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…5681011…14

Comments

  • #212
    The Bishop Basher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭The Bishop Basher


    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.

    That's right Anan1. They have a perfect right to take up lane 2 on a 3 lane road in the dark at rush hour, not only inconveniencing every other road user behind them but putting themselves and everyone else at risk. An entire ring round round a city should slow down from 70 to 20 to accommodate the cyclist for 20 miles if that's how long he chooses to remain in lane 2.

    This thread is just tedious now. I'm not feeding them anymore.


  • #213
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,457 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    The solution is simple.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2391203/Millions-motorists-face-fined-range-sweeping-new-police-powers-tackle-careless-drivers.html


  • #214
    Anan1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,770 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    beauf wrote: »
    What right does a cyclist have to be in the middle lane a kilometre from the next junction?
    None, I meant to use the road.


  • #215
    Mikros
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 508 ✭✭✭Mikros


    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.

    No, the correct solution is separating slow moving, vulnerable road users from a high density, high speed multi lane carriageway. Of course motorists *should* slow down, but you may as well say motorists shouldn't be involved in collisions. The fact remains the presence of a cyclist in that situation significantly increases the chances of a collision occurring, and if it involves the cyclist it will likely involve a serious injury or fatality. The law is never going to cover every possible situation, and just because it is a N road and cyclists are legally allowed there doesn't mean there shouldn't be some common sense in play.


  • #216
    Anan1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,770 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    Mikros wrote: »
    No, the correct solution is separating slow moving, vulnerable road users from a high density, high speed multi lane carriageway. Of course motorists *should* slow down, but you may as well say motorists shouldn't be involved in collisions. The fact remains the presence of a cyclist in that situation significantly increases the chances of a collision occurring, and if it involves the cyclist it will likely involve a serious injury or fatality. The law is never going to cover every possible situation, and just because it is a N road and cyclists are legally allowed there doesn't mean there shouldn't be some common sense in play.
    Agreed, and common sense is to slow down for cyclists. It may or may not be stupid for them to be there, but they are there, they have a right to be there, and the onus is on motorists to take account of them. If you want them gone then lobby your local councillor.


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    Donnelly117
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,485 ✭✭✭Donnelly117


    Anan1 wrote: »
    Given that cyclists have a perfect right to be there, the correct solution is for drivers to slow down.

    You've stated this several time in this thread now...I can only assume you're trolling at this stage. Do you really think that the thousands of cars using the SRR everyday should drive at cycling pace when there is a cyclist using the road? Are you actually serious? Whats the point in building a road the scale of the SRR if cars drive at 20kmh on it?


  • #218
    Anan1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,770 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    Donnelly117 wrote: »
    You've stated this several time in this thread now...I can only assume you're trolling at this stage.
    * yawns *.
    Donnelly117 wrote: »
    Do you really think that the thousands of cars using the SRR everyday should drive at cycling pace when there is a cyclist using the road? Are you actually serious? Whats the point in building a road the scale of the SRR if cars drive at 20kmh on it?
    Yes, for as long as it is legal for cyclists to use the road.


  • #219
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,457 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Anan1 wrote: »
    Agreed, and common sense is to slow down for cyclists. It may or may not be stupid for them to be there, but they are there, they have a right to be there, and the onus is on motorists to take account of them. If you want them gone then lobby your local councillor. :)

    Only the traffic in the same lane needs to slow down. The other lanes should not have to unless the cyclist is in the wrong lane.

    The issues here is the cyclist was in the wrong lane.

    That the road is unsuitable for cycling is a separate issue


  • #220
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,457 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Anan1 wrote: »

    Yes, for as long as it is legal for cyclists to use the road.

    Why does all the traffic in the other lanes have to slow down?


  • #221
    Donnelly117
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,485 ✭✭✭Donnelly117


    Anan1 wrote: »
    * yawns *.

    Yes, for as long as it is legal for cyclists to use the road.

    Im sure that will catch on alright. Maybe we can just stop using the road altogether and turn it into a cycling lane... :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    Anan1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,770 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    beauf wrote: »
    Why does all the traffic in the other lanes have to slow down?
    It doesn't, although in heavy traffic a cyclist in the left lane will cause congestion across other lanes.


