Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Cork SRR - Cyclist in Middle Lane

1246789

Comments

  • #152
    Wexfordian
    Registered Users 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: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭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: 16,620 ✭✭✭✭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: 22,815 ✭✭✭✭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: 16,620 ✭✭✭✭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: 22,815 ✭✭✭✭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: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭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: 22,815 ✭✭✭✭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 Posts: 28,934 ✭✭✭✭_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: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭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: 24,714 ✭ [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: 22,815 ✭✭✭✭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: 1,509 ✭✭✭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: 22,815 ✭✭✭✭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: 16,620 ✭✭✭✭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: 1,509 ✭✭✭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: 16,620 ✭✭✭✭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: 24,714 ✭ [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 Posts: 28,934 ✭✭✭✭_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: 16,620 ✭✭✭✭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: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #182
    Anan1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,815 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    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.


  • #183
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #184
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,620 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    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.


  • #185
    dantastic
    Registered Users Posts: 395 ✭✭dantastic


    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.


  • #186
    Anan1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,815 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,620 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    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.


  • #188
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    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.


  • #189
    Red Nissan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,055 ✭✭✭Red Nissan


    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.


  • #190
    Mikros
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 505 ✭✭✭Mikros


    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.


  • #191
    Jimmy Bottles
    Registered Users Posts: 349 ✭✭Jimmy Bottles


    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 ?


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    Red Nissan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,055 ✭✭✭Red Nissan


    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.


  • #193
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #194
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


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


  • #195
    Anan1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,815 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    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?


  • #196
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,620 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    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..

    wjfs876t3d.jpg


  • #197
    The Bishop Basher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,279 ✭✭✭The Bishop Basher


    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.


  • #198
    blackwhite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,961 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    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.


  • #199
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    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


  • #200
    Anan1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,815 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    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? :D


  • #201
    blackwhite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,961 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    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.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement