nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Buses and bicycles - whats the story

dashcamdanny

Just looking for a bit of input from cyclists.

I drive a bus.

As you already probably know. Traffic must yield to and indicating bus pulling back into traffic from a stop.

Does this include bikes? A bike got a bit of a squeeze yesterday when to passed me at speed from my while I was in the middle of a maneuver yesterday. And took exception to it. Swearing and making plonker out of himself infront of a packed bus.

Just wondering who is in the right. Are bikes considered traffic?

The reason I dont ask in the motors forum is that it will be 90% anti-cycle ..

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

railer201

foxatron wrote: »

I find that half the time one major problem is that, our cycle lanes and bus lanes are in fact the same lane!
And when is a cycle lane not a cycle lane.....when cars, vans and every other type of vehicle just park in them. Hold on there for a second there Mr/ms driver while i swerve into the middle of the road so i can overtake this car parked arseways in the cycle lane.

Imagine if footpaths were done the same way as the cycle lanes, no kerb, level with, and part of the road, only a few feet wide with a painted line to separate pedestrians from buses, HGV's and cars. It would be unacceptable and quite rightly so.

Wishbone Ash

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yes, let's take a moment to pray for the souls of all the bus drivers who have been killed by cyclists and pedestrians.

Oh, wait a minute.....

Not a helpful comment Andrew. Have you ever driven a truck or a bus through a city centre? The most careful and conscientious bus/truck driver will still have to deal with gobshites.

Wishbone Ash

railer201 wrote: »

Imagine if footpaths were done the same way as the cycle lanes, no kerb, level with, and part of the road, only a few feet wide with a painted line to separate pedestrians from buses, HGV's and cars. It would be unacceptable and quite rightly so.

Pedestrians are not deemed to be 'vehicles' under the road traffic acts so it wouldn't be relevant. It's perfectly acceptable for a bicycle/cyclist to share a road with other vehicles.

railer201

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Pedestrians are not deemed to be 'vehicles' under the road traffic acts so it wouldn't be relevant. It's perfectly acceptable for a bicycle/cyclist to share a road with other vehicles.

My point was, that it would not be safe for pedestrians to walk essentially on the road. The 'Dulux' cycling lanes are not as safe as footpaths which is why the more inexperienced or indeed lazy cyclists feel safer using the footpath. There is no difference between the vulnerability of pedestrians and cyclists, as neither have any protection in the event of a collision. Of course, it is perfectly acceptable to share the road with other vehicles, but it would be a lot safer to cycle on a dedicated segregated cycle-track. The adjacent footpaths are closer to this ideal than the present 'dulux' cycle lanes.

[Deleted User]

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Not a helpful comment Andrew. Have you ever driven a truck or a bus through a city centre? The most careful and conscientious bus/truck driver will still have to deal with gobshites.

No, but I have driven cars and vans through the city centre a few times. And yes, that entailed dealing with all kinds of gob****es - motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. But the only ones that ever got me thinking 'This guy could do some serious damage to me' where driving four wheels.

Lumen

This thread is depressing. The good points are lost amongst pedantry, overreaction, defensiveness and aggression.

mr spuckler

flatface wrote: »

I am happy to see this thread, it's appears like the OP came to this with a genuine question instead of the usual rants and entrenched ideas we see here. Please let us know if this discussion has answered your question or changed your viewpoint as that would be a success worth applauding.
I travel up and down the N11 daily and see plenty of respect between bus drivers and cyclists. Most give way to each other and I see plenty of common sense - e.g. A driver not opening his doors if a cyclist is approaching on the cycle lane, cyclists yielding to opening doors, buses waiting until safe points to overtake etc.
So mostly I want to say thanks to DB.

I think you should take from this that if a cyclist is in the process of overtaking for whatever reason you must yield.
The cause of the manoeuvre should not come into the reaction to it. It doesn't matter why is this cyclist overtaking, just since he is I must yield.
Likewise it shouldn't matter the reason why I may not be in a cyclelane (there are a few reasons for the ones I avoid) just since I am in the bus lane instead I must be overtaken with care and respect. Thanks.

great post - i also took his question as genuine and am curious to hear whether his thinking has changed.

i also find the vast majority of dublin bus drivers to be absolutely respectful of cyclists - taking the lane and showing awareness of your surroundings plus the odd wave of acknowledgement go a long way imo.

beauf

I'd find the same. Most bus drivers are fine. You get the odd asshat, but you do with cyclists and other road users too. Thats just part of the human experience.

The road design is very poor and brings people into conflict.

Lumen

beauf wrote: »

The road design is very poor and brings people into conflict.

An alternative explanation is that people seek conflict and use things outside of themselves as an excuse.

beauf

Lumen wrote: »

An alternative explanation is that people seek conflict and use things outside of themselves as an excuse.

Odd that seems to happen in the exact same place with different people then.

http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html

rubadub

ED E wrote: »

Funny how those paid to drive always have the least clue how to actually do it...

