Cyclists in bus lanes (cut from 'giving way to buses' thread)

beauf

beauf wrote: »

We may progress if you answer a question for a change. Though I doubt progress is your intent. Apparently if a post is to be taken in context of the thread or only to what's directly quoted is up to your discretion. As such its difficult to follow any logic to your posts.

Lets simplify the question. What relevance has "benefiting from the use of the road" to a cyclist being in front of a bus.

Spook_ie wrote: »

An argument is of two or more opposing views, to overcome someone's argument necessitates giving them a rational and logical path to follow, to bring them to a conclusion supporting your own argument, however, getting them to follow that path may well be a torturous affair and sometimes require a great deal of patience and planning

I'll take that non answer as no relevance.

Its derailing the thread to no useful purpose.

Peanut2011

smackyB wrote: »

Imagine your car lane had random road signs randomly plonked in the middle, ended suddenly without warning, had dangerous merging with traffic at junction, was blocked by bus stops, covered with glass and debris and had lots of bumps and dips on it. Can you see why you might not use it?

I absolutely agree, but to answer that question, have you seen the condition or Irish roads lately?? Not saying that all cycle lanes are perfect but at the same time when the road is not good cars are still not allowed to choose where they drive. The issue is when even there are good cycle lanes, you get cyclists deciding to stay on the road as they don't want to have to slow down or what not.

Perfect example here Bushy Park Road

Road ahead from there is not wide enough but yet you still get cyclists continuing straight on. There has been many accidents involving cycles as well. Needlessly I would say.

galwaycyclist

Peanut2011 wrote: »

Perfect examples are: blocking the whole bus lane by riding down the middle of it when bus is stuck behind them

By definition if the cyclist is moving then the bus cannot be "stuck". If the "normal" lane is blocked by cars then, by being able to travel at cycling speed, the bus passengers are still getting an advantage over the cars.

As I recall, in Dublin at peak hours the bike is faster than car traffic for trips from as far out as m50 ring into the city centre. Therefore buses moving at cycling speed in bus lanes are also faster than car travel.

If there is no car traffic blocking the "normal" lane then the bus can pull out and overtake.

Of course if the bus lanes were simply built so that they were wide enough for buses to pass cyclists the issue would go away - but even without this the buses are getting a clear advantage.

valleyoftheunos

Peanut2011 wrote: »

I're read this thread for some time now and MY GOD how many irrelevant posts. Can we get back on topic?

I would argue if the cycle lane is provided it must be used and Bus lane should not be allowed to be used by cyclists. The reason I say this is, and I am sure many would be on here giving out about it, if they came across the car driving in a bus lane because he was not happy with the normal traffic lane as it has pot holes or whatever else.

So many cycle lanes are unsafe or not fit for purpose, Cyclists choose not to use cycle lanes for these reasons not because cyclists are inconsiderate. A cyclist does not have to suffer damage to their bike such as shredded tyres and punctures in a cycle lane simply because the cycle lane is there.

Peanut2011 wrote: »

I do feel for cyclists who are very vulnerable on the road but there are so many who just simply don't help the case. Any of the ones that act in selfish way and do not consider other road users are really doing the disservice to all others who are on the roads.

Perfect examples are: blocking the whole bus lane by riding down the middle of it when bus is stuck behind them, going trough red lights without consideration for pedestrians and vehicles joining from other directions, riding two abreast in a convoy of 10-20 on country roads blocking any possibility of other road users overtaking them safely.

A close or unsafe pass by a bus is a terrifying experience for a cyclist and cycling to the left of bus lanes (or any other lane in fact) encourages unsafe passing by buses and other vehicles, cycling in the middle requires passing traffic to find a safe place to complete a safe pass rather than allowing the temptation to pass in a dangerous place. the same applies to groups of cyclists riding two abreast.

Clearly there is no justification for running red lights on a bicycle.

Peanut2011 wrote: »

List goes on!!!! And no I do not thing cyclist are to blame for all problems but some of the above examples I have given and which are encountered on a daily basis are certainly not helping anyone.

If only all road users had a bit more courtesy out there for one another we would all get where we are going just as quickly.

I think if drivers considered the reasons behind cyclist behaviour rather than branding them inconsiderate they would realise that cyclists behave the way the do for legitimate reasons.

Peanut2011

ThisRegard wrote: »

So you think it's safer and better for a cyclist to cycle down a road with a bus lane on their inside, with buses and taxis zooming by, and other vehicles doing the same on their outside, simultaneously ? You want the law to be changed to insist that this be the case ?

I never suggested they do that, but when they are obviously holding up a bus behind them moving to a cycle track if available for a few minutes is hardly making it dangerous for them. It's good manners. All I am saying is consider other faster moving traffic let them pass and move back in.

Jawgap wrote: »

First, the law was changed and compulsory use of cycle lanes was removed - if it's in the public interest then they should change it back, otherwise a cyclist is doing nothing illegal, unlike the bus or taxi driver who decides to 'shoulder surf' him to 'teach' him a lesson.

Second the off-road bus lanes are generally poor - they cross junctions in totally impractical and illogical ways, they're not maintained and in the autumn / winter they're not cleaned (in fact, they are never cleaned) so they fill up with leaf mulch which is dangerously slippy. That's even before you have to deal with cars coming out of driveways, dog walkers, joggers and pedestrians.

Third, cycling out from the kerb is a good safety measure. I'd say some cyclists are thoughtless and selfish when they do this, but in the majority of cases it's to avoid all the crap in the gutter, to give you some room to manoeuver and to prevent buses, taxis, vans etc pulling dangerous overtakes - not every driver of a motorised vehicle is conscientious when it comes to other road users' safety. As a road user, a cyclist is entitled to protect their own safety even if it means mildly inconveniencing other road users.

Fourth, red light jumping, cycling on the path, riding the wrong way up oneway streets etc - all should be appropriately punished and hopefully when the new fixed penalty notices come in this autumn there'll be a clampdown on this type of idiotic behaviour.

Firstly I never said they were doing anything illegal all I am saying is consider other traffic on the road. As mentioned above. I certainly do not condone what you call 'shoulder surf' and I would consider that to be a road rage incident and any driver caught for doing that should be dealt with appropriately.

I understand with the off-road cycle lanes being an maintenance issue and in the winter I do understand that the road surface is very dangerous and would not have issue in that case, but what happens during summer when we have majority or cyclists out there?

Regarding, dealing with cars coming out of driveways, dog walkers, joggers and pedestrians, well how is that any different than traffic lights, junctions, pedestrians and other road users. That means you must maintain safe speed for the condition, however what is seems to me here is that the cyclists expects to keep full speed all the way in.

Thirdly, I do understand cycling away from the kerbs and I would do it myself for exact reasons you stated, however as mentioned before allowing other faster traffic to pass you where possible would be considering other road users.

Regarding jumping lights and so on, I am not convinced the new legislation would have any major impact. Sure operating a mobile phone while driving has been banned for a long time but you still see 1 in all 4 cars doing it. As long as enforcement does not happen no rule makes a difference.

ezra_pound

@Spook ie

Are you employed at the moment?

ThisRegard

Peanut2011 wrote: »

I never suggested they do that, but when they are obviously holding up a bus behind them moving to a cycle track if available for a few minutes is hardly making it dangerous for them. It's good manners. All I am saying is consider other faster moving traffic let them pass and move back in.

But if you don't want them in a bus lane, and there's no cycle lane, where else can they go but in between 2 moving lines of traffic ?

It's equally good manners for a bus to wait the few seconds to either drive around, or just wait until it gets to the next bus stop, which in Dublin is never too far away, as they're going to be stopping anyway.

Victor

ezra_pound wrote: »

@Spook ie

Are you employed at the moment?

Hardly any of your business.

Moderator

beauf

ye don't want cyclist s on the pavement or the road. you don't them going to fast or too slow. make your mind up.

what causes congestion is cars. cycling is part of the solution to that. so do you want congestion or cycling. because that's the crux of this.

Jawgap

Peanut2011 wrote: »

I never suggested they do that, but when they are obviously holding up a bus behind them moving to a cycle track if available for a few minutes is hardly making it dangerous for them. It's good manners. All I am saying is consider other faster moving traffic let them pass and move back in.

Firstly I never said they were doing anything illegal all I am saying is consider other traffic on the road. As mentioned above. I certainly do not condone what you call 'shoulder surf' and I would consider that to be a road rage incident and any driver caught for doing that should be dealt with appropriately.

I understand with the off-road cycle lanes being an maintenance issue and in the winter I do understand that the road surface is very dangerous and would not have issue in that case, but what happens during summer when we have majority or cyclists out there?

Regarding, dealing with cars coming out of driveways, dog walkers, joggers and pedestrians, well how is that any different than traffic lights, junctions, pedestrians and other road users. That means you must maintain safe speed for the condition, however what is seems to me here is that the cyclists expects to keep full speed all the way in.

Thirdly, I do understand cycling away from the kerbs and I would do it myself for exact reasons you stated, however as mentioned before allowing other faster traffic to pass you where possible would be considering other road users.

Regarding jumping lights and so on, I am not convinced the new legislation would have any major impact. Sure operating a mobile phone while driving has been banned for a long time but you still see 1 in all 4 cars doing it. As long as enforcement does not happen no rule makes a difference.

Ok, then why can't other traffic consider cyclists? I can safely, legally and comfortably maintain 30+ km/hr on a decent road in the city - that's faster than most cars / vehicular traffic can go.*

Cycle lanes of the off road variety tend to be full of pedestrians etc - As I suggested above why would I risk putting myself into a situation where I might clip someone when I can legally stay on the road and, in my opinion, be safer?

I don't expect to keep full gas all the way in - but neither do I expect to have to take a slower route just because it's inconvenient for some people - if other users feel they might be delayed, can I suggest they leave a bit earlier to account for possible delays - as the AA and the Guards are always saying, leave plenty of time for your journey.

Allowing faster traffic to pass is a courtesy, but it only takes a few close passes for people to learn it comes with a stiff price.

I agree with you on the enforcement, but that's for a separate discussion. No doubt there'll be a bit of a blitz, then it'll fade away.

EDIT: *before anyone gets excited, speed limits don't apply to bikes - it's just another one of the perks

Peanut2011

Jawgap wrote: »

Ok, then why can't other traffic consider cyclists? I can safely, legally and comfortably maintain 30+ km/hr on a decent road in the city - that's faster than most cars / vehicular traffic can go.*


I don't expect to keep full gas all the way in - but neither do I expect to have to take a slower route just because it's inconvenient for some people - if other users feel they might be delayed, can I suggest they leave a bit earlier to account for possible delays - as the AA and the Guards are always saying, leave plenty of time for your journey.

See the same can be said for cyclists, but I guess it is easier to blame other road users than look at your own faults.

As I said common courtesy on all parts would go a long way. But it has to stay from one.

valleyoftheunos

Peanut2011 wrote: »

See the same can be said for cyclists, but I guess it is easier to blame other road users than look at your own faults.

As I said common courtesy on all parts would go a long way. But it has to stay from one.

A lack of consideration by a cyclist can result in a short delay for a motorist whereas lack of consideration by a motorist can result in serious or fatal injury for a cyclist.

I would suggest that the greater duty is on Motorists.

valleyoftheunos

Peanut2011 wrote: »

. The issue is when even there are good cycle lanes, you get cyclists deciding to stay on the road as they don't want to have to slow down or what not.

Perfect example here Bushy Park Road

Road ahead from there is not wide enough but yet you still get cyclists continuing straight on. There has been many accidents involving cycles as well. Needlessly I would say.

That cycle lane at Busy Park Road is a perfect example of a disastrously designed cycle lane, a sharp left hand turn, over a lip and across a foot path, through a narrow opening and then emerges going the wrong direction on the road it joins. There is nothing right about it and it is no wonder cyclists choose not to use it. Much more a case of wanting to avoid a possible accident negotiating it rather than a wish to not slow down.

Jawgap

Peanut2011 wrote: »

See the same can be said for cyclists, but I guess it is easier to blame other road users than look at your own faults.

As I said common courtesy on all parts would go a long way. But it has to stay from one.

I can safely say I've lost count of the number of times in the last week I've either seen a cyclist extend a courtesy to another road user or been part of a cycling group that has extended manners and courtesies to other road users.

I can also safely say that I can count comfortably on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've had a motorists or drivers extend a courtesy to me as a cyclist.

As evidenced by this thread I'd suggest most motorists and / or drivers perceive a hierarchy on the road whereby motorised traffic - and the people transported via motorised traffic - are somehow more important as a class of road users and therefore should be facilitated by those lower down the hierarchy, in this case cyclists and pedestrians.

Fortunately this has no basis in law - and as I suggested way back in this thread, a cyclist in a bus / cycle lane (because that's what most of them are) is committing no offence by cycling safely and is not required to yield to any traffic behind him. There is no basis for suggesting that one road users convenience trumps another's, let alone for suggesting that anyone's convenience trumps someone else's safety.

That might not suit a select group of people and their view of how society should be arranged, but once they get over themselves they'll be fine.

Really, a cyclist in a bus lane is just a minor irritation in the overall scheme of things.

smackyB

Peanut2011 wrote: »

Perfect example here Bushy Park Road

So you think cyclists should be forced to take a route which involves two extra junctions, ramps (usually poorly maintained in my experience) and weaving in and out of parked cars? That's an incredibly bad example to pick to back up your argument.

Peanut2011

smackyB wrote: »

So you think cyclists should be forced to take a route which involves two extra junctions, ramps (usually poorly maintained in my experience) and weaving in and out of parked cars? That's an incredibly bad example to pick to back up your argument.

I expect them to pick the route that is there for a reason, but hey why bother! Anyhow, I see there is no point trying to have a discussion and nothing anyone else say is valid point!

monument

Peanut2011 wrote: »

Perfect example here Bushy Park Road

Road ahead from there is not wide enough but yet you still get cyclists continuing straight on. There has been many accidents involving cycles as well. Needlessly I would say.

What kind of accidents?

Your example is a prime very poor one, the redirect put cyclists on a roundabout towards the the wrong way! The crossing on from that are poor and the reentery point is poorer again, plus there's no connections with some side roads to the right.

SeanW

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

do you think all these people that cycle just horde the (potential) motor and fuel tax away without spending it? Maybe they spend it on booze and alocohol that the motorist can't afford due to travel costs and end up paying more tax??

Here's the thing, they're still spending money on something other than taxes.

Assume for a moment that the spend the €800 (what I pay in r**d tax for a poverty spec 15 year old saloon) on stuff from foreign online shops or a holiday. In that case, they're explicity €800 better off.

Or say you're right, they spend it on booze instead. A part of that money will be spent on the actual alchol, a portion on taxes.

They're still (all else being equal) paying less tax.

Since motoring taxes are more or less guaranteed to consume a large chunk of ones income, it is extremely hard to see how dumping the car will not result in less tax being paid.

valleyoftheunos

Peanut2011 wrote: »

I expect them to pick the route that is there for a reason, but hey why bother! Anyhow, I see there is no point trying to have a discussion and nothing anyone else say is valid point!

I think the point being made is that the route you pointed out is in fact poorly laid out and not suitable.

It seems that when you say road users should be more considerate to each other what you actually mean is that Cyclists should just get out of the way of motorists to as not inconvenience them regardless of the inconvenience or danger that the cyclist may suffer as a result.

As pointed out by another poster this feeds into the popular perception that motorists somehow enjoy a greater right to the roads simply because they are in cars and are going faster than other road users, this of course is total tosh.

thebullkf

Jawgap wrote: »

I can safely say I've lost count of the number of times in the last week I've either seen a cyclist extend a courtesy to another road user or been part of a cycling group that has extended manners and courtesies to other road users.

I can also safely say that I can count comfortably on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've had a motorists or drivers extend a courtesy to me as a cyclist.

As evidenced by this thread I'd suggest most motorists and / or drivers perceive a hierarchy on the road whereby motorised traffic - and the people transported via motorised traffic - are somehow more important as a class of road users and therefore should be facilitated by those lower down the hierarchy, in this case cyclists and pedestrians.

Fortunately this has no basis in law - and as I suggested way back in this thread, a cyclist in a bus / cycle lane (because that's what most of them are) is committing no offence by cycling safely and is not required to yield to any traffic behind him. There is no basis for suggesting that one road users convenience trumps another's, let alone for suggesting that anyone's convenience trumps someone else's safety.

That might not suit a select group of people and their view of how society should be arranged, but once they get over themselves they'll be fine.

Really, a cyclist in a bus lane is just a minor irritation in the overall scheme of things.

you can reverse the bit in bold for me, not surprising you'd be biased towards cyclists


The usual hysterical rabid defence and circlejerking and thanks whoring of cyclists on this thread

original post :

bmaxi wrote: »

The whole idea of bus lanes is to shorten bus journey times, so logically buses coming out of bus lanes should always have priority or any advantage
is lost. As usual in Ireland, these things are introduced in a ham fisted way, more for visual than practical effect, politicians showing how advanced in thinking they are without considering the full picture. It's easy to paint lines on roads when they mean fcuk all, for instance, I can never understand why bicycles are allowed to share bus lanes, they should have a dedicated lane to themselves although, having said that, they probably wouldn't use them. Just the other day I came across three buses stuck behind a bicycle in the bus lane on Stillorgan Road, even though there is a perfectly good cycle lane on the footpath. Proper penalties and a modicum of enforcement would solve a lot of our traffic congestion problems but apparently there are only two road traffic offences on the statute books, ironically the two which are most easily detected with the minimum of effort.

this a thousand times + proper education of cyclists and motorists.

smackyB

Peanut2011 wrote: »

I expect them to pick the route that is there for a reason, but hey why bother! Anyhow, I see there is no point trying to have a discussion and nothing anyone else say is valid point!

Your argument is ok in theory, it was just a bad example. Here is good example for your argument - nice surface, goes behind bus stops and cyclists still have right of way at the junction further south.

Just because someone in the council *thinks* that cyclists should use a particular route doesn't mean that it's necessarily suitable for users.

Jawgap

monument wrote: »

What kind of accidents?

Your example is a prime very poor one, the redirect put cyclists on a roundabout towards the the wrong way! The crossing on from that are poor and the reentery point is poorer again, plus there's no connections with some side roads to the right.

According to the RSA, there's only been two collision involving bikes along that stretch - a serious one in 2008 and minor one in 2010.

there was also a cyclist / pedestrian collision in 2007.

ArmaniJeanss

smackyB wrote: »

Your argument is ok in theory, it was just a bad example. Here is good example for your argument - nice surface, goes behind bus stops and cyclists still have right of way at the junction further south.

Looking at it that stretch is really good for the next couple of miles, and its noticeable that if you follow the road on google maps the only cyclists you come across are actually sticking to the cycle path (admittedly small sample of 4 cyclists)

Jack Kyle

The non use of cycling lanes by cyclists really is a prime example of the sense of entitlement of many cyclists.

They've been provided with their own personal road but sod everyone else - They happen to dislike the special road so they'll just use the motorists' road and God help anyone who objects to their selfish behaviour.

I stand by my earlier comments - If a motorist sees a cyclist on a road where there's a dedicated cycling lane, the motorist should blast them out of it with the horn. If a motorist is obstructed by cyclists selfishly cycling two abreast when they could and should switch to single file, the motorist should blast them out of it. And any cyclist who ends up in an accident as a result of such carry on only has himself/herself to blame.

The cycling lobby seem to think that they're equal on the roads to motorists. They are not. I am paying for the privilege of driving my vehicle. Call it what you like - Motor Tax / Road Tax / etc. I'm paying to be there. Cyclists are not.

ThisRegard

Words fail me, I didn't think it possible to put so much nonsense in the one post. After you said the motorists road I could only assume it's a windup as I've noticed you have a habit of irritating people in other forums lately.

For what it's worth, in the hope of blowing your little mind, I've paid motor tax on two cars this year. When I'm on my bike, using your logic, I have more right to the road than you do.

Jawgap

You mean as a cyclist I don't have to pay motor tax? On either of my cars?

Can I claim a refund?


Edit: as for the horn thing, I'd just say go for it. I was out in a group with my brother's club and a motorist did exactly as you're suggesting. His only problem was the club in question was Garda CC! The traffic corps jeep was waiting for him when he got home

Cookie_Monster

Jack Kyle wrote: »

The non use of cycling lanes by cyclists really is a prime example of the sense of entitlement of many cyclists.

They've been provided with their own personal road but sod everyone else - They happen to dislike the special road so they'll just use the motorists' road and God help anyone who objects to their selfish behaviour.

what's this? You could I suppose say motorway are perhaps motorists roads, but all other roads are open to all types of uses, be they powered by motors, horses, legs etc. Don't forget that pedestrians, cyclists and animal riders automically have more right to use the roads than any morotist. There are no licences required, no taxes to be paid first, no age limits and so forth.

Jack Kyle

ThisRegard wrote: »

Words fail me, I didn't think it possible to put so much nonsense in the one post. After you said the motorists road I could only assume it's a windup as I've noticed you have a habit of irritating people in other forums lately.

Read the post.

I'm not talking about standalone roads which are everyone's (obviously).

I'm talking about situations where cyclists are provided with their own dedicated road but instead choose to use the actual road and obstruct motorists.

That is a joke and cyclists who do it are being selfish.

Similarly, cyclists that travel two abreast and block / obstruct motorists are being very selfish.

That is all I'm saying.

Jack Kyle

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

what's this? You could I suppose say motorway are perhaps motorists roads, but all other roads are open to all types of uses, be they powered by motors, horses, legs etc. Don't forget that pedestrians, cyclists and animal rider automically have more right to use the roads than any morotist. There are no licences required, no taxes to be paid first, no age limits and so forth.

Again, read the post.

I'm talking about situations where cyclists have been provided with their own exclusive road!

In such circumstances, they've no bloody business being on the "main" road!

Jawgap

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Again, read the post.

I'm talking about situations where cyclists have been provided with their own exclusive road!

In such circumstances, they've no bloody business being on the "main" road!

A faded white line and / or some broken red sand surface does on an exclusive road make.

I suggest you direct your energy towards the DoT and have them re-introduce the law requiring such lanes to be used where provided.

If it is as great a social evil as you make out then you should have no problem recruiting the bus companies, taxi driver organisations and motoring bodies to your banner. It should also be easy enough to persuade DoT to implement the change.

......or you could just keep on whinging about it here, if you're unable to frame a persuasive argument.