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

beauf

SeanW wrote: »

...In this case there is one cyclist holding up three buses carrying - random guess - 120 people. So if the cyclist holds them up for one minute, that is 120 person/minutes of lost time. Again, maybe this seems like a good idea to you?

Considering those people spent 10 mins waiting on the bus, and perhaps another 10~20 mins walking to and from bus stops. Then probably 5 mins for all the bus stops by the bus and the bus they are following. Not to mention another few minutes queuing in traffic where there is no bus lane.

Thats 30~40mins x 120 people they could all cut from their commute by cycling.

The who knows how much healthier they'd be exercising for that time, and not catching bugs and coughs from other passengers.

Which is the better idea.

beauf

bmaxi wrote: »

...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. ...

I don't cycle that road, and obviously there are some people who refuse to use cycle lanes regardless if they are good or not. But seems like theres some known issues with this route...

http://www.dublincycling.ie/node/137

...More generally, a big problem with the Stillorgan route is one of pedestrians wandering on to the cycle path...

SeanW

beauf wrote: »

Considering those people spent 10 mins waiting on the bus, and perhaps another 10~20 mins walking to and from bus stops. Then probably 5 mins for all the bus stops by the bus and the bus they are following. Not to mention another few minutes queuing in traffic where there is no bus lane.

Thats 30~40mins x 120 people they could all cut from their commute by cycling.

The who knows how much healthier they'd be exercising for that time, and not catching bugs and coughs from other passengers.

Which is the better idea.

If cycling was so much better than using a bus in every single one of those cases how come so many people do the latter? Could it possibly be - suprise surprise - that the bus is most suited to their needs? Additionally, assuming that your figures were correct, how does this justify one cyclist adding a minimum of 120 person/minutes to a journey? Especially when motorists get bashed for doing something similar?

beauf

Perhaps they are all aware of the problems of the cycle lanes on that route?
Perhaps most of them have never tried cycling the route?
Perhaps it prevented an accident between a cyclist and a pedestrian on the same path?

Cookie_Monster

SeanW wrote: »

If cycling was so much better than using a bus in every single one of those cases how come so many people do the latter?

people are lazy. why do you think obesity is such a big issue in Ireland (and the rest of the developed world). Combined with most workplaces not even having a shower or changing room its hardly ideal for many.

No Pants

I'd be happy if I never saw a cycle lane again. I rarely use them due to their unpredictability.

Chiparus

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.

I paid 100k in direct taxes plus over 3k in motor tax, now can I have a cycle lane to a similar standard as the bus lane?

Seaneh

ITT: the usual uneducated indo reading, George hook listening, nonsensical anti cyclist motornazis who spout the usual ****e about "road tax" (which doesn't exist) and cyclists "breaking the law" while ignoring the fact that motorists routinely speed, use mobile phones, cut people off, drive aggressively and are, without any debate, the single biggest reason our cities roads are so congested because they are too lazy to get off their fat arses and walk, run, cycle or take a bus to the places they work/shop/socialise/go to college/whatever when the vast majority of them are making trips of less than 5km.

Surveyor11

Seaneh wrote: »

ITT: the usual uneducated indo reading, George hook listening, nonsensical anti cyclist motornazis who spout the usual ****e about "road tax" (which doesn't exist) and cyclists "breaking the law" while ignoring the fact that motorists routinely speed, use mobile phones, cut people off, drive aggressively and are, without any debate, the single biggest reason our cities roads are so congested because they are too lazy to get off their fat arses and walk, run, cycle or take a bus to the places they work/shop/socialise/go to college/whatever when the vast majority of them are making trips of less than 5km.

Agree, it's a fact that we're up there with the Americans in terms of being almost entirely car dependent and people that are wed to the car find it hard to see beyond the alternatives. The car is seen as the be all and end all and people who defend the car for daily use where there are viable alternatives can't see beyond it. Anyone who gets in the way of this is seen as somehow infringing in the cars enjoyment as the only alternative for the majority of the population. Over car dependency leads to frustration and the clogging of our streets - look at how relatively quiet the roads are in the summer where schools are off. I would suggest that the majority if kids on our local school could walk or cycle but parents insist in driving them, thereby compounding the problem.

As a non-scientific sample, I have neighbours who drive less than a 10 minute walk to work, will also drive the 800m to the local train station, pay for a days parking and drive home again. Two of my work colleagues work and live in the same neighbourhood but chose to drive where walking would be perfectly viable.

