Cork SRR - Cyclist in Middle Lane

Corkblowin · 09-12-2013 05:00PM

corktina wrote: »

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

In general a good policy - but the South Ring is one of those places where cars do, and should, have priority over other traffic. It is a designated 'Euroroute' linking Kerry to Rosslare and is designed to speed traffic around the city.

In theory not only should cyclists not be on it, but commuters shouldn't either, and those of us using it to hop from Douglas to Wilton are clogging the city bypass - but that would be a pretty dogmatic stance.

Jimmy Bottles · 09-12-2013 05:03PM

Iwannahurl wrote: »

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?

As lane 1 was moving faster than lane 2 I have to summise that all of the traffic in lane 1 was undertaking the cyclist. The lane was travelling a lot slow than usual. Cars approaching this situation had to brake from 100kph to 35kph and that to me is never a safe situation.

Cyclist was the only thing holding by the 2nd lane. Can't say for every motorist, but once I had overtaken the cyclist, the vast majority of drivers did pull back into lane 2. I guess lane 1 would have been more correct but then this becomes an exit for the Bandon Roundabout about 20 or 30 seconds up the road.

Since the flyovers have been done on the two roundabouts ahead, traffic is usually going at around 100kph at all times of the day.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

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?

Completely agree on your first point. There is little space along the sides of the road to accommodate a new hard shoulder.

In my time travelling this road, I don't think I can ever remember seeing a cyclist on it. Although as you can imagine, it wasn't something I was looking our for.

Iwannahurl · 09-12-2013 05:07PM

Corkblowin wrote: »

In general a good policy - but the South Ring is one of those places where cars do, and should, have priority over other traffic. It is a designated 'Euroroute' linking Kerry to Rosslare and is designed to speed traffic around the city.

In theory not only should cyclists not be on it, but commuters shouldn't either, and those of us using it to hop from Douglas to Wilton are clogging the city bypass - but that would be a pretty dogmatic stance.

What would motivate both cyclists and car commuters to avoid the SRR?

dr.fuzzenstein · 09-12-2013 05:09PM

corktina wrote: »

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.

OK, where is Corktina and what have you done with him? :eek:
Cyclopath, is that you?:p

Viper_JB · 09-12-2013 05:11PM

Iwannahurl wrote: »

What would motivate both cyclists and car commuters to avoid the SRR?

I would have thought staying alive would be good enough motivation for cyclists.

Corkblowin · 09-12-2013 05:12PM

Iwannahurl wrote: »

What would motivate both cyclists and car commuters to avoid the SRR?

I'm saying a dogmatic traffic engineers stance would be that people moving from one part of the city to another should use local routes within the city and the SRR should be reserved for those passing around or leaving the city.

I'm a planner and this was articulated quite forcefully to me by a german roads engineer some time ago (who was dumbfounded that there were roundabouts on it at the time!). He may well have exploded if told cyclists were also using the SRR!:)

dr.fuzzenstein · 09-12-2013 05:14PM

Viper_JB wrote: »

I would have thought staying alive would be good enough motivation for cyclists.

Not in this country!
It is far more important to be right. Being dead is simply seen as a minor inconvenience.
To the Irish mules are amongst the most fickle-minded creatures.
The government is to blame though, because at some stage someone decided that separate cycle lanes are not really needed, just throw everything on the road together and spend the rest of your life arguing that this is a better solution that that European pansy bullsh*t with seperate cycle paths, pedestrian walkways and all that crap, who needs it, we can throw cars, trucks, buses, mules, cyclists, pedestrians, mothers with prams and horses on the same road and argue it's best international practice.

Iwannahurl · 09-12-2013 05:15PM

Viper_JB wrote: »

I would have thought staying alive would be good enough motivation for cyclists.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Not in this country!
It is far more important to be right. Being dead is simply seen as a minor inconvenience.
To the Irish mules are amongst the most fickle-minded creatures.
The government is to blame though, because at some stage someone decided that separate cycle lanes are not really needed, just throw everything on the road together and spend the rest of your life arguing that this is a better solution that that European pansy bullsh*t with seperate cycle paths, pedestrian walkways and all that crap, who needs it, we can throw cars, trucks, buses, mules, cyclists, pedestrians, mothers with prams and horses on the same road and argue it's best international practice.

