Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Cycle Lane on Talbot Memorial Bridge

124

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 40 forumlover


    cgcsb wrote: »
    They feel safe in their little metal box. I've made a few fat boys in Skodas feel very unsafe mind you when they get stuck at a red light.

    Idiot


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,249 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    forumlover wrote: »


    Idiot

    Gob****e


  • Registered Users Posts: 40 forumlover


    donvito99 wrote: »
    Because he would rather sit in his car for longer, increasing the risk of death and serious injury in the city centre, than sit on a bus and reduce commutes for everybody, as is done everyday by a majority of commuters.

    Fact and reason don't come into it. It's spite in an Octavia.

    I would rather sit in my own car than use public transport.
    What's wrong with that?

    And how exactly am I increasing the risk of death & serious injury???


  • Registered Users Posts: 40 forumlover


    cgcsb wrote: »
    Are you familiar with the laws of physics? The same applies here, road space cannot be created or destroyed merely changed from one form to another.

    Take one traffic lane & convert it into a cycle lane.
    There, they've taken it away.


  • Registered Users Posts: 40 forumlover


    cgcsb wrote: »
    Are you actually serious or are you just trying to be a melter? You're proposing that the city/state should revert to 1960s think and prioritise cars, contrary to the rest of the developed world's knowledge on the matter. Why?

    No, prioritize public transport to make it more reliable & efficient.
    Until they do, I'll stick to the car.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    forumlover wrote: »
    They're prioritizing the wrong mode of transport.

    Yup, cycling is the White Elephant of transport.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,164 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    in what sense? that it won't deliver the benefits promised, or that it's just an overplayed factor?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    Bambi wrote: »
    Yup, cycling is the White Elephant of transport.

    If cycling is the white elephant of transport, the private vehicle is surely the dead duck?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,249 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    donvito99 wrote: »
    If cycling is the white elephant of transport, the private vehicle is surely the dead duck?

    I think Bambi is being sarcastic.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,249 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    forumlover wrote: »
    No, prioritize public transport to make it more reliable & efficient.
    Until they do, I'll stick to the car.

    Public transport AND cycling are being prioritised by policy. So far, feck all policy being implemented yet.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    cgcsb wrote: »
    I think Bambi is being sarcastic.

    You'd be wrong

    If cycling is the white elephant of transport, the private vehicle is surely the dead duck?

    Bicycle are private vehicles


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    Bambi wrote: »
    You'd be wrong




    Bicycle are private vehicles

    That's like saying skinny people are fat people.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,249 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Bambi wrote: »
    You'd be wrong




    Bicycle are private vehicles

    You know the term white elephant refers to something that costs a lot of money and remains unused . :confused:


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    cgcsb wrote: »
    You know the term white elephant refers to something that costs a lot of money and remains unused . :confused:

    Sorta like driving a 2.5 metre wide vehicle with 4 empty seats that costs thousands to tax, insure and fuel outright...


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,249 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    donvito99 wrote: »
    Sorta like driving a 2.5 metre wide vehicle with 4 empty seats that costs thousands to tax, insure and fuel outright...

    And sits in the driveway 22.5 hours of the day. Yes exactly.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    cgcsb wrote: »
    You know the term white elephant refers to something that costs a lot of money and remains unused . :confused:

    It actually refers to something that's seen as a boon but is going to cost a fortune, far beyond the value of any perceived benefit


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,249 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Bambi wrote: »
    It actually refers to something that's seen as a boon but is going to cost a fortune, far beyond the value of any perceived benefit

    ...that's exactly what I said phrased differently.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    cgcsb wrote: »
    You know the term white elephant refers to something that costs a lot of money and remains unused . :confused:

    Like separated cycle infrastructure and no requirement for cyclists to use it, type of thing?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,148 ✭✭✭Salary Negotiator


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Like separated cycle infrastructure and no requirement for cyclists to use it, type of thing?

