Cork SRR - Cyclist in Middle Lane

Anan1 · 10-12-2013 12:41PM

Red Nissan wrote: »

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.

Right now there is no legal prohibition on cycling on the road in question, which means that all other traffic is legally obliged to drive accordingly. In simple English this means slow down for cyclists.

10-12-2013 12:46PM

Iwannahurl wrote: »

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

As I said there is alternative routes available to get anywhere that the south ring takes you by cycling through the routes that run fairly close to the ring. Just look at a map and see all the roads around the south ring.

If a cyclist wants to access somewhere east of the tunnel then they must go through the city and out the other side as cycling in the tunnel is already banned.

There should be no debate here at all, cycling on the south ring is no different to cycling on a motorway and should be banned, it causes a danger to both the cyclist and other road users, especially when you have a cyclist too pig headed to keep as far left as possible and cause a rolling road block.

dr.fuzzenstein · 10-12-2013 12:51PM

Salvatore Sharp Woodpecker wrote: »

As I said there is alternative routes available to get anywhere that the south ring takes you by cycling through the routes that run fairly close to the ring. Just look at a map and see all the roads around the south ring.

If a cyclist wants to access somewhere east of the tunnel then they must go through the city and out the other side as cycling in the tunnel is already banned.

There should be no debate here at all, cycling on the south ring is no different to cycling on a motorway and should be banned, it causes a danger to both the cyclist and other road users, especially when you have a cyclist too pig headed to keep as far left as possible and cause a rolling road block.

Well, I believe this will have to be brought to the attention of authorities, otherwise we just will never agree.
Sane people are saying you shouldn't cycle there and other people, people who also wouldn't cycle there in a million years, saying it's grand.

dantastic · 10-12-2013 12:55PM

Iwannahurl wrote: »

What specific alternative routes are available?

The cycle path on the other side of the road!!!

It would make no sense to have a cycle path on the side of the road where the cyclist was as you can't really come from anywhere or go to anywhere on that side. If you needed to be on that side you would take the significantly shorter route through Bishopstown. Otherwise, you'd be on the other side of the road.

The piece of road in question has been redeveloped recently and bares little resemblance to the google maps images. It's now a proper interchange with american style collectors on both sides etc.

Drinking bleach is legal too. Do we need laws against it or should we just ask people to cop on.

Anan1 · 10-12-2013 12:57PM

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well, I believe this will have to be brought to the attention of authorities, otherwise we just will never agree.
Sane people are saying you shouldn't cycle there and other people, people who also wouldn't cycle there in a million years, saying it's grand.

This is really quite simple. Right now, people have a right to cycle there and all other traffic is obliged to slow for cyclists, which causes major disruption. The only way to change this is to change the law.

dr.fuzzenstein · 10-12-2013 01:09PM

Anan1 wrote: »

This is really quite simple. Right now, people have a right to cycle there and all other traffic is obliged to slow for cyclists, which causes major disruption. The only way to change this is to change the law.

You have an irritating way of agreeing with someone. Flawlessly logical. :P
I'd almost guess you are Vulcan.

corktina · 10-12-2013 01:14PM

Salvatore Sharp Woodpecker wrote: »

As I said there is alternative routes available to get anywhere that the south ring takes you by cycling through the routes that run fairly close to the ring. Just look at a map and see all the roads around the south ring.

If a cyclist wants to access somewhere east of the tunnel then they must go through the city and out the other side as cycling in the tunnel is already banned.

There should be no debate here at all, cycling on the south ring is no different to cycling on a motorway and should be banned, it causes a danger to both the cyclist and other road users, especially when you have a cyclist too pig headed to keep as far left as possible and cause a rolling road block.

A cyclist is entitled to the entire lane he/she is in. There is no "keep as far left as possible" , that is just an open invite for vehicles to squeeze past.

I'm afraid this whole argument boils down to a "me first" attitude.

Red Nissan · 10-12-2013 01:17PM

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

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.

It is and that section of roadway has already a bad reputation but now it is even more dangerous again and clearly not and never intended to be designed for cyclists, I suspect the designation will be changed, it's only a matter of the signing the relevant form.