Where I work is on a luas line, very handy for getting into the city for meetings - no hassle with traffic or parking. Yet we frequently have mad situations where 4 cars leave the office for 4 separate people to attend the same meeting. One colleague who worked for the company for 8 years came with me to a meeting on the luas - hadn't a clue where the stop was, how much it costs and was amazed that there are two lines out where we work (saggart and Tallaght)

Zebra3

Chiparus wrote: »

I paid 100k in direct taxes plus over 3k in motor tax, now can I have a cycle lane to a similar standard as the bus lane?

Only if you pay this mysterious road tax as well.

No Pants

I work outside of the city centre (Blanch) and I drive or cycle to work. I'm lucky to have showers there, plus somewhere to stash a towel. When I wake up in the morning and look out the window, if it's dry and I'm not feeling too lazy, I'll cycle it. It's a 35 minute cycle vs. a 20 minute drive. Apart from the odd bit of swearing at rain clouds and cursing the climate of the country, I don't regret cycling on the days that I do it.

Over the last two months I have had occasion to drive to/through the city centre and I've hated it. Stop/start, stop/start. I don't know why anyone bothers. If I had to commute in, I'd be on the bus, train or bike. At the very least I'd park and ride.

Macy0161

bmaxi wrote: »

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's an excellent amenity for all the walkers and joggers. Not forgetting it being an unofficial loading bay for scrummies/ school children. It's not so good for cyclists.

No Pants

beauf wrote: »

Garda do regular publicity blitz of such things, including cyclists. But its not enforced for the most part. Stand on any street corner and you'll see the usual law breaking by motorists and cyclists alike.

In my opinion these are losing value. The last such publicity drive that I can recall was last year for headlights on cars. Didn't even see a guard during the supposed crackdown, nevermind come across a checkpoint.

suicide_circus

I cycle in and around Dublin city centre several times per week. The vast majority of my fellow cyclists break red lights. I am frequently the only cyclist who stops at a red while the rest just sail on through.It really pisses me off and I was delighted when I saw the gardai busting this lad for cycling straight through a red right in front of them.

bmaxi

Chiparus wrote: »

I paid 100k in direct taxes plus over 3k in motor tax, now can I have a cycle lane to a similar standard as the bus lane?

Well, judging by the standard demanded in this thread and assuming no sundry deductions as in the case of other taxpayers, that should get you about 10 yards. You might need to gather a few more investors, how about a PPP and toll it?

bmaxi

Macy0161 wrote: »

It's an excellent amenity for all the walkers and joggers. Not forgetting it being an unofficial loading bay for scrummies/ school children. It's not so good for cyclists.

Is this not a similar problem to cyclists in the bus lane? Yet you feel you have the right to complain and we don't.

Seaswimmer

SeanW wrote: »

To expand on that point, suppose your friend showed you this picture:


of a meal that he was about to consume and said "this is a delicious looking fry-up."

Would you respond by saying "that is a breakfast meal consisting of mashed potatoes, sausages, hash browns, beans and bacon, and you are only calling it a "fry up" because you are a short sighted stupid idiot who refuses to learn the "proper" term?"

I think your "mashed potatoes" could be scrambled egg..

and your "hash browns" could be toast..

No Pants

What's the average speed of a bus in Dublin vs. the average speed of a cyclist?

Surveyor11

No Pants wrote: »

Over the last two months I have had occasion to drive to/through the city centre and I've hated it. Stop/start, stop/start. I don't know why anyone bothers. If I had to commute in, I'd be on the bus, train or bike. At the very least I'd park and ride.

Carpenterstown myself - commute daily to city west by bike - had to drive last week for a combination of reasons - wife in hospital, son had to be collected / dropped to relatives / summer camps, needed to get from work to hospital a few times. Absolutely soul destroying driving in Dublin - the amount of petrol and parking I got through was insane in 4 days. An that's when the schools are off.....:eek:

Jack Kyle

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

both are perfectly legal. Why on earth would you do that?
It serves no purpose at all other than to make those cyclists think you're an inconsiderate idiot with no concept of the rules of the road.

I sense that your post is deliberately obtuse and confrontational.

In both of those examples, it's the cyclists who are the incomsiderate idiots. You clearly have an pro-cyclist agenda. Cyclists who choose to obstruct motorists on the road when the taxpayer has provided them with their own exclusive pathway are inconsiderate fools. Similarly, cyclists travelling two or more abreast and blocking motorists are an inconsiderate menace.

There's a holier than though attitude among many cyclists that is sickening. The fact of the matter is that most of the cyclists I see are a complete menace. Flying through red lights, undertaking vehicles as they're turning left, delighting in obstructing road tax paying motorists and generally causing dangerous situations.

Get a grip.

mackeminexile

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.

Wondered how long it would be before the 'road tax' was mentioned.

seamus

That's a pretty big sense of entitlement you've got there Jack. Your attitude is that cyclists' existence on the road is an "obstruction" to motorists, which implies that motorists have priority.