  • #223
    Mikros
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 508 ✭✭✭Mikros


    Anan1 wrote: »
    Agreed, and common sense is to slow down for cyclists.

    Slowing down from 80 km/ to say 30 km/h on a route with that sort of high volumes of traffic causes a huge stop wave to travel back through following traffic - 100 cars back people are slamming on brakes. The fact it is dark and the person at the front might not see or expect the cyclist until late makes this even more severe. But I suspect you know this already.

    The road network has to be shared between all road users - proper design prioritises some road users over others depending on the environment. For example in residential areas cyclists and pedestrian take priority, hence lower speed limits, speed bumps, bans on HGV's etc. On high density dual carriageways and motorways vehicle traffic takes priority - cyclists should be provided with alternative routes in those cases. That is how you reduce collisions and injuries.

    You are arguing nonsense tbh.


  • #224
    Donnelly117
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,485 ✭✭✭Donnelly117


    Anan1 wrote: »
    It doesn't, although in heavy traffic a cyclist in the left lane will cause congestion across other lanes.

    This is the bloody point everyone in this thread is making. You proposing to slow down hundreds of cars to 20% of the limit in order to keep 1 cyclist happy...


  • #225
    Anan1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,770 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    Donnelly117 wrote: »
    This is the bloody point everyone in this thread is making. You proposing to slow down hundreds of cars to 20% of the limit in order to keep 1 cyclist happy...
    Go back and read my posts again. S-l-o-w-l-y. The law dictates that cyclists be accommodated on that road. If you have a problem with that then you need to look at having that law changed.


  • #226
    Mikros
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 508 ✭✭✭Mikros


    Anan1 wrote: »
    * yawns *.

    Yes, for as long as it is legal for cyclists to use the road.

    It is legal for me to drive a HGV through a village at 50 km/h at 3pm when school children are walking home - doesn't make it safe or advisable. You can't ignore the circumstances.


  • #227
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,773 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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?

    There have been a number of cases of tractor drives being pulled by the guards for holding up traffic, I would apply the same to cyclists. A cyclist is a slow moving vehicle and should make allowances for faster moving traffic to pass easily or be fined.

    Most cyclists I encounter cycle as close as possible to the left (usually in the hardshoulder when available which is where they should be for there own sake and that of other road users) which makes it possible to get passed them easily even with oncoming traffic. A cyclist tight to the left lane on the wide lanes on the south ring could passed by cars without too much difficulty. He should not be on the road in the first place but if he is that stupid to be cycling on it then he should at least try to keep out of the way of faster moving traffic.


  • #228
    Anan1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,770 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    Mikros wrote: »
    Slowing down from 80 km/ to say 30 km/h on a route with that sort of high volumes of traffic causes a huge stop wave to travel back through following traffic - 100 cars back people are slamming on brakes. The fact it is dark and the person at the front might not see or expect the cyclist until late makes this even more severe. But I suspect you know this already.
    That's kind of obvious.
    Mikros wrote: »
    The road network has to be shared between all road users - proper design prioritises some road users over others depending on the environment. For example in residential areas cyclists and pedestrian take priority, hence lower speed limits, speed bumps, bans on HGV's etc. On high density dual carriageways and motorways vehicle traffic takes priority - cyclists should be provided with alternative routes in those cases. That is how you reduce collisions and injuries.
    And that could be done here too, by banning cyclists. But for now it hasn't, which means that they need to be accommodated.
    Mikros wrote: »
    You are arguing nonsense tbh.
    Yeah, whatever. ;)


  • #229
    Mikros
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 508 ✭✭✭Mikros


    Anan1 wrote: »

    And that could be done here too, by banning cyclists. But for now it hasn't, which means that they need to be accommodated.

    My point is that cyclists (unfortunately) haven't been accommodated in the design of that section of road and their presence now results in a significantly increased risk of collision. Even if every motorist was 100% competent the risk would still be there because of the traffic volume, speed and nature of a 3 lane carriageway.

