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

bmaxi

monument wrote: »

I'd call it an awful cycle lane!

How about some basics like it being a decent width?

What do you want, a dual carriageway for bikes? It's a single direction cycle lane, there's an identical one on the other side of the road. Why not go the whole hog and cover them in so little precious doesn't get wet or have to cope with a head wind, while we're at it we could level out all the hills. This could be paid for by ring fencing the contributions cyclists make to road tax, licence and excise duty pot.

bmaxi

monument wrote: »

Taxis are small public service vehicle, but they are not public transport. Taxi congestion is so bad in parts of Dublin that taxis are the main source of congestion.

At rush hour in places in central Dublin etc cyclists travel faster than most or all modes.

Of course they do, the don't have traffic lights, one way streets or pedestrians to slow them down, they just ignore them all.

GreeBo

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

(why for example would I take a bus to get from Sandyford to Blanch via the centre of town and 90 mins+ when I could just take the M50 and be there in 20 mins.

Because there probably arent too many people doing the same route that you want, so what time should that bus run at?
also, going via the CC means that that bus can also be used by people in both blanch and sandyford to get to town.

monument

bmaxi wrote: »

What do you want, a dual carriageway for bikes? It's a single direction cycle lane, there's an identical one on the other side of the road. Why not go the whole hog and cover them in so little precious doesn't get wet or have to cope with a head wind, while we're at it we could level out all the hills. This could be paid for by ring fencing the contributions cyclists make to road tax, licence and excise duty pot.

bmaxi wrote: »

Of course they do, the don't have traffic lights, one way streets or pedestrians to slow them down, they just ignore them all.

Exhibit a and exhibit b.

Reasons why your views on the quality of cycle paths should not be taken seriously.

BTW there's no such thing as road tax, and driver licence fees goes into the unneeded quango that is the RSA -- not something to boast too much about!

SeanW

monument wrote: »

Exhibit a and exhibit b.

Reasons why your views on the quality of cycle paths should not be taken seriously.

Whatever about "Exhibit a," the latter ("exhibit b") is most definitely true, as any pedestrian in our major cities can attest to.

BTW there's no such thing as road tax

It's a colloquial term. Maybe you should look it up :cool:

TheChizler

SeanW wrote: »

Whatever about "Exhibit a," the latter ("exhibit b") is most definitely true, as any pedestrian in our major cities can attest to.

It's a colloquial term. Maybe you should look it up :cool:

Is exhibit b not perhaps an exaggeration and generalisation?

Cookie_Monster

bmaxi wrote: »

Of course they do, the don't have traffic lights, one way streets or pedestrians to slow them down, they just ignore them all.

just like motorists ignore all speed limits, ambers, yellow boxes...
and while we're generalising pedestrians in the CC aren't angels either. Crossing without looking, plugged into their headphones etc?

bmaxi

monument wrote: »

Exhibit a and exhibit b.

Reasons why your views on the quality of cycle paths should not be taken seriously.

BTW there's no such thing as road tax, and driver licence fees goes into the unneeded quango that is the RSA -- not something to boast too much about!

Yet your views on providing superhighways for bikes are perfectly reasonable?
It's irrelevant what the taxes are called or where they eventually end up, the fact remains they have to be paid just for the privilege of being on the road. What do cyclists pay for the same privilege?

markpb

bmaxi wrote: »

It's irrelevant what the taxes are called or where they eventually end up, the fact remains they have to be paid just for the privilege of being on the road. What do cyclists pay for the same privilege?

Your problem is that some cyclists weren't using a cycle lane. I've pointed out why they weren't using it. Then you complained about cyclists not obeying the RTAs. Now you're talking about taxes. Is there an anti-cyclists thread somewhere that you got mixed up and thought you were replying to because the rest of us are talking about bus priority.

bmaxi

markpb wrote: »

Your problem is that some cyclists weren't using a cycle lane. I've pointed out why they weren't using it. Then you complained about cyclists not obeying the RTAs. Now you're talking about taxes. Is there an anti-cyclists thread somewhere that you got mixed up and thought you were replying to because the rest of us are talking about bus priority.

You're quite right, my original gripe was with cyclists not using the cycle lane, I don't believe cyclists should be using the bus lane the bus lane should be for buses and emergency vehicles only, thereby giving those vehicles priority. Later a poster said that the cyclist was probably using the bus lane because the cycle lane was in poor condition and I posted a picture of the cycle lane in question which I consider to be perfectly adequate. Following on that we had criticism of that particular cycle lane so I'm suggesting if cyclists want pristine conditions they should be prepared to pay for them, the normal way for other road users is through taxes.

LXFlyer

bmaxi wrote: »

You're quite right, my original gripe was with cyclists not using the cycle lane, I don't believe cyclists should be using the bus lane the bus lane should be for buses and emergency vehicles only, thereby giving those vehicles priority. Later a poster said that the cyclist was probably using the bus lane because the cycle lane was in poor condition and I posted a picture of the cycle lane in question which I consider to be perfectly adequate. Following on that we had criticism of that particular cycle lane so I'm suggesting if cyclists want pristine conditions they should be prepared to pay for them, the normal way for other road users is through taxes.

To be fair if you were to travel along the entire length of the N11 cycle lane on both sides of the road, you would find that much of it is nothing like that particular stretch and requires cyclists to constantly stop and start at every junction, irrespective of what the main traffic flow is doing, and is a constantly undulating surface.

bmaxi

lxflyer wrote: »

To be fair if you were to travel along the entire length of the N11 cycle lane on both sides of the road, you would find that much of it is nothing like that particular stretch and requires cyclists to constantly stop and start at every junction, irrespective of what the main traffic flow is doing, and is a constantly undulating surface.

That is the section to which I referred in my original post, it continues in much the same vein as far as Loughlinstown and from both perspectives, is infinitely preferable to cyclists being in the bus lane. As I said earlier, if cyclists want pristine conditions, let them pay for them.

Jack Kyle

I for one blast cyclists out of it with the horn if I see them on the road when they're a cycling lane off road.

I also blast cyclists out of it when they cycle two abreast.

Surveyor11

You sound like a right tw@t. There's a variety of cycling lanes and not all are mandatory. Cycling two abreast perfectly legal, but like everything consideration needs to be given. You don't sound like that type

Jack Kyle

Surveyor11 wrote: »

You sound like a right tw@t TBH

Sorry, I was blocked the other day by an inconsiderate cyclist on a road with an empty cycling path on the pavement.

Blasting him out of it for his stupidity was the right thing to do.

Jack Kyle

Surveyor11 wrote: »

You sound like a right tw@t. There's a variety of cycling lanes and not all are mandatory. Cycling two abreast perfectly legal, but like everything consideration needs to be given. You don't sound like that type

So your logic is as follows:

A cyclist ignores the cycling lane that has been provided for him and instead obstructs a motorist on the road. The motorist beeps his horn and he's an inconsiderate twat?

Two cyclists travel two abreast deliberately obstructing motorists instead of moving into single file and the motorist who asks them to switch to single file is an inconsiderate twat?

You need to learn the meaning of manners and giving due consideration to other people.

Surveyor11

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Sorry, I was blocked the other day by an inconsiderate cyclist on a road with an empty cycling path on the pavement.

Blasting him out of it for his stupidity was the right thing to do.

You need to chill out jack, Jesus what is it with some people?

Surveyor11

Jack Kyle wrote: »

You need to learn the meaning of manners and giving due consideration to other people.

I applaud your grasp of irony

No Pants

Jack Kyle wrote: »

I also blast cyclists out of it when they cycle two abreast.

Why? They're simply using the road that they paid for in a manner in which they're entitled to.

markpb

bmaxi wrote: »

I'm suggesting if cyclists want pristine conditions they should be prepared to pay for them, the normal way for other road users is through taxes.

That's a fair point and without mentioning that everyone pays taxes which, like motor tax, go into a general fund to pay for everything including roads, it's worth pointing out that I didn't ask for pristine cycle lanes, just ones that aren't stupid. Putting the bus stop in front of the cycle lane instead of behind it doesn't cost money. Keeping sigh posts off the cycle lane doesn't cost money. Not dishing kerbs so I don't feel like I'm cycling on a rollercoaster doesn't cost money. Most cyclists just want safety, not super highways.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

The amount of commuter traffic on the M50 going north-south or vice versa in the morning/evening would suggest that there are in fact a lot of people who are doing these orbital commutes to work so there's definitely a demand for say an orbital LUAS or express bus... certainly more so than a LUAS extension that'll disrupt most of the city centre and which terminates in a no-go area and with no real requirement for it given the areas it will serve are well covered by bus routes.

I think both are essential, it's not a battle between the two. The suburban industrial estates are huge areas of employment but aren't a fraction on the city centre.

Also the luas extension will end at a rail interchange and tram depot and pass by DITs new campus which will also be a huge trip generator. It's a relatively cheap and very useful train line of its own.

Jack Kyle

It's pretty obvious that when motorists pay motor tax while cyclists pay sweet FA, motorists are rightly going to feel like they've more rights on the road.

Cyclists generally seem to be over precious, over sensitive and possessing a misplaced sense of righteousness. In my view, their right to be on the road at all is questionable.

No Pants

Jack Kyle wrote: »

It's pretty obvious that when motorists pay motor tax while cyclists pay sweet FA, motorists are rightly going to feel like they've more rights on the road.

Cyclists generally seem to be over precious, over sensitive and possessing a misplaced sense of righteousness. In my view, their right to be on the road at all is questionable.

Motor tax has as much to do with the roads as stamp duty does. As for cyclists being sensitive, you're the one beeping your horn simply because they are on the road.

Surveyor11

Jack Kyle wrote: »

It's pretty obvious that when motorists pay motor tax while cyclists pay sweet FA, motorists are rightly going to feel like they've more rights on the road.

Cyclists generally seem to be over precious, over sensitive and possessing a misplaced sense of righteousness. In my view, their right to be on the road at all is questionable.

Eh, I pay €626 motor tax as well. So that knocks that one on the head. Also, you're totally misguided if you think motor tax is being out into road maintenance - with some of the highest motor tax and fuel costs in Europe our roads should be truly magnificent. Instead, bar the newer road ways, a lot of our roads are on par with a developing country.

Cyclists will come off worse in an incident with a car, when's the last time a cyclist killed a motorist in an accident? Thankfully your views are in the minirity of road users, given your attitude I would question why you should be allowed behind the wheel of a one tonne plus vehicle.

Jack Kyle

No Pants wrote: »

Motor tax has as much to do with the roads as stamp duty does. As for cyclists being sensitive, you're the one beeping your horn simply because they are on the road.

I've never beeped my horn because a cyclist has been on the road...only when they're discourteous.

Surveyor11

Jack Kyle wrote: »

......only when they're discourteous.

In your view of course. I cycle a mix of country and urban roads on a 40km return commute daily, have to say I've never been beeped. You're entitled to your view, but thankfully in a very small minority.

No Pants

Jack Kyle wrote: »

I've never beeped my horn because a cyclist has been on the road...only when they're discourteous.

Using a road is discourteous?

SeanW

No Pants wrote: »

Using a road is discourteous?

No, but ignoring a cycle lane without good reason, and/or cycling more than single file, most definitely are.

And that's just the stuff that's technically legal, before we get to cyclists making turns without looking, menacing pedestrians on the footpath, ignoring one-way laws and red traffic lights (and as happened to me in Dublin City last week, two of those at a time), all of which there is no sanction for because cyclists are not required to have a license and the bikes are unregistered.

paddyland

Is this a thread about giving way to buses, or just another cyclists-versus-everyone-else thread?

It says something when cyclists hop on nearly every single thread and try to turn it into a cycling victimisation thread.

What happened to the point the OP was making?

bmaxi

markpb wrote: »

That's a fair point and without mentioning that everyone pays taxes which, like motor tax, go into a general fund to pay for everything including roads, it's worth pointing out that I didn't ask for pristine cycle lanes, just ones that aren't stupid. Putting the bus stop in front of the cycle lane instead of behind it doesn't cost money. Keeping sigh posts off the cycle lane doesn't cost money. Not dishing kerbs so I don't feel like I'm cycling on a rollercoaster doesn't cost money. Most cyclists just want safety, not super highways.

Well you have mentioned it and it should be remembered that motorists pay all those taxes plus DL, VRT, tax, insurance, NCT, fuel etc. There is no disputing that local authorities make stupid decisions regarding where thy place road signs, bus stops and many other things which are not relevant to this thread but the cycle lane I referred to is in essence, IMO, an excellent amenity. It seems that that opinion is not shared by others on here so I'm asking what do they want and are they prepared to pay for it?

bmaxi

No Pants wrote: »

Motor tax has as much to do with the roads as stamp duty does. As for cyclists being sensitive, you're the one beeping your horn simply because they are on the road.

Of course it has to do with the roads, it is an offence to be on the road in a motor vehicle if you have not paid it.