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

Cookie_Monster

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!

They have every business as every road law currently reflects. There is no reason to use, or indeed, even have a separate "road". Why should I have to use a cycle lane that cedes right of way at junctions, that doesn't follow the road I want to be on?

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

This is not selfishness, this is self preservation. Being a wider obstruction motorists are actually required to slow and think about an overtake rather than simply barrelling past otherwise. It also means you have a shorter overtake distance than if cyclist were spread out single file. The law exists for a good reason, not just to piss you off. If it didn't make sense and make the roads safer it wouldn't be in place.

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.

Tell me where I can apply for my free bike please, I'd love to have some I don't have to pay for.

Wishbone Ash

Jack Kyle wrote: »

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.

...apart from the motor tax we pay on our vehicles which we leave parked up for most of the week which reduces congestion and pollution for others.

It's disturbing to believe that people with attitudes like yours may have access to public roads!

ThisRegard

Chiparus

http://www.london.gov.uk/media/mayor-press-releases/2013/06/bikes-make-up-around-a-quarter-of-rush-hour-traffic-in-central

8. The Mayor’s £913m cycling vision, launched in March, includes a range of new and improved routes to cater for growing numbers of cyclists, including new and upgraded Superhighways and new Quietways on back streets. There will also be improvements to major junctions to make them genuinely safe and unthreatening for cyclists.

ArmaniJeanss

Jack Kyle wrote: »

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.

I suspect you'd be disappointed at just how a little of a fcuk would be given by a cyclist when you blast them with a horn.
A quick glance to ascertain its not an emergency services vehicle, and if its not then continue cycling as before ignoring the angry person, whilst smiling.

BenShermin

Jack Kyle, I think you need a relaxing holiday. Might I suggest Amsterdam, it might "mellow" you out .

BenShermin

Jawgap wrote: »

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

Cycling home from work today I saw a Garda cyclist in Clondalkin set up a checkpoint to pull cars over for no tax or insurance. That must have really annoyed the "motorists" .

Iwannahurl

Jack Kyle wrote: »

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

[...]

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.

More quotes on this mythical subject of "road tax" to add to my collection. It's a popular meme that just will not go away:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83114055&postcount=52
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83128964&postcount=59

Victor

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.

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.

Trolling not welcome. Constructive posts only please.

Moderator

danotroy

Jack Kyle wrote: »

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.

This comment has been done to death. By your logic the more motor tax/road tax an individual pays the more entitlement they have to be on the road. If a person driving a 1l car is in the way of an SUV should the SUV blow them off the road with their horn because they have paid more tax?


Moronic argument.

steamengine

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

They have every business as every road law currently reflects. There is no reason to use, or indeed, even have a separate "road". Why should I have to use a cycle lane that cedes right of way at junctions, that doesn't follow the road I want to be on?


This is not selfishness, this is self preservation. Being a wider obstruction motorists are actually required to slow and think about an overtake rather than simply barrelling past otherwise. It also means you have a shorter overtake distance than if cyclist were spread out single file. The law exists for a good reason, not just to piss you off. If it didn't make sense and make the roads safer it wouldn't be in place.

Tell me where I can apply for my free bike please, I'd love to have some I don't have to pay for.

From my observations most cyclists do use the cycle lanes. I assume common sense indicates that this is the safest place for a cyclist to be and that's why the majority use the lanes, how ever imperfect the vocal minority here deem them to be.

As regards two abreast cycling the ROTR, which is the common hymn sheet for cyclists and motorists, also clearly states :-

• Do cycle in single file if cycling
beside another person would
endanger, inconvenience or block
other traffic or pedestrians.

From my observations the vast majority of motorists give an adequate margin when overtaking cyclists. The majority of motorists don't require or want marshalling from cyclists because they know how to drive competently.

Macy0161

steamengine wrote: »

As regards two abreast cycling the ROTR, which is the common hymn sheet for cyclists and motorists, also clearly states :-

Pretty big "if" in that.

Thujrog

steamengine wrote: »

From my observations the vast majority of motorists give an adequate margin when overtaking cyclists. The majority of motorists don't require or want marshalling from cyclists because they know how to drive competently.

I agree that the vast majority of motorists pass cyclists safely. Unfortunately the "vast majority" just isn't enough to be safe. 99 out of 100 still means that on most trips a cyclist will experience multiple unsafe overtakings. If a driver was overtaken in a dangerous way multiple times every time they took the car out, I think that they would do what they can to avoid it.

Until drivers see it as the equivalent to overtaking a car on a blind corner there will still be a problem.

Jawgap

steamengine wrote: »

......

As regards two abreast cycling the ROTR, which is the common hymn sheet for cyclists and motorists, also clearly states......



From my observations the vast majority of motorists give an adequate margin when overtaking cyclists. The majority of motorists don't require or want marshalling from cyclists because they know how to drive competently.

The RoTR document carries not weight of law - it's informative, but not enforceable.

the relevant legislation is
Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997.
...

Pedal Cyclists
47. (1) A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than two pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.
(2) Pedal cyclists on a roadway shall cycle in single file when overtaking other traffic.