    In other words a cyclist cannot be safely accommodated at the moment irrespective of how much of a right they have to be there. If you choose to ignore that well then you have to accept the inevitable consequences.


  • #230
    TonyStark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 851 ✭✭✭TonyStark


    Salvatore Sharp Woodpecker wrote: »
    There have been a number of cases of tractor drives being pulled by the guards for holding up traffic, I would apply the same to cyclists. A cyclist is a slow moving vehicle and should make allowances for faster moving traffic to pass easily or be fined.


    In relation the OP there was an overtaking lane available. If he had such great concerns he should have rung the Gardai and reported it.

    Perhaps when you encounter other road users (cyclists/cars/busses/tractors/cows) who are "not making allowances for faster moving traffic"... you should ring the Gaurds (when safe to do so) and report them. I'm sure the boys in blue will give you a robust discourse about your complaints!


  • #231
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,773 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    TonyStark wrote: »
    In relation the OP there was an overtaking lane available. If he had such great concerns he should have rung the Gardai and reported it.

    Perhaps when you encounter other road users (cyclists/cars/busses/tractors/cows) who are "not making allowances for faster moving traffic"... you should ring the Gaurds (when safe to do so) and report them. I'm sure the boys in blue will give you a robust discourse about your complaints!

    When I am driving a tractor I make allowances for other faster moving traffic. I drive in the hardshoulder when available, if there is no hardshoulder I pull in every so often to allow cars to pass if there are no opportunities for them to overtake me safely etc.

    In the very rare event a faster moving car is behind me when driving my car I will move over into the hard shoulder to allow them passed me etc.

    I would expect the same from other road users, including cyclists.

    Also your "robust discourse" comment suggests that the guards do not intervene in situations where traffic is being unreasonably impeded. Well they do and have issued fines to tractor drivers who refuse to allow faster moving traffic passed.


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,457 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Anan1 wrote: »
    It doesn't, although in heavy traffic a cyclist in the left lane will cause congestion across other lanes.

    Yes but far less. Which is why being in the middle lane at that point is obnoxious at best. Dangerous at worse.


  • #233
    Wexfordian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 347 ✭✭Wexfordian


    TonyStark wrote: »
    In relation the OP there was an overtaking lane available. If he had such great concerns he should have rung the Gardai and reported it.

    Perhaps when you encounter other road users (cyclists/cars/busses/tractors/cows) who are "not making allowances for faster moving traffic"... you should ring the Gaurds (when safe to do so) and report them. I'm sure the boys in blue will give you a robust discourse about your complaints!

    If he had rung the Guards and said that there was a vehicle doing 20kph in the middle lane of a three lane otherwise reasonably free-flowing carriageway, I doubt a "robust discourse" would have ensued. Unless (and with a bit of luck) they sent someone out to have a chat with said eejit.

    Actually the only rules of the road being broken (unless he was being undertaken) were by the cyclist a) not keeping left and b) Not keeping up with traffic
    "In normal road and traffic conditions, safely keep up with the pace of the traffic flow while obeying the speed limit. While you must keep a safe distance away from the vehicle in front, you should not drive so slowly that your vehicle unnecessarily blocks other road users"


  • #234
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »
    http://media.fakeposters.com/results/2012/07/13/wjfs876t3d.jpg


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-fWN0FmcIU


  • #235
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Corkblowin wrote: »
    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.



    On those maps the Skehard Road keeps catching my eye.

    I remember why now. This old thread on Boards: New traffic lights planned on Skehard Road. Still time to object!

    As you have already stated, the SRR is meant to function as a bypass (of some sort) but is actually being used as a commuter route. What changes in traffic movement have occurred in the 'catchment area' of the section of the SRR mentioned by the OP?

    I ask this because here in Galway there is a proposal for a supposed "bypass" that is really desired as a commuter route for motorists resident in the west of the city and the "rural" hinterland around it. The original EIS predicted a 166% increase in traffic over baseline on one particular road by 2025 if the bypass was built. Given that the road in question is already cycle-hostile in parts and clearly not designed with accessibility and permeability in mind, a 166% increase in traffic would certainly not be a move in the right direction.