Which of course is incorrect. The existence or not of a cycle lane is immaterial. When you're stuck behind a convoy of trucks on a N-road, do you complain that they're not using the perfectly good L-roads which will bring them to their destination?

The problem is this notion in the individuals' heads that the road is for them and for no-one else, and therefore anyone going slower than you is in your way and should get out of it.

That's the idiot who's being inconsiderate and holier-than-thou.

Jack Kyle

mackeminexile wrote: »

Wondered how long it would be before the 'road tax' was mentioned.

I see that the pinko cyclist lobby are up to their usual tricks.

Road tax = Motor tax

The terms are interchangeable.

The salient point is that motorists pay dearly for the "privilege" of using their vehicles on our roads while cyclists are free to cause mayhem and constantly moan about it without putting their hand in their pocket once.

Jack Kyle

seamus wrote: »

That's a pretty big sense of entitlement you've got there Jack. Your attitude is that cyclists' existence on the road is an "obstruction" to motorists, which implies that motorists have priority.

Which of course is incorrect. The existence or not of a cycle lane is immaterial. When you're stuck behind a convoy of trucks on a N-road, do you complain that they're not using the perfectly good L-roads which will bring them to their destination?

The problem is this notion in the individuals' heads that the road is for them and for no-one else, and therefore anyone going slower than you is in your way and should get out of it.

That's the idiot who's being inconsiderate and holier-than-thou.

Are you even reading other people's posts before inflicting your views on us?

I'm talking about cyclists BLOCKING a road while there's a perfectly good cycling lane off the road - i.e. motorists being completely obstructed unnecessarily. Cyclists who do that are the inconsiderate ones and deserve to be blasted out of it with the horn. And if the same cyclist gets mangled in an accident, well it's a tragedy of course, but he/she has brought it on themselves with their "holier than thou/we own the road" bullsh1t.

runawaybishop

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Similarly, cyclists travelling two or more abreast and blocking motorists are an inconsiderate menace.

You are more entitled than them to use the road is it? Or do you think if they cycle in single file you'll have room to pass them?

Jack Kyle

runawaybishop wrote: »

You are more entitled than them to use the road is it? Or do you think if they cycle in single file you'll have room to pass them?

Are you for real?

I'm talking about situations where a motorist could comfortably drive past one cyclist but is forced to sit behind two or more cyclists cycling abreast.

You seem to be approaching this from a perverse viewpoint that it's perfectly fine for a cyclist to cycle in the middle of the road at (say) 20mph and obstruct traffic because "he's as much right to be there".

Bullsh1t. Common courtesy and common sense dictate otherwise.

Cyclists are, in the main, a menace.

seamus

Jack Kyle wrote: »

I'm talking about cyclists BLOCKING a road while there's a perfectly good cycling lane off the road - i.e. motorists being completely obstructed unnecessarily.

"Unnecessarily" is a matter of opinion. If off-road cycle lanes were fit for purpose they would be used. Since they're generally not fit for purpose, it is therefore necessary to use the road, and you are not being obstructed unnecessarily.

Frankly, unless you're an EMT or otherwise your journey is a matter of life or death, there is no journey so important that you can't wait five seconds for a safe place to overtake. Failure to see this simple truth and chill the fnck out is the reason why so many idiots manage to wipe themselves (and others) out on our roads smashing into walls and overtaking into oncoming traffic.

I'm talking about situations where a motorist could comfortably drive past one cyclist but is forced to sit behind two or more cyclists cycling abreast.

In reality these situations don't exist unless the lone cyclists puts himself in a dangerous position. If you are attempting to overtake a cyclist without crossing the centre line, then you are probably overtaking dangerously unless the lane is exceptionally wide.
And if you are crossing the centre line, then you have to wait for oncoming traffic to clear anyway, so it makes no odds to you whether there are one or two cyclists.

runawaybishop

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Are you for real?

I'm talking about situations where a motorist could comfortably drive past one cyclist but is forced to sit behind two or more cyclists cycling abreast.

What situation would that be? I think what you mean is that when they are single file you can force them into the side of the road and squeeze past even with oncoming traffic.

Jack Kyle wrote: »

You seem to be approaching this from a perverse viewpoint that it's perfectly fine for a cyclist to cycle in the middle of the road at (say) 20mph and obstruct traffic because "he's as much right to be there".

Yes, its perfectly fine.

Zebra3

Jack Kyle wrote: »

I see that the pinko cyclist lobby are up to their usual tricks.

What do you mean by "pinko"?

Surveyor11

Jack Kyle wrote: »

when the taxpayer has provided them with their own exclusive pathway

This gave me a chuckle.