I know a pro truck driver who was telling me he has to go on courses by law, but says those courses are a joke, lads just on the doss, playing with their phones during the "class".

dashcamdanny wrote: »

Does this include bikes? A bike got a bit of a squeeze yesterday when to passed me at speed from my while I was in the middle of a maneuver yesterday. And took exception to it. Swearing and making plonker out of himself infront of a packed bus.

Just wondering who is in the right.

Calling him a plonker and in the next breath asking if he was in the right?! sweet fcuking jesus.

I err on the side of caution, I usually always yield as I think it's just safer to presume taxi drivers and bus drivers to be sociopathic ignorant idiots out to kill or injure. This thread has been quite worrying, so I am glad I do stick to my rule.

dashcamdanny wrote: »

Ahh.. you know the rules of the road!!:pac::pac::pac::D

Should is a very gray area!!

You have proven you do not know the rules of the road. You kept quoting the bit about how people "should" let buses pull out, yet ignore the other rule (which is law) which would trump that rule, as it is a "must".

It is not a gray area, you must have also missed this bit in the ROTR

This book uses a "how to" approach and covers many of the manoeuvres identified as factors in a road crash. It uses three methods to set out clearly and concisely how the law applies to all road users.
-It uses must and must not to draw attention to behaviour the law clearly demands or forbids.
-It uses terms such as should and should not to tell you how best to act in a situation where no legal rule is in place.

The ROTR could also be wrong. e.g.

Cyclists must use any cycle track provided.

is widely said not to be the law.

Lumen

beauf wrote: »

Odd that seems to happen in the exact same place with different people then.

http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html

I'm entirely supportive of road engineers and planners striving to do their jobs better.

I just don't like the phrasing of "road design bringing people into conflict" as it feels like it seeks to relieve road users of the responsibility to not act like dicks to each other.

But really I just joined the thread to moan about the state of it. Feels like a bit of a pile-on and makes us look like the sort of hyper-reactive freaks portrayed in those Youtube videos.

1bryan

CramCycle wrote: »

I love the two lanes and find it far less stressful and far safer than it was before.

I cycle up there pre-7am every morning, before it becomes a bus lane. It's a complete free-for-all with cars, taxis, but mostly buses (who use the inside bus lane to overtake buses stopped in the outside lane). Glad you find it safer. I, on the other hand, have had 2 near misses that, had they been any nearer, I'd probably be dead.

beauf

Lumen wrote: »

I'm entirely supportive of road engineers and planners striving to do their jobs better.

I just don't like the phrasing of "road design bringing people into conflict" as it feels like it seeks to relieve road users of the responsibility to not act like dicks to each other.

But really I just joined the thread to moan about the state of it. Feels like a bit of a pile-on and makes us look like the sort of hyper-reactive freaks portrayed in those Youtube videos.

The stats will show bad road design. If we kept any....

CramCycle

1bryan wrote: »

I cycle up there pre-7am every morning, before it becomes a bus lane. It's a complete free-for-all with cars, taxis, but mostly buses (who use the inside bus lane to overtake buses stopped in the outside lane). Glad you find it safer. I, on the other hand, have had 2 near misses that, had they been any nearer, I'd probably be dead.

First of all, they should never have allowed it to be operated in that way. They should be 24 hours. Same as the ones on the N11, half are 7 to 7 and the others are 24 hours a day. All bus lanes should be 24 hours a day.

Since the dual lane, I have found buses give me more space in the overtake and I often see nice groups of commuters, all relaxed, flying down Pearse St.

Sorry your experience has not been as nice, I would consider making a complaint to the council about it and point out that the time limits make the lanes more dangerous to use for cyclists (I realiseit is the users not the time limits) and making them 24hour bus lanes may improve that.

Wishbone Ash

rubadub wrote: »

I know a pro truck driver who was telling me he has to go on courses by law, but says those courses are a joke, lads just on the doss, playing with their phones during the "class"....

Unfortunately this is the situation. Drivers like myself who acquired bus and truck licences under the old system acquired 'grandfather' rights when the CPC system was introduced. We are required to attend a one day course each year (for each category) but we are not required to do a CPC test at the end of it. Human nature being what it is, the power point lecture can be pretty boring when you know it is not going to make any difference to your licence. It's not helped by tutors who keep saying things like "I know yous don't want to be here lads so I'll run through this as quick as I can" (...and happily take your money).

I wouldn't agree that lads are 'on the doss' though as most are there on their day off.

kenmc

CramCycle wrote: »

All bus lanes should be 24 hours a day.
.

Why? We don't have a 24 hour bus service, more's the pity, so vast tracts of road would be unused 25% of the time

I love Sean nos

kenmc wrote: »

Why? We don't have a 24 hour bus service, more's the pity, so vast tracts of road would be unused 25% of the time

Standardisation.

Macy0161

CramCycle wrote: »

First of all, they should never have allowed it to be operated in that way. They should be 24 hours. Same as the ones on the N11, half are 7 to 7 and the others are 24 hours a day. All bus lanes should be 24 hours a day.

I think the difference is that the 24 hour ones replaced a hard shoulder, whereas the 7-7 ones were purpose built replaced a traffic lane. The 7-7 lanes on the N11 are there as long as I remember, but iirc that was the logic with the ones from Foxrock out not being 7-7 as well.

