Someone please explain to me the mindset of this cyclist

The OP might be referring to the pedestrian-shared, wet-leaf and glass-shard covered Fairview cycle lane. Can't imagine why not.

Trojan wrote:

Did you cycle it yourself?

Thats what I would like to know. I used to think many lanes looked OK from a car until I cycled on them. Were there any driveways along the route? these can have kerbs all the way.

The cycletrack may not even have been legal, many are not, so he may have simply being obeying the law.

I can see motorists' annoyance; purpose-built cycle lane offering cyclists' own space, and cyclists just ignoring it and impinging on the space of other road users.

Reasons why I don't use cycle paths when provided boil down to poor upkeep (potholes, glass, debris), and bad design (kerbs, undulations, re-entry to the road dangerous, mixed use with dog-walkers and prams, etc). It's the inconsistency really - if I was used to my local cycle tracks being of some use, then I might be inclined to use more of them. However, on my cycle from Chapelizod to town, the cycle track takes me from a nice wide stretch of clean unbroken tarmac up onto the path used by joggers, pedestrians and covered in detritus from the trees, broken glass and the like. Only to pop me back out onto the road at the junction to the park gate to deal with all the traffic again. This path may as well not be there, even if it's not hazardous per se.

So rather than negotiate these 'facilities' I tend to just steer clear. Does that make sense?

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

pedestrians don't pay road tax because they shouldn't be on the road...

Car drivers/owners don't pay road tax either - they pay a vehicle tax. Tax paid by everyone contributes to road building fund.

Note, \m/_(>_<)_\m/ is known for troll-like behaviour on boards. Feel free to ignore his/her posts.

Yeah, I openly refuse to cycle down the teeth-shattering, crotch-thumping stretch of cycle lane on the N11 just past the Esso station in black rock. They paved the bits between driveways so that you have this kind of sinusoidal stretch of cycle track that is both uncomfortable and dangerous to cycle on.


I look over my shoulder, see if there are buses or taxis speeding up, and if not then i just pop into the bus lane and by-pass that god awful mess without causing too much inconvenience.

And the glass thing is very annoying, seems like whenever there is a car crash they just sweep the glass onto the cycle lane...probably because no one uses them :rolleyes:

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

customer is someone who pays for goods or services...
unlike other road users, cyclists don't pay anything for anything so i don't know how you can class them as customers.

Whitelegg (1992) shows that car drivers are heavily subsidised by the rest of the population, ie they don't pay enough tax to cover the costs of roads, accidents, health problems etc.. associated with driving.

breadmonkey wrote:

I knew I wouldn't get anywhere here.

You asked a question and got several clear, considered replies. What more do you want?

breadmonkey wrote:

Why would somebody wearing a high vis vest, high vis bands all over his body and a helmet be cycling in a bus lane which runs parallel to a perfectly good cycle lane? And I don't mean one of those 'cycle lanes' that have parked cars every 2m, I mean a long open stretch of cycle lane.

Why? In short, because he decided it was safer.

I'm not familiar with the particular stretch of cycle lane that you're referring to but I would speculate (and on this point we're all speculating) that the cyclist in question is very safety conscious, which I base on the fact that he was "wearing a high vis vest, high vis bands all over his body and a helmet". In that case, it's probable that he had made a judgement that he was safer off the cycle lane than on it. Choosing to cycle in a bus lane rather than a cycle lane is surely not something that many safety-conscious cyclists would do if they considered the cycle lane to be "perfectly good".

Just out of curiosity, why did this particular cyclist irritate you so much? If he was in a bus lane then, unless you were on a bus, he was unlikely to be in your way.

Remarks about road tax and the like are generally irrelevant. (Incidentally, I agree with daymobrew's point about \m/_(>_<)_\m/, who seems to me to be making little in the way of a useful contribution to the discussion.) With very few exceptions (motorways, for example) cyclists are no more or less entitled under the law to use the public highway than motorists are. In this particular case, the only complication might be that old chestnut of compulsory use, but as I understand it that would only apply if the cycleway has been declared as such by the local authority under the terms of the Roads Act 1993. Does anyone know what the status of this particular cycle lane is?

breadmonkey wrote:

The specific portion of cycle lane I am referring to is between Foxrock church and White's Cross. And yes, I do cycle it occasionally. You can go down there and inspect it yourself if you refuse to believe me.

That cycle track is terrible, I am on it every day. Once had to do it on a roadbike but had to slow to a snails pace. Even on a MTB it is very harsh. Littered with glass. In the morning cops pull cars in and have them park on it. Cars pull up onto it to let kids out, or pull into the bus lane and have doors fly open onto the cycletrack. I only tolerate it since the manic bus men have endangered my life one too many times. I know the "route" I must take on it by now, constantly swerving in and out avoiding the potholes and kerbs. It is full of wandering pedestrians (why do they not use the perfectly good path which is in far better condition?). Bus drivers pull in anywhere they want and let people off buses who wander straight onto the lane oblivious. The new bus shelters have these ridges begging for accidents unless you can go perfectly straight through the ridge. Cars are always parked on it, or pull in and have to wait to open the gates to their house.

Oh and to top it all it is illegal to cycle on a lot of it so maybe he is obeying the law as I suggested earlier. It is technically a footpath for most of the way and is used as such too...

The fact he has the helmet and high viz jacket suggest he is safety concious, sensible and probably law abiding.