So cyclists going two abreast is fine - if the legislation said "....in such a manner as to result in two or more pedal cyclists driving abreast"

You'd have a point.

The RoTR are also brought to you by the same organisation that still recommends that cyclists "don’t get into shouting matches with motorists."

I agree that the vast majority of motorists give plenty of room when overtaking me (in the car or on the bike) the vast majority of the time.

Given a half-decent cycle lane, reasonable well surfaced and maintained and logically laid out, most cyclists will use it. The problem around Dublin is that cycle lanes are poorly designed, neglected and unpredictably hazardous. Better, imo, to stay on the road (where you are permitted to) where you get some decent surface, the hazards are known and more predictable, and - assuming it's a major road - you maintain the right of way

Cookie_Monster

steamengine wrote: »

As regards two abreast cycling the ROTR, which is the common hymn sheet for cyclists and motorists, also clearly states :-

thankfully the ROTR are nothing more than a meaningless interpretation of the RTAs. If it ain't in the RTAs then it's completely irrelevant.
Care to put it up as described in the RTA?

OldNotWIse

JayRoc wrote: »

I know you mean well and I know it can be hard to understand, but do you think being chased by 3 buses, and taxi's and whatever else, many of whom beep or aggressively accelerate at you, come close to sideswipe you to "teach you a lesson" is fun? Do you think cyclists enjoy it?
Why, then, do you think we don't use the bicycle paths? Seriously?

um...maybe if you used the cycle lanes you wouldn't be chased or beeped?

Shedite27

Jack Kyle wrote: »

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.

Except they're not roads, in many cases they're footpaths that are converted, totally unsuitable for anyone other than a 8 year old.

Jack Kyle wrote: »

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.

As someone pointed out, most cyclists do pay motor tax, cycling for most people is an extra to car ownership. So if ya add in the VAT I spend on cycling accessories, I actually pay more tax than you.

beauf

OldNotWIse wrote: »

um...maybe if you used the cycle lanes you wouldn't be chased or beeped?

Maybe if driver used them they'd understand the problem with them.

Cookie_Monster

OldNotWIse wrote: »

um...maybe if you used the cycle lanes you wouldn't be chased or beeped?

or maybe if people weren't ***** for no reason it wouldn't happen either?

ThisRegard

OldNotWIse wrote: »

um...maybe if you used the cycle lanes you wouldn't be chased or beeped?

Is your malfunction with reading or comprehension ?

OldNotWIse

ThisRegard wrote: »

Is your malfunction with reading or comprehension ?

You want me to trawl through 27 pages???

OldNotWIse

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

or maybe if people weren't ***** for no reason it wouldn't happen either?

I dont actually know what you mean by "*****"

Cookie_Monster

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I dont actually know what you mean by "*****"

cunts

OldNotWIse

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

cunts

thanks

ThisRegard

OldNotWIse wrote: »

You want me to trawl through 27 pages???

If you need to have it spelled out to you you shouldn't be on the road.

Granolite

OldNotWIse wrote: »

um...maybe if you used the cycle lanes you wouldn't be chased or beeped?

Thankfully OldNotWise despite the ne'er do well / wannabe Jeremy Clarkson's types popping up continually like a bad rash on this forum most drivers are considerate to the safety of others on the roads, including cyclists, and considerate when road conditions make immediate overtaking dangerous or difficult. I think we've all heard it before from these sort of aggressive types both on and off the road.

OldNotWIse

ThisRegard wrote: »

If you need to have it spelled out to you you shouldn't be on the road.

Ok, you clearly dont want to engage in any discussion, you're quite vitriolic with me and I dont know why

OldNotWIse

Granolite wrote: »

Thankfully OldNotWise despite the ne'er do well / wannabe Jeremy Clarkson's types popping up continually like a bad rash on this forum most drivers are considerate to the safety of others on the roads, including cyclists, and considerate when road conditions make immediate overtaking dangerous or difficult. I think we've all heard it before from these sort of aggressive types both on and off the road.

I've never given a cyclist a hard time and am super aware of them. I was simoply responding to a post that said cyclists were using the road when there was a cycle lane available to them,and yet complaining that they were being beeped at

Cue attack of my reading, comprehension and driving skills. Jeeez

Granolite

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I've never given a cyclist a hard time and am super aware of them. I was simoply responding to a post that said cyclists were using the road when there was a cycle lane available to them,and yet complaining that they were being beeped at

Cue attack of my reading, comprehension and driving skills. Jeeez

I wasnt attacking you at all. i was referring to other person's on the thread topic who were using it as a cycling bashing exercise..nothing more.

The only thing I'd say is to consider going through the 27 or so pages of content and then consider why "Thisregards" may have let loose at you in frustration rather than out of malice I'd suggest.

No Pants

Most of this thread has been done again and again previously, but this "more tax = greater entitlement" argument is possibly the stupidest argument I've read in the motorist vs. cyclist debate. Seriously, we do not want to be running anything in this country based on that principle.

I also had a quick chuckle at the nightmare of bureaucracy that would come from any cyclist registration scheme (number plates for bikes) and the associated costs. KISS - let's just obey and enforce the laws already on the books. If that happened, no cycle lanes would be needed.