Mikros · 10-12-2013 01:19PM

I am actually gobsmacked by some of the attitudes on display in this thread. Irrespective of what the law says, cycling on a driving lane of a 3 lane carriageway with multiple exits and lane crossings, where traffic speed is up to 100 km/h is simply and objectively dangerous to both the cyclist and other traffic around. Collisions occur where speed differentials are high.

Safe systems of roads emphasise reducing such differentials by providing engineering solutions e.g. lower speed limits or separate lanes are two possible approaches.

The lack of an alternative for the cyclist doesn't change this fact - it is poor planning by the roads authority, but anyone arguing that this somehow makes it ok to cycle there needs their head checked.

Jimmy Bottles · 10-12-2013 01:24PM

Red Nissan wrote: »

It is and that section of roadway has already a bad reputation but now it is even more dangerous again and clearly not and never intended to be designed for cyclists, I suspect the designation will be changed, it's only a matter of the signing the relevant form.

You expect Motorway designation for the SRR ?

Red Nissan · 10-12-2013 01:38PM

Jimmy Bottles wrote: »

You expect Motorway designation for the SRR ?

The South Link and the South Ring Road had been designated as Motorways previously. When the South Link was built just going to the Magic Roundabout cyclists were not permitted to use it.

One will still see cyclists pulled in by Garda Traffic Corp to this day.

The South Ring Road has only been completed this year, that's some twenty years in the making, the plans stem form a 1960s report and modified along the way and influenced by various budgets and political forces.

In that time the authority over seeers has changed a few times and it has had more than one designation, recently access roads from Carrigtwohill and Ballincollig have all been redesignated to Motorway Status and now the SRR has its compliments of flyovers to make one complete uninterrupted bypass of the city.

So we have motorways approaching the road, motorways after the road and a motorway class upgrade to the existing structure.

I expect the road to get official designation and a toll in the coming months.

10-12-2013 01:53PM

corktina wrote: »

A cyclist is entitled to the entire lane he/she is in. There is no "keep as far left as possible" , that is just an open invite for vehicles to squeeze past.

I'm afraid this whole argument boils down to a "me first" attitude.

A cyclist is no more entitled to hold up traffic than a car. If a car was driving at the same speed cyclist moves at people would be calling for them to be fined, pulled over by the guards for causing an obstruction to other road users etc (and rightly so) so why should it be any different for a cyclist.

A fast moving road such as the south ring, which is essentially a motorway is unsuitable for a cyclist and they should not be entitled to create a rolling road block obstructing 100's of people.

If you were in a two mile tail back behind a tractor moving at 20km/h on a normal N road would you happily sit there and say he is entitled to the full road or would you expect them to pull aside and allow traffic past (I am a regular tractor driver by the way and always pull in when possible to allow cars past).

On any road a cyclist should keep as far left as possible in order to allow faster moving traffic to pass them. Holding up traffic is endangering themselves and others.

corktina · 10-12-2013 02:03PM

Nowadays cyclists are advised to command the traffic lane, to do otherwise is to risk someone squeezing by them and getting it wrong..

Anan1 · 10-12-2013 02:11PM

Salvatore Sharp Woodpecker wrote: »

A cyclist is no more entitled to hold up traffic than a car. If a car was driving at the same speed cyclist moves at people would be calling for them to be fined, pulled over by the guards for causing an obstruction to other road users etc (and rightly so) so why should it be any different for a cyclist.

Are you saying that the law prohibits cyclists from holding up traffic? If so, I wouldn't mind a link to the relevant legislation?

dr.fuzzenstein · 10-12-2013 02:21PM

corktina wrote: »

Nowadays cyclists are advised to command the traffic lane, to do otherwise is to risk someone squeezing by them and getting it wrong..

The Bishop Basher · 10-12-2013 02:21PM

Anan1 wrote: »

Are you saying that the law prohibits cyclists from holding up traffic? If so, I wouldn't mind a link to the relevant legislation?

Good manners and common courtesy to other road users should be enough to prevent cyclists from holding up a line of traffic behind them.

I understand that there are times where they need to take over the lane for their own safety but these situations are the exception rather then the rule.