There are dangers (eg speeding, red light running, cars driving up on footpaths, HGVs on roundabouts) every morning on the school run with my child. And that's just in a residential area less than 4 km from school.

Should we just give up?

corktina · 09-12-2013 05:16PM

I'm not arguing for the sake of it, but would it be safe for a cyclist to cross lane one , (an off ramp,with 100km/h traffic (we're told)) to continue straight on.

Now maybe it's the case that the guy got into lane 2 too early, but it does seem to me that he has to get into that lane a some point, (one assumes the dotted line changes on approach to the divergence to mark the start of the off ramp as is normal)

Consider the case that this guy might be a tourist following the map and would not know of alternative routes

what I have seen I the UK are marked cycl lanes in this situation which divert the cyclists down to the roaundabout and up the other side to avoid them getting hit half way across the offramp

Iwannahurl · 09-12-2013 05:18PM

Corkblowin wrote: »

I'm saying a dogmatic traffic engineers stance would be that people moving from one part of the city to another should use local routes within the city and the SRR should be reserved for those passing around or leaving the city.

I'm a planner and this was articulated quite forcefully to me by a german roads engineer some time ago (who was dumbfounded that there were roundabouts on it at the time!). He may well have exploded if told cyclists were also using the SRR!:)

What the Dutch would say about Irish "planning" for cyclists might well be unprintable.

Viper_JB · 09-12-2013 05:18PM

Iwannahurl wrote: »

There are dangers (eg speeding, red light running, cars driving up on footpaths, HGvs on roundabouts) every morning on the school run with my child. And that's just in a residential area less than 4 km from school.

Should we just give up?

It can be pretty dangerous to cross the roads at a pedestrian crossing, I wouldn't equate that to the same level of danger as say....trying to cross the M50 at rush hour.

Seweryn · 09-12-2013 05:19PM

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Not in this country!
It is far more important to be right. Being dead is simply seen as a minor inconvenience.

Surely we can give up using any other form of transport all together. It is too dangerous and we all have licences to kill pedestrians and cyclists.

Corkblowin · 09-12-2013 05:20PM

Iwannahurl wrote: »

What the Dutch would say about Irish "planning" for cyclists might well be unprintable.

Even the dutch have major traffic routes where cyclists do not travel.

dr.fuzzenstein · 09-12-2013 05:24PM

Iwannahurl wrote: »

There are dangers (eg speeding, red light running, cars driving up on footpaths, HGVs on roundabouts) every morning on the school run with my child. And that's just in a residential area less than 4 km from school.

Should we just give up?

You should not cycle on dual carriegeways. Or at least not in one of the driving lanes.
No continental person would be insane enough to do it, except the Irish.
I'm saying the Irish sometimes lack a sense of danger, instead saying "well, I'm legally entitled to do so" and then scream blue blue murder if something goes wrong.

Iwannahurl · 09-12-2013 05:24PM

Viper_JB wrote: »

It can be pretty dangerous to cross the roads at a pedestrian crossing, I wouldn't equate that to the same level of danger as say....trying to cross the M50 at rush hour.

Absolutely.

But if the local authority builds, say, a dual carriageway between us and our place of work or education, and provides no means for us to continue walking or cycling safely and conveniently, should we just give up?

I'm not saying this is what applies in the situation described by the OP, but I find myself wondering what would motivate a cyclist to use that road?

Could it be a stubborn cyclist who just refuses to be railroaded out of the way? Or is he a bit nutty perhaps, as might be the old lady I see walking for no good reason in a local cycle lane from time to time?

Iwannahurl · 09-12-2013 05:28PM

Corkblowin wrote: »

Even the dutch have major traffic routes where cyclists do not travel.

Yes, they segregate cyclists and motorised traffic (except mopeds) for safety reasons.

They do not take away space from cyclists to reallocate it to motorised traffic though, at least not for the last 50 years or so.

They also have long-distance routes for cyclists, and they maximise cycle mobility and access generally.

Corkblowin · 09-12-2013 05:29PM

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Could it be a stubborn cyclist who just refuses to be railroaded out of the way? Or is he a bit nutty perhaps, as might be the old lady I see walking for no good reason in a local cycle lane from time to time?

