Advertisement
We've partnered up with Nixers.com to offer a space where you can talk directly to Peter from Nixers.com and get an exclusive Boards.ie discount code for a free job listing. If you are recruiting or know anyone else who is please check out the forum here.
If you have a new account but can't post, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help to verify your email address. Thanks :)

How can we curtail bus lane misuse

15681011

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,426 ✭✭✭ maestroamado


    The general insurance rule is the person who caused the accident is liable...



  • Registered Users Posts: 270 ✭✭ JayPS 2288


    And assumed liability means that the motorist is automatically deemed to have caused it unless proven otherwise.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,426 ✭✭✭ maestroamado





  • Registered Users Posts: 270 ✭✭ JayPS 2288




  • Registered Users Posts: 14,145 ✭✭✭✭ Donald Trump




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 270 ✭✭ JayPS 2288


    Interesting. What’s the difference between presumed and assumed in this scenario?



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,145 ✭✭✭✭ Donald Trump



    As assumed liability is one that you take on. If you come to build my house and as part of the contract you take on the liability should any incidents occur then you have assumed that liability.

    Presumed means that the starting point is that person X is liable by default. But it is only the starting point and can be rebutted with evidence to the contrary.


    If a vehicle driver is presumed to be liable it just means that the burden of proof lays with them from the start to prove they were not liable.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 42,336 Mod ✭✭✭✭ magicbastarder


    clontarf to o'connell street is already more than halfway on the coastal cycle path and through fairview park; and should get easier nearer town once the works on amiens street are finished.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,426 ✭✭✭ maestroamado


    The insurance companies will not allow this to happen and they are right.. i expect if there is a debate the insurance companies will want to make insurance compulsory on public roads where vehicles need to be comply with law... now the insurance companies will love that idea...



  • Registered Users Posts: 270 ✭✭ JayPS 2288


    Insurance is already compulsory on public roads.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,145 ✭✭✭✭ Donald Trump



    It's only a presumption. It is not strict liability. Merely the default starting point. Insurance company should be happy with anything that might curtail aggressive and dangerous driving.


    Take the example of the TD who was flattened. That goes to Court. One approach is that the burden is on the TD to prove that the driver was at fault. In that scenario, the driver doesn't have to do or say anything other than "I wasn't at fault". If the TD cannot prove otherwise, then the driver gets off. (Obviously the more evidence the driver gives, the more difficult it is for the TD to "win").

    The other approach is that the driver is presumed to be at fault. In which case all the TD has to do is say "it was his fault" and if the driver fails to prove otherwise then the TD wins. (Again, obviously the more evidence the TD gives, the more difficult it is for the drier to "win")

    But in either scenario, both can and will give evidence. We know what happened in that scenario because we have CCTV recording of it. But consider how you think it might have played out had there been no CCTV for the alternate approaches



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,426 ✭✭✭ maestroamado


    It wont happen... EU will throw it out in an instance... imagine someone deliberately cycling in front of a bus... the best option likely bicycle insurance like for small motorbikes... say for half the premium...



  • Registered Users Posts: 270 ✭✭ JayPS 2288


    The EU seemed content with it in every other EU country bar Ireland, Romania, Cyprus and Malta and the UK, the latter obviously being no longer in the EU.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,145 ✭✭✭✭ Donald Trump




  • Registered Users Posts: 270 ✭✭ JayPS 2288


    The biggest cost of insurance is the third party aspect. Get a quote for a car for third party only and see how little it increases when you add on fully comprehensive.

    How much third party damage could a bicycle do?

    What would you propose (ball park figure) to charge cyclists for insurance?



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,666 ✭✭✭ Loueze


    Taxis are not private cars, they are a form of public transport.

    Suggesting banning them from using bus lanes and instead forcing them to add to the number of cars already in busy car lanes, (especially at peak times), is nothing more than another petty example of how the OP would like to see motorists inconvenienced.



  • Registered Users Posts: 270 ✭✭ JayPS 2288


    I never said taxis should be banned from bus lanes completely. You just made that part up.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 42,336 Mod ✭✭✭✭ magicbastarder


    Taxis were only allowed in bus lanes from 1997 onwards IIRC. I think they're not allowed in bus lanes up north?

    It's not as if 'taxis in bus lanes' is axiomatic. They're not an efficient use of available road space.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,426 ✭✭✭ maestroamado


    So there is no personal injury... you are just talking about replacing the wheel on the bike.. that might work provides the cyclist had personal injury insurance... To add a scratch on a new car cost more to replacing a bike... who would insure that...

    I already answered insurance... half what a 50cc bike be sounds reasonable...

    Post edited by maestroamado on


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,440 ✭✭✭✭ AndrewJRenko


    It was a “trial” at the time, which never ended. No report or outcome from the trial, mind you.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,666 ✭✭✭ Loueze


    Very well then, seeing as you appear to be yet another pedantic poster who needs to have their own posts repeated back to them in every reply - banned from bus lanes when not carrying a passenger.

