimmy Bottles · 09-12-2013 04:37PM

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Is that a hard shoulder?

Did you say the road alignment has been changed, OP? If so, was the hard shoulder removed as part of the modifications?

The hard shoulder has been removed since that photo.

corktina · 09-12-2013 04:38PM

that's a old image. Road has changed a lot since. Iirc, the left lane becomes two lanes and diverges left and the other two lanes go over the new flyover. From his road position, he clearly intended to go straight on and I contend he is in the correct lane, staying in lane 1 until he reaches the point of divergence would entail cutting across two lanes of traffic (certainly one, I can't be sure where it becomes 2 lanes on the off ramp)

Not the wisest bit of cycling but clearly not illegal either.

corktina · 09-12-2013 04:39PM

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Cyclists should not cycle on any lane of a dual carriageway because, well, if I even have to say it, here are some other safety hints that people like that will find useful:

1: Never take a hammer and bash your own head in
2: Do not jump out of windows, especially if they are high up
3: Domestos is not a delicious and refreshing drink
4: Do not look down the barrel of a loaded gun and squeeze the trigger

You can do these things if you want to, but you can't seriously complain if they go wrong, well, you could, but you'll be complaining to St Peter at the Pearly Gates.

but on that basis they shouldn't cycle anywhere. Probably it is safer on a dual carriageway as they can be passed without regard to oncoming traffic

dr.fuzzenstein · 09-12-2013 04:40PM

corktina wrote: »

that's a old image. Road has changed a lot since. Iirc, the left lane becomes two lanes and diverges left and the other two lanes go over the new flyover. From his road position, he clearly intended to go straight on and I contend he is in the correct lane, staying in lane 1 until he reaches the point of divergence would entail cutting across two lanes of traffic (certainly one, I can't be sure where it becomes 2 lanes on the off ramp)

Not the wisest bit of cycling but clearly not illegal either.

Was kind of the point I was making...:p
Just because you can do a thing, does not mean you should do it.
Or do you mean this from a "giving evolution a helping hand" kind of standpoint?

Jimmy Bottles · 09-12-2013 04:44PM

corktina wrote: »

that's a old image. Road has changed a lot since. Iirc, the left lane becomes two lanes and diverges left and the other two lanes go over the new flyover. From his road position, he clearly intended to go straight on and I contend he is in the correct lane, staying in lane 1 until he reaches the point of divergence would entail cutting across two lanes of traffic (certainly one, I can't be sure where it becomes 2 lanes on the off ramp)

Not the wisest bit of cycling but clearly not illegal either.

Staying in lane 1 wouldn't have required him cutting across any lanes of traffic. It would however require him cycling across white hatched markings at the Bandon Roundabout sliproad.

I simply look at it like this. Cork City Council had the change to do this build in 2 ways. Either make it cyclist friendly with some sort of separate of cyclists and cars or just ban cyclists outright.

Having cyclists mix with cars on that road is downright suicidal. I know I certainly wouldn't cycle on that road at any point in the day during any level of traffic. To do so in the dark during rush hour is just absolutely crazy in my mind.

The lack of provision for cyclists on the SRR is lamentable but that is a whole other story.

Padraig Mor · 09-12-2013 04:46PM

corktina wrote: »

Not the wisest bit of cycling but clearly not illegal either.

No one said it was illegal - just that it was bat**** insane.

Look, how's about this. Anyone who thinks the cyclist in the OP was in any way safe, justified, etc - anything other than bat**** insane: I will personally drive you over that stretch of road this Thursday at 17.45. If you still think that cycling there at that time is not insanity, I will donate €50 to a charity of your choice.

corktina · 09-12-2013 04:47PM

the lane of traffic in lane 1?

In my view, we shouldn't be limiting cyclists (and pedestrians) we should be limiting cars.

Once he was in the correct lane, and I contend he was, then it's just tough on faster traffic. Life's like that.

Iwannahurl · 09-12-2013 04:52PM

Jimmy Bottles wrote: »

Accurate enough I guess. People in lane 1 didn't know wether to undertaking the cyclist. All did eventually but the lane was crawling compared to usual.

100kph may be an exaggeration about lane 3. The biggest problem there were people in lane 2 having to pull out into gaps in lane 3. The speed difference seemed quite large.

So some motorists did overtake the cyclist on the left perhaps? If so, about what proportion of them? 5%? 50%?

And the middle lane in front of the cyclist was definitely empty? Or to put it another way, the cyclist was definitely not keeping up with traffic?

Did the motorists who switched from lanes 1 & 2 to lane 3 switch back again when they had overtaken the cyclist?

Is traffic usually free-flowing at speeds up to 100 km/h on this road at 5:45 pm on a Thursday?

Jimmy Bottles wrote: »

The hard shoulder has been removed since that photo.

So a hard shoulder, a piece of roads infrastructure often used by cyclists in a perfectly legal manner afaik (open to correction on that), was reallocated to motorised traffic some time ago?

This brings me back to my earlier point about roads and routes. Was this a route for cyclists before the conversion of the hard shoulder to a traffic lane?

corktina · 09-12-2013 04:57PM

it's been radically changed, i'm surprised a hard shoulder was included though

Iwannahurl · 09-12-2013 04:59PM

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Cyclists should not cycle on any lane of a dual carriageway because, well, if I even have to say it, here are some other safety hints that people like that will find useful:

1: Never take a hammer and bash your own head in
2: Do not jump out of windows, especially if they are high up
3: Domestos is not a delicious and refreshing drink
4: Do not look down the barrel of a loaded gun and squeeze the trigger

You can do these things if you want to, but you can't seriously complain if they go wrong, well, you could, but you'll be complaining to St Peter at the Pearly Gates.

1. If Cork City Council gives you a hammer, don't let them tell you it's a hat.
2. If Cork City Council tries to house you in a high-rise apartment block with no stairs or lift, try to say no even if you're homeless.
3. If Cork City Council puts the equivalent of Domestos in your water supply, don't let them tell you it's champagne.
4. Just because Cork City Council puts a gun to your head, it doesn't mean they're right.

Cork SRR - Cyclist in Middle Lane

Comments