I suppose the incredulity of those of us who use the road is that it is a relatively new route. When I first moved to Cork it was just fields. Its not as if an old road was widened to dual carriageway status and this chap has decided hes not changing his route. He has made the decision to leave the old routes to the west of the city and join a road which is dual carriageway at this point, but is motorway within a couple of miles on either sides.

Viper_JB · 09-12-2013 05:30PM

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Absolutely.

But if the local authority builds, say, a dual carriageway between us and our place of work or education, and provided no means for us to continue walking or cycling safely and conveniently, should we just give up?

I'm not saying this is what applies in the situation described by the OP, but I find myself wondering what would motivate a cyclist to use that road?

Could it be a stubborn cyclist who just refuses to be railroaded out of the way? Or is he a bit nutty perhaps, as might be the old lady I see walking for no good reason in a local cycle lane from time to time?

Ya, I'm from Cork though and I can't really think of any reason why you would need to use it for a commute - would pretty much nearly always be faster to avoid - might have some use of the roundabouts I guess is all, but it's not a shortcut road just a faster speed one to take traffic away from the city. Probably just a little bit nutty.

keithclancy · 09-12-2013 05:31PM

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

You should not cycle on dual carriegeways. Or at least not in one of the driving lanes.
No continental person would be insane enough to do it, except the Irish.
I'm saying the Irish sometimes lack a sense of danger, instead saying "well, I'm legally entitled to do so" and then scream blue blue murder if something goes wrong.

I believe the phrase is

"there was no sign saying I couldn't do it"

Ludo · 09-12-2013 05:31PM

60kmph limit in this area by the way not 100...not that ANYONE obeys that.

Iwannahurl · 09-12-2013 05:37PM

If that's the case, law-abiding motorists travelling at 60 km/h on this stretch are being endangered by others travelling at up to 40 km/h faster behind them.

corktina · 09-12-2013 05:38PM

isn't that just temporary signs though?

dr.fuzzenstein · 09-12-2013 05:51PM

Iwannahurl wrote: »

What the Dutch would say about Irish "planning" for cyclists might well be unprintable.

There I wholeheartedly agree with you.
Irish "planning"in any field is not the greatest.
This country will never be forward looking, it will simply stumble from crisis to crisis because people in charge only think about their next lunch and salary increase.

Iwannahurl · 09-12-2013 05:54PM

corktina wrote: »

isn't that just temporary signs though?

You're right. I think that was mentioned earlier.

The law is the law though.

Iwannahurl · 09-12-2013 05:56PM

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

This country will never be forward looking, it will simply stumble from crisis to crisis because people in charge only think about their next lunch and salary increase.

Or their next "sickie".

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/local-authority-sick-leave-twice-that-in-the-private-sector-1.1616147

Corkblowin · 09-12-2013 06:01PM

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

There I wholeheartedly agree with you.
Irish "planning"in any field is not the greatest.

And the more you learn about it the more annoyed you get. The number of departments who hold resist any change to the status quo has to be seen to be believed - and the lack of logic in a system that sees half the city dug up at the moment so their budget is spend by year end is mind-boggling.

dantastic · 09-12-2013 06:09PM

Next time you pass the area have a look over to the Dunnes side of the road. There's a brand new cycle path there. I don't know how much of the road it covers but I know it covers the stretch in question anyway.

But of course the cyclist have the "right" to be on the road.

Iwannahurl · 09-12-2013 08:05PM

There is no law that says a cyclist has to use a "cycle path".

In any case, what is the practical value of a stretch of cycle path on the 'wrong' side of the road?

Seweryn · 09-12-2013 08:20PM

Iwannahurl wrote: »

There is no law that says a cyclist has to use a "cycle path".

In any case, what is the practical value of a stretch of cycle path on the 'wrong' side of the road?

And when they build a cycle lane on your side of the road, it is quite often useless or even dangerous to use. Pure waste of taxpayers money. You can't expect anyone to use it.

dr.fuzzenstein · 09-12-2013 08:41PM

Seweryn wrote: »

And when they build a cycle lane on your side of the road, it is quite often useless or even dangerous to use. Pure waste of taxpayers money. You can't expect anyone to use it.

Looks good for a slalom, but not much else.

Cork SRR - Cyclist in Middle Lane

Comments