Unfortunately, the militant entitlement attitude displayed so blatantly on here, often supersedes basic manners and courtesy to the detrement of all other road users.

blackwhite · 10-12-2013 02:21PM

corktina wrote: »

A cyclist is entitled to the entire lane he/she is in. There is no "keep as far left as possible" , that is just an open invite for vehicles to squeeze past.

I'm afraid this whole argument boils down to a "me first" attitude.

Except that, at the point the OP is referring to, they are only entitled to be in the middle/second lane if they are overtaking someone in the left hand lane.
You are required to keep in the left-hand most driving lane at all times, except when overtaking (note - a auxillary/slip lane is not a driving lane).

The only "me first" attitude I see is the cyclist deciding to cycle in the incorrect lane because it would be an inconvenience to have to change lanes further on ahead (where he is supposed to do so) - and to hell with the other road users that he inconveniences in the process.

corktina · 10-12-2013 02:26PM

It was stated that lane one peels off in the direction of Bandon , and I imagine that is why the cyclist was in lane two...ie he was going straight on. There is no other reasonable explanation for him being in lane two.

I'm not saying he wasn't putting himself at risk, I'm saying he might be entitled to be there if he was going straight on, in which case it is the road design at fault . As I said before in the UK he would have been routed down the slip road to the roundabout and back up the next slip on to the main line and he would have been sensible to go this way anyway

Anan1 · 10-12-2013 02:34PM

Swanner wrote: »

Good manners and common courtesy to other road users should be enough to prevent cyclists from holding up a line of traffic behind them.

This is nonsense. When I find myself stuck behind a cyclist I wait for a safe place to overtake, as per the ROTR.

Swanner wrote: »

Unfortunately, the militant entitlement attitude displayed so blatantly on here, often supersedes basic manners and courtesy to the detrement of all other road users.

You think that cyclists are being militant by exercising their lawful right to use the road?

blackwhite · 10-12-2013 02:35PM

corktina wrote: »

It was stated that lane one peels off in the direction of Bandon , and I imagine that is why the cyclist was in lane two...ie he was going straight on. There is no other reasonable explanation for him being in lane two.

I'm not saying he wasn't putting himself at risk, I'm saying he might be entitled to be there if he was going straight on, in which case it is the road design at fault . As I said before in the UK he would have been routed down the slip road to the roundabout and back up the next slip on to the main line and he would have been sensible to go this way anyway

Lane two peels off towards Bandon AFTER the next exit. Thinking it's justified to move out into lane 2 so early is the same logic as the morons who sit hogging the overtaking lane on a two-lane motorway because they can see a car 1km ahead in the distance.
Sure it goes down to two lanes approaching the tunnel when heading Eastbound - should every car refuse to use lane 1 because it'll eventually dissappear at Mahon? Selfish, inconsiderate and illegal use of lanes - the fact that he was putting himself in great danger to do so only makes it worse.

Ludo · 10-12-2013 02:35PM

corktina wrote: »

It was stated that lane one peels off in the direction of Bandon , and I imagine that is why the cyclist was in lane two...ie he was going straight on. There is no other reasonable explanation for him being in lane two.

As the cyclist was between the Kinsale and Sarsfield exits at the time, the left lane does not peel off for another kilometer or so depending exactly where between those roundabouts he was. No reason to be in middle lane between those junctions as the lane does not end until the following exit.

The Bishop Basher · 10-12-2013 02:37PM

corktina wrote: »

It was stated that lane one peels off in the direction of Bandon , and I imagine that is why the cyclist was in lane two...ie he was going straight on. There is no other reasonable explanation for him being in lane two.

I'm not saying he wasn't putting himself at risk, I'm saying he might be entitled to be there if he was going straight on, in which case it is the road design at fault . As I said before in the UK he would have been routed down the slip road to the roundabout and back up the next slip on to the main line and he would have been sensible to go this way anyway

This post is based on assumptions as are many of the posts in here.

Basic facts:

Man on bike in lane 2 of busy, fast moving 3 lane road, in the dark at rush hour. Man has legal right to be there. Man is obviously suicidal or insane as he should not be there and he's putting both his life and the life of everyone around him in immediate danger.