    In a nutshell, depending on the use of a "bypass" (since actual use determines function) traffic may actually increase rather than decrease in certain localities.

    I'm not saying this applies in the OP's scenario. I am merely admitting the possibility that accessibility and permeability around the OP's stretch of the SRR may not be what you think it is.

    Do you cycle around there regularly? If so, how often? What distances?


  • #236
    dantastic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 395 ✭✭dantastic


    Whatever you do don't hold up the cyclists!!!



  • #237
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »
    Insanity? Sheer bloody mindedness? Proving a point? ;)


    Alcohol? A bet? Cultural confusion?

    Does anybody here actually know?

    The point is we're only getting one version of events, that of the OP.

    The cyclist may well be a nutter, even if not in breach of the law. I'd love to know why he chose to be there, in the same way that I'm curious to know the exact motivation of every footpath cyclist (since they're not all the same).


  • #238
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Jimmy Bottles wrote: »
    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.



    Any chance he could have been lost?


  • #239
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    Salvatore Sharp Woodpecker wrote: »
    When I am driving a tractor I make allowances for other faster moving traffic. I drive in the hardshoulder when available, if there is no hardshoulder I pull in every so often to allow cars to pass if there are no opportunities for them to overtake me safely etc.

    In the very rare event a faster moving car is behind me when driving my car I will move over into the hard shoulder to allow them passed me etc.

    I would expect the same from other road users, including cyclists.
    So just to be clear, in urban traffic where a cyclist will generally be faster for a car, you will pull over to let cyclists past you, right?
    Salvatore Sharp Woodpecker wrote: »
    Most cyclists I encounter cycle as close as possible to the left (usually in the hardshoulder when available which is where they should be for there own sake and that of other road users) which makes it possible to get passed them easily even with oncoming traffic.
    Wrong. A cyclist should not be 'as close as possible to the left'. Listen to what the Road Safety Authority advice for cyclists "Ride well clear of the kerb and parked cars. You are as entitled to your road space as any other road user."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PocLSapuXa8


    Staying 'as close as possible to the left' is a recipe for disaster. Cars brush past without leaving enough room, and certainly don't give the 1.5m overtaking space recommended by the RSA. Staying out from the kerb gets cars to do a proper overtake - indicate, pull out, pull back in. That's safer for everybody.

    I always think it's a bit funny to hear drivers moaning about cyclists holding them up. Look around you, drivers. It's not cyclists that hold you up - it's other cars, 99% of the time at least.


  • #240
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,575 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    RainyDay wrote: »
    So just to be clear, in urban traffic where a cyclist will generally be faster for a car, you will pull over to let cyclists past you, right?


    Wrong. A cyclist should not be 'as close as possible to the left'. Listen to what the Road Safety Authority advice for cyclists "Ride well clear of the kerb and parked cars. You are as entitled to your road space as any other road user."


    Staying 'as close as possible to the left' is a recipe for disaster. Cars brush past without leaving enough room, and certainly don't give the 1.5m overtaking space recommended by the RSA. Staying out from the kerb gets cars to do a proper overtake - indicate, pull out, pull back in. That's safer for everybody.

    I always think it's a bit funny to hear drivers moaning about cyclists holding them up. Look around you, drivers. It's not cyclists that hold you up - it's other cars, 99% of the time at least.

    Actually, motorists should keep clear of the curb to let cyclists past. I always do that, because I'm nice and I see no reason to unnecessarily hold up cyclists or have them go around my car on the outside.
    I just realise that I am not forced by law to do so, I am entitled to take up my bit of roadspace, so the door is shut now.


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 29,798 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    dantastic wrote: »
    Whatever you do don't hold up the cyclists!!!


    Ah that clown again. I've seen videos of his posted here before.

    Aside from the fact that there was no cycle lane on the road anyway for him to be whinging about, even when there was room to pass her (on either side), he sits behind her giving out :rolleyes: - the fella on the bike ahead of him manages to get past her without a drama funnily enough!

    But a perfect example of some of the attitudes on this thread.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement
Advertisement