CramCycle

kenmc wrote: »

Why? We don't have a 24 hour bus service, more's the pity, so vast tracts of road would be unused 25% of the time

We have the aircoach, several private operators, the Nitelink, Bus Eireann do a few overnight ruins and the fact that Dublin Bus runs until well after 7pm.

The second being for the reason 1bryan highlighted, that they are a free for all just before 7am and just after 7pm, increasing risk for more vunerable road users who are allowed use the bus lanes.

I love Sean nos

kenmc wrote: »

vast tracts of road would be unused 25% of the time

I'm sure that vast tracts of road are already unused at least 25% of the time.

[Deleted User]

kenmc wrote: »

Why? We don't have a 24 hour bus service, more's the pity, so vast tracts of road would be unused 25% of the time

Do you frequently find yourself stuck in heavy traffic beside an empty bus lane between midnight and 6am?

ED E

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Standardisation.

Thats a point that I've been ranting on about for a while.

DCC have:
7-10
7-10.30
7-10 12-7
7-10 12.30-7
7-10 4-7
4-7
cycle tracks all next to each other. Drivers should be reading the time of day signs but also a standard system would make the whole situation a lot less muddy.

kenmc

ED E wrote: »

Thats a point that I've been ranting on about for a while.

DCC have:
7-10
7-10.30
7-10 12-7
7-10 12.30-7
7-10 4-7
4-7
cycle tracks all next to each other. Drivers should be reading the time of day signs but also a standard system would make the whole situation a lot less muddy.

The flip side is that those of us who can read are able to avoid sitting in long queues of traffic on sundays, whilst everyone else just follows the car in front. I'm specifically thinking about churchtown road heading towards the luas bridge, where most Sundays there's a stream of cars heading for dundrum shopping centre, whereas I go straight on towards the goat, and can happily use the bus lane to do so.

nomdeboardie

Ironically, I was beeped at today by a car behind for slowing down when a bus parked ahead indicated to come out, and then did. Of course the bus driver might have waited if I hadn’t held back, but since, like other posters, I’ve had experiences of buses suddenly indicating and immediately coming out when I’m already passing, that’s not a great bet. Can’t win :rolleyes:

ganmo

rubadub wrote: »

The ROTR could also be wrong. e.g.

is widely said not to be the law.

it also says cyclists
- you should wear a helmet at all times
- allow other vehicles to turn across the stationary lane
- wear reflective clothing at all times
- never use mp3s, radios or mobile phones when cycling
and - you must not cycle in a manner likely to create an obstruction for other road users

but getting back onto the point, whether driving or cycling if I see a bus indicating to move out from a stop I'm not gonna stand back, but if its moving out I'm not going to try and pass it out

Wildly Boaring

ganmo wrote: »

but getting back onto the point, whether driving or cycling if I see a bus indicating to move out from a stop I'm not gonna stand back, but if its moving out I'm not going to try and pass it out

So you'd never let out an indicating bus unless it starts to move off?

Cycling in the quays this morning, bus in front put on indicators to pull out and continue within bus lane.

I slowed and sat in behind him.

7; yep 7 cyclists hammered on up the outside of him. He sat and waited for 2 maybe 3. Then continued on his merry way leaving the remainder outside him for the next while.

I not saying his actions were right or wrong. But they were his actions.

Some cyclists seriously need to cop on to what they're at. Putting yourself in danger for 10 seconds of time.

My commute in takes 40 to 42 mins. Waiting behind a bus on the queues for 10 seconds makes no difference.

cython

scanlone wrote: »

So you'd never let out an indicating bus unless it starts to move off?

Cycling in the quays this morning, bus in front put on indicators to pull out and continue within bus lane.

I slowed and sat in behind him.

7; yep 7 cyclists hammered on up the outside of him. He sat and waited for 2 maybe 3. Then continued on his merry way leaving the remainder outside him for the next while.

I not saying his actions were right or wrong. But they were his actions.

Some cyclists seriously need to cop on to what they're at. Putting yourself in danger for 10 seconds of time.

My commute in takes 40 to 42 mins. Waiting behind a bus on the queues for 10 seconds makes no difference.

While there are certainly pure clowns out there who won't give any vehicle an inch (though I'm not suggesting the quoted poster is one of them), as has been noted on thread here already, there's also a definite element of "the boy who cried wolf" about indicators with some buses, whereby they throw on the indicator to pull out, and then take 5-10 seconds to even attempt to start moving. This in turn (much like the long duration of amber pedestrian lights in Dublin) lulls people into a belief that they have loads of time still when they see it. Often this is true, but not always. As you say, it may only be a few 5-10 seconds gained/lost by any of this, but it would help if the signals could be trusted to signify a prompt manoeuvre.

As was explained, sometimes this delay will be due to automated controls and fail-safes on the bus, or the last passenger on delaying the driver unexpectedly by faffing about with change, or several other reasons, but given the prevalence with which I've seen this issue arise, I would contend that if they want