    Why would there be a requirement to use it? When bypasses are built there's no requirement to use them, that's not how things work.

    We build bus lanes and allow buses and taxis use them, but there's no requirement to stay in them or stay out of the right hand lane.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,164 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Like separated cycle infrastructure and no requirement for cyclists to use it, type of thing?
    they built the M50 - provided exclusively for the use of motorists, but no requirement to use it - yet it's a car park...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,249 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Like separated cycle infrastructure and no requirement for cyclists to use it, type of thing?

    Well it isn't North Korea, where they force people to get on the metro when there's tourists about.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,164 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Like separated cycle infrastructure and no requirement for cyclists to use it, type of thing?
    this seems to be an issue many people have trouble getting their heads around.
    cyclists, by and large, are not suicidal. if there's safe and sensible infrastructure, they'll use it; we don't take the road simply to piss motorists off. there are several cycle paths i actively avoid on my commute, and many i will happily use, but i don't pick which are which at random.

    the sutton to fairview cycle lane is a case in point. safe, segregated (for the most part) and much more pleasant than cycling on the road.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,249 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Cyclists avoid some cycle lanes because:

    They're full of glass
    They dont want to face plant on the road going over the drains
    they can see there's a car parked in one a few metres ahead
    and various other reasons.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,164 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    and many cycle lane designs are such that it actually increases the danger of cycling.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,201 ✭✭✭ongarboy


    Just on the relatively new bike lanes from start of Memorial Bridge to Lombard Street, I can appreciate (and I'm a pedestrian) why some cyclists avoid the new dedicated cycle lanes as so many pedestrians blindly walk onto the cycle paths without looking left or right or simply use it as a footpath. I'm waiting for some accident - particularly at the pedestrian crossing by the foot bridge.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,855 ✭✭✭Duckjob


    I'm always amused and bemused by people who have zero adult cycling experience (let alone commuting cycling experience) making pronouncements about cyclists not using what they proclaim to be "perfectly good bike paths"

    Imagine say, an artic driver being lectured by somebody like myself , who has zero experience of driving artics, for taking a particular route.

    Anybody sane would see that as ridiculous, since the artic driver has a lot of experience and I have none. It would be widely accepted that he/she has very good reasons to make the route choices that they do.

    Now imagine the artic driver is repeatedly having to give their reasons (which are clearly based on their superior artic driving experience) why they don't take those other routes.

    The above scenario is so ridiculous it probably never happens. Yet substitute people on bikes for artic drivers and people seem unable to apply the very same rational logic.

    For that reason I don't pay much attention to lectures on using bike paths from people who only ever see the road from behind a steering wheel.


  • Registered Users Posts: 596 ✭✭✭bigar


    forumlover wrote: »
    Take one traffic lane & convert it into a cycle lane.
    There, they've taken it away.

    You make the common mistake where you believe that bicycles are not traffic.

    A cycle lane is a traffic lane for one mode of transport so it here they changed it from a general traffic lane to bicycle traffic lane.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,873 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    You fit 2 cycle lanes into the space of 1 general traffic lane.

    Also, the dynamics don't work in a city like they do on a motorway. Adding an extra lane doesn't necessarily increase capacity, and can often make things worse at junction pinch points. Plenty of cases in the city where they've reduced 2 lanes to 1 and traffic flow has improved as you don't have everyone slowing down trying to merge at pinch points.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    I think we're forgetting that facts don't colour public opinion when it comes to increasing the number of people getting into the city in a shortened period of time.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,920 ✭✭✭dashcamdanny


    Looking at the amount of new residential and new commercial development going on all the way down from the City quays to Ringsend, it stands to reason they put in proper cycle infrastructure to facilitate it.

    Wish they did it everywhere around the city to get cycles off the road and out of harms way.

    Its going to be very very busy down that end within a few years . It will not be possible to get everyone to work by car in that area.


Advertisement