    The bottom line is, you'd rather see taxis made to use already busy car lanes and subsequently motorists delayed in their journey's even further, then allow taxis, a form of public transport, to continue to share the bus lanes as they do now. I'm sure those who use taxis will be happy to pay the extra fare for the delay in their journeys.

    Your anti-car agenda is very transparant. 🤡



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,666 ✭✭✭ Loueze


    According to this the first bus lane was introduced in Dublin in 1980, and taxis were allowed use them from 1984.

    I don't see that many buses being delayed by taxis in the bus lanes, but sure, whatever makes a motorist's life more difficult, hmm? That's the real agenda here.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 42,336 Mod ✭✭✭✭ magicbastarder


    i don't see a logical link between 'taxis are a form of public transport' and 'taxis should be allowed use bus lanes'; they're bus lanes, not public transport lanes. bicycles are allowed in bus lanes and they're private transport.

    and the old argument - why am i not allowed use a bus lane when i'm driving myself in a car, but it's OK if i pay someone to drive me in their car?



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,666 ✭✭✭ Loueze


    Really?

    You can't see the logic in allowing more than one type of public transport service provider using bus lanes that are meant for transporting the public?

    Fair enough. 😑



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 42,336 Mod ✭✭✭✭ magicbastarder


    Taxis are no more efficient than a private car, so no, even though they're public transport, I don't see a convincing case to allow them.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,666 ✭✭✭ Loueze


    So a taxi that can travel in bus lanes thereby reducing the passenger(s) journey time to their destination is no more efficient than a private car making the same journey with the rest of commuter traffic? 🤔

    Okay, if you think so. Strange definition of what is efficient, in my view.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 32,796 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Seth Brundle


    Why should a taxi be allowed in a bus lane when a private car is not allowed? Of course, if taxis are there then they could be quicker than a private car caught in traffic. However, there is no real justification to allow taxis to use bus lanes other than "just because"!



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 42,336 Mod ✭✭✭✭ magicbastarder


    I don't know what point you're trying to make. What you're saying is just as much of an argument to allow private cars to use bus lanes as it is about taxis in bus lanes. Bus lanes are efficient precisely because they keep low efficiency modes out, and a taxi is no more efficient a way at moving people around than a private car is. If you were arguing for multi-occupancy cars to be allowed use the bus lanes, that'd be different.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,666 ✭✭✭ Loueze


    Have I made any argument to allow private cars to use bus lanes? No, I haven't. So please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't say.

    (You, however, have mentioned allowing cyclists to use their "private property" in bus lanes meant for public transport, so go figure that double standard).

    I really believe you're just being obtuse for the sake of it here, if you don't know what I'm saying - but I'll spell it out for you.

    Taxis and buses have been operating together in bus lanes for years without issue. The only thing that banning taxis from using bus lanes would achieve, is the lenghten journey times for both taxi passengers and private car users, but that's the real agenda here, isn't it?

    Not "efficiency". It's "inconvenience private car owners as much as possible in the hope that they'll abandon their cars".

    Well, its never going to happen, not on any great scale, so good luck with that.

    Now, I must go and drive my little 1 litre micra the few km to Aldi to collect my groceries, seeing as it's pissing rain, and I don't feel like getting soaked walking an hour there, and an hour back - not that I could anyway, that's why I have a disability badge. I hope thats deemed acceptable usage of my private property.

    Enjoy your evening.

    🚘️



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 42,336 Mod ✭✭✭✭ magicbastarder


    So please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't say.

    (You, however, have mentioned allowing cyclists to use their "private property" in bus lanes meant for public transport, so go figure that double standard).

    physician, heal thyself. i said the opposite: "they're bus lanes, not public transport lanes. bicycles are allowed in bus lanes and they're private transport."

    The only thing that banning taxis from using bus lanes would achieve, is the lenghten journey times for both taxi passengers and private car users, but that's the real agenda here, isn't it?

    look, it's not difficult. if i get a taxi into town, i get the benefit of the bus lane. if i drive into town in my own car, i don't. there's no difference in the efficiency of the use of the bus lane in these two scenarios; the only thing separating the two is that in one instance, i'm paying someone else to drive me. i am arguing that that difference has zero input into the argument about the bus lane being open to me in that scenario.

    given the function of bus lanes - moving large groups of passengers quickly and efficiently - allowing taxis in makes no sense, no more than allowing private cars in makes sense.

    you've made no convincing argument at all about why, if we allow cars into bus lanes, it should specifically be the ones where the passenger is paying the driver. hell, if you'd even argued that they should be allowed in because they'd specifically paid for the privilege, at least that's a point we could debate. but you've not offered any reason.



Advertisement