Advertisement
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Cork SRR - Cyclist in Middle Lane

1…34689…14

Comments

  • #152
    Wexfordian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 347 ✭✭Wexfordian


    Anan1 wrote: »
    Militant is seeking to deny someone their lawful right to do something. Right now, the law defends the cyclist. Until such time as the law is changed, other traffic needs to take account the cyclists presence and drive accordingly. The problem here isn't the cyclist, it's the law.

    Its also perfectly legal to do 80kph on most back country roads. It would however be stupid to do so.


  • #153
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,730 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    but had he been riding in lane 1 as some people believe he should have, would he have been in more or less danger than if he had been riding on the N20 (say) past Ballybeg Quarry. What is your case for banning cyclists form the N40? I don't think you have one that wouldn't apply to every road in the country.


  • #154
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,575 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    Wexfordian wrote: »
    Its also perfectly legal to do 80kph on most back country roads. It would however be stupid to do so.

    Yes, you don't have to go that slow.


  • #155
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »
    Since some people are unaware of the danger they put themselves and others in, yes, it would appear patently obvious that since people are daft, the law has to make the decisions for them. No one wants a nanny state, but it seems we need one.



    For cyclists presumably, but not for motorists. :D

    Now that you've recanted and embraced the "nanny state", do you want one that protects cyclists or just prohibits them?


  • #156
    Anan1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,770 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »
    Militant is trying to assert one's rights, or perceived rights, over anyone else's, regardless of the impact it has on the rest of society and to do so by any means and without regard for the consequences.
    That's a pretty broad definition, and not a good one for motorists.
    dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »
    So you actually agree that the law needs to be changed and cyclists banned from certain roads?
    Why wouldn't I? Of course it does, although I don't know enough about the road in question to say.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,575 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    corktina wrote: »
    but had he been riding in lane 1 as some people believe he should have, would he have been in more or less danger than if he had been riding on the N20 (say) past Ballybeg Quarry. What is your case for banning cyclists form the N40? I don't think you have one that wouldn't apply to every road in the country.

    Because cyclists cannot differentiate between what's safe and what's not. Since they are vulnerable, it is better for everyone, if they are compelled by law to take the safer option.
    I can't see a single argument against that.


  • #158
    Anan1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,770 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »
    Because cyclists cannot differentiate between what's safe and what's not. Since they are vulnerable, it is better for everyone, if they are compelled by law to take the safer option.
    I can't see a single argument against that.
    Isn't that what people say when they want lower speed limits? :)


  • #159
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,730 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »
    Because cyclists cannot differentiate between what's safe and what's not. Since they are vulnerable, it is better for everyone, if they are compelled by law to take the safer option.
    I can't see a single argument against that.

    yes but then you have to ban them from every road pretty much


  • #160
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »
    Because cyclists cannot differentiate between what's safe and what's not.



    Ridiculously sweeping statement bearing no resemblance to reality.


  • #161
    Anan1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,770 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    corktina wrote: »
    yes but then you have to ban them from every road pretty much
    Cyclists and cars can happily coexist at lower speeds. In some places you ban bikes, in some you slow cars, and in some you ban cars.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 29,798 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    Anan1 wrote: »
    Why wouldn't I? Of course it does, although I don't know enough about the road in question to say.

    Ah.. another one who's commenting on a situation/road they know nothing about!

    Well I do know the road in question and it is in practise if not in designation exactly the same as the M50 in Dublin, and just as there are perfectly valid and logical reasons for cyclists and pedestrians not to be on the latter, so too do these reasons apply to the former.

    The only counter-argument to common sense being offered by the pro-cycling brigade is their perceived "right"/"entitlement" to be there based on the flimsy premise that the Cork road has an N rather than a M before it.


  • #163
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,730 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    Anan1 wrote: »
    Cyclists and cars can happily coexist at lower speeds. In some places you ban bikes, in some you slow cars, and in some you ban cars.

    but then you have to do one of those on every road...a lose-lose situation


  • #164
    Red Nissan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,055 ✭✭✭Red Nissan


    Jimmy Bottles wrote: »
    Either put in cycle lanes on the SRR or ban cycling outright.

    Cyclist are indeed banned already. As are other road users like JCB's Farm machinery without and escort, pedestrians and horses.