People can argue all they want based on their own assumptions but the facts are the facts and the rest is just waffle.

dr.fuzzenstein · 10-12-2013 02:39PM

corktina wrote: »

It was stated that lane one peels off in the direction of Bandon , and I imagine that is why the cyclist was in lane two...ie he was going straight on. There is no other reasonable explanation for him being in lane two.

I'm not saying he wasn't putting himself at risk, I'm saying he might be entitled to be there if he was going straight on, in which case it is the road design at fault . As I said before in the UK he would have been routed down the slip road to the roundabout and back up the next slip on to the main line and he would have been sensible to go this way anyway

Insanity? Sheer bloody mindedness? Proving a point?

Agree otherwise. But again, in Ireland someone would pull that sort of stunt because they're "entitled to it", even though there would be a perfectly good road elsewhere. (hypothetically speaking)
People here would never risk their lives for anyone else or on a fundamental, global, human rights issue. But they would happily die to prove a minor point about their entitlements.

The Bishop Basher · 10-12-2013 02:39PM

Anan1 wrote: »

You think that cyclists are being militant by exercising their lawful right to use the road?

That's clearly not what I'm saying but sure if that's what you want to read into it so that you can disagree and argue ad nauseum, be my guest. Just don't expect me to remain engaged when I get bored in about 5 minutes.

corktina · 10-12-2013 02:41PM

I did say that would be the only reasonable explanation for him being there.....if it isn't reasonable, then he shouldn't have been there. Please note though that neither you nor I nor the OP can say exactly where he was on that road.

Anan1 · 10-12-2013 02:44PM

Swanner wrote: »

That's clearly not what I'm saying but sure if that's what you want to read into it so that you can disagree and argue ad nauseum, be my guest. Just don't expect me to remain engaged when I get bored in about 5 minutes.

Actually, it is exactly what you were saying. The danger to cyclists is from fast-moving traffic. Given that cyclists have a perfect right to be there, the correct solution is for drivers to slow down. Your assertion otherwise is the very definition of militancy.

corktina · 10-12-2013 02:47PM

cyclists are at danger on every road from fast moving traffic and more so on other roads than the N40. It isn't logical to want to limit them there, without doing the same elsewhere

Jimmy Bottles · 10-12-2013 02:47PM

corktina wrote: »

I did say that would be the only reasonable explanation for him being there.....if it isn't reasonable, then he shouldn't have been there. Please note though that neither you nor I nor the OP can say exactly where he was on that road.

I overtook him just past the Togher flyover which is between the Pouladuff Flyover and the Sarsfield Roundabout. At a guess, he must have been in the same lane before I overtook him.

TINA1984 · 10-12-2013 02:49PM

Red Nissan wrote: »

The South Link and the South Ring Road had been designated as Motorways previously. When the South Link was built just going to the Magic Roundabout cyclists were not permitted to use it.

No that is not correct. They've never been designated as Motorways, restrictions on cyclists yes, Motorways no. The first Motorway in the county and city of Cork was the M8 Fermoy Bypass, followed by the rest of the N8 schemes being redesignated Motorway.

Red Nissan wrote: »

In that time the authority over seeers has changed a few times and it has had more than one designation, recently access roads from Carrigtwohill and Ballincollig have all been redesignated to Motorway Status and now the SRR has its compliments of flyovers to make one complete uninterrupted bypass of the city.

That is not correct either. You're confusing the speed limit increase from 100 to 120 kph as changes in designation from national primary (N designation & Green signage) with Motorway (M designation & Blue signage).

Red Nissan wrote: »

I expect the road to get official designation and a toll in the coming months.

I would like to see the entire N40 being redesignated as Motorway, but I would say it is unlikely until the Dunkettle Interchange upgrade is completed. It will take the death of cyclists on the N40 as it stands to concentrate minds on the issue.

beauf · 10-12-2013 02:55PM

Anan1 wrote: »

Actually, it is exactly what you were saying. The danger to cyclists is from fast-moving traffic. Given that cyclists have a perfect right to be there, the correct solution is for drivers to slow down. Your assertion otherwise is the very definition of militancy.

What right does a cyclist have to be in the middle lane a kilometre from the next junction?

Cork SRR - Cyclist in Middle Lane

Comments