    It's just got a bit lax in the intervening years, but repeat offends do get reported and fined.

    Report all incidents as just one report will go unnoticed.


  • #165
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Kaiser2000 wrote: »
    Ah.. another one who's commenting on a situation ... they know nothing about!



    What do you know about the cyclist's circumstances, motivation, thought processes, state of mind or whatever?

    I wouldn't do what he did (unless it was a regular gridlock situation during rush hour, which we're told is not the case) but I would like to know why he decided to be there.


  • #166
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,773 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Anyone arguing that a cyclist should be on the south ring road at anytime of the day or night is not well. Its not a place for a cyclist and I'm very surprised they aren't banned from it as they should be.

    A cyclist would be safer cycling on a motorway as there is a hardshoulder which they could use to somewhat stay out of harms way, however cycling on a motorway is banned as it should be.

    I bet some of the people defending the cyclist here would not defend them for cycling on a motorway or even worse they would be the very people going mad if a tractor capable of 50km/h was legally driving on a motorway. A machine that is big, has a number of warning lights etc and can be seen well in advance so is a million times safer than some clown cycling on the south ring at night, never mind cycling in the middle lane.

    There are a number of roads totally unsuitable for cycling but not really feasible for them to be banned from, but with the south ring would be very feasible. There are multiple alternate routes which are much safer for both the cyclist themselves and other road users.


  • #167
    Anan1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,770 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    Kaiser2000 wrote: »
    Ah.. another one who's commenting on a situation/road they know nothing about!

    Well I do know the road in question and it is in practise if not in designation exactly the same as the M50 in Dublin, and just as there are perfectly valid and logical reasons for cyclists and pedestrians not to be on the latter, so too do these reasons apply to the former.

    The only counter-argument to common sense being offered by the pro-cycling brigade is their perceived "right"/"entitlement" to be there based on the flimsy premise that the Cork road has an N rather than a M before it.
    WHy do you say perceived right/entitlement?


  • #168
    Donnelly117
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,485 ✭✭✭Donnelly117


    Kaiser2000 wrote: »
    Ah.. another one who's commenting on a situation/road they know nothing about!

    Well I do know the road in question and it is in practise if not in designation exactly the same as the M50 in Dublin, and just as there are perfectly valid and logical reasons for cyclists and pedestrians not to be on the latter, so too do these reasons apply to the former.

    The only counter-argument to common sense being offered by the pro-cycling brigade is their perceived "right"/"entitlement" to be there based on the flimsy premise that the Cork road has an N rather than a M before it.

    Agreed, I drive this road to and from every day and I would not dream if cycling/walking on it. Just because its legal to do so does not mean you should. Its absolutely nuts. Having driven thousands of miles on this road over the years I have noticed the average cruising speed is about 70mph, people cut in an out of lanes without indicating, fill the tiniest gaps when they do change lanes and randomly slam on the brakes for no apparent reason.
    This is not an environment for a cyclist to be in. If a van/truck was to pass a cyclist at high speed they would probably be blown into the ditch. Also by cycling at such a slow speed in the middle lane he/she was slowing flowing traffic down to a speed which endangers all the other road users. there have been a few occasions where you come over the brow of the inclines/flyovers to be met with a line of stopped or slow moving cars, and suicidal cyclists are just adding to this. Like I said previously just because its not illegal doesn't mean its not stupid...


  • #169
    Anan1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,770 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    corktina wrote: »
    but then you have to do one of those on every road...a lose-lose situation
    Dedicated cycle lanes apart, I can't think of a better solution?


  • #170
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Salvatore Sharp Woodpecker wrote: »
    There are multiple alternate routes which are much safer for both the cyclist themselves and other road users.



    What was the origin and destination of the cyclist's journey?


  • #171
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,575 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    For cyclists presumably, but not for motorists. :D

    Now that you've recanted and embraced the "nanny state", do you want one that protects cyclists or just prohibits them?

    Well spotted!
    Well, it should prohibit them from doing something that might endanger them.
    I'm all for an open society, but mankind isn't ready for it. Being the monkeys that we are, we need a zoo-keeper.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    Donnelly117
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,485 ✭✭✭Donnelly117


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    What was the origin and destination of the cyclist's journey?

    Thats beside the point, there is an alternative route which will cover wherever he/she was going to and coming from. The roads that were there before the SRR haven't magically disappeared. If you are under the illusion that there is no alternate route then you clearly don't commute around the area in question.


  • #173
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,575 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    Anan1 wrote: »
    Isn't that what people say when they want lower speed limits? :)

    Now that's just crazy talk! :eek:


  • #174
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,773 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    What was the origin and destination of the cyclist's journey?

    It doesn't matter what his origin or destination the south ring can be totally avoided if necessary. You can travel parallel to it on other roads and cross over when necessary.

    Cyclists are banned from the tunnel so if they need to get to the other side of the tunnel then they need to take a totally different route through the city.


  • #175
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 29,798 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    Donnelly117 wrote: »
    If you are under the illusion that there is no alternate route then you clearly don't commute around the area in question.

    And that's the problem here.. the pro-cycling brigade here are going on about their "rights" to cycle on roads like this but actually haven't a clue about the road in question or surrounding area.

    Once again - the N40 is Cork's M50.. same standard of road, same number of lanes, same speed limit, multiple exits/entrances over a short distance, same heavy traffic. The ONLY difference in practise is one has an N designator, the other has an M.

    Just as cyclists/pedstrians are rightly banned from the M50 (for their own safety - it's nothing to do with car users having more "rights" in the end analysis) so too should they be banned from the N40 for the very same reasons, and in lieu of that common sense should tell you to keep off it if you're on foot or on a push bike.

    All this nonsense about the cyclist's journey, motorways killing communities, his "right" to be there etc, does not change the fact that cycling along that stretch of road is absolute madness and putting yourself and others at unnecessary and unjustifiable risk.


  • #176
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,575 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    Don't worry Kaiser, none of the people arguing such tripe would actually be daft enough to re-create the bicycle journey in the OP.
    Some are trolling, some are playing devil's advocate and others simply joining in the chorus of dissenters against common sense.
    Some are so good, they almost have me convinced.


  • #177
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Salvatore Sharp Woodpecker wrote: »
    It doesn't matter what his origin or destination the south ring can be totally avoided if necessary. You can travel parallel to it on other roads and cross over when necessary.
    Donnelly117 wrote: »
    there is an alternative route which will cover wherever he/she was going to and coming from.



    Where was the cyclist coming from and going to? What specific alternative routes are available?


  • #178
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »
    Well spotted!
    Well, it should prohibit them from doing something that might endanger them.
    I'm all for an open society, but mankind isn't ready for it. Being the monkeys that we are, we need a zoo-keeper.



    I'll quote you on that from now on... :)


  • #179
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,730 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    Donnelly117 wrote: »
    Thats beside the point, there is an alternative route which will cover wherever he/she was going to and coming from. The roads that were there before the SRR haven't magically disappeared. If you are under the illusion that there is no alternate route then you clearly don't commute around the area in question.

    I don't believe there is a parallel alternative route. A cyclist would have to cyclle pretty much into the City and back out again on many journeys, I can see why this route would be a much shorter attraction to a cyclist.


  • #180
    Corkblowin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 622 ✭✭✭Corkblowin


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Where was the cyclist coming from and going to? What specific alternative routes are available?

    What route would he have taken before the road existed? Because they all remain. Its a red herring like the community severance issue. The road follows a route that was a mixture of rivers and marsh and development on both sides were connected via roads that remain and are in fact safer now.

    Route from Mahon to Wilton as requested by Corktina - Cycle Route 10.4km, SRR route 10.2km

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/i99du2sai6zazcp/Mahon-wilton.tiff

    Google maps sends you into the City Centre along the old rail line - but that adds an extra KM.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    Red Nissan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,055 ✭✭✭Red Nissan


    Viper_JB wrote: »
    I would have thought staying alive would be good enough motivation for cyclists.

    Indeed one would thinks so, but from that stretch of roadway out to about Ballincollig has seen the greatest amount of cyclists deaths in recent years.

    Motorways are designed for High Speed motor traffic, cyclists do not qualify and in light of even greater speeds being introduced, maybe we should enforce the existing laws, as laws of common scene are seemingly failing a minority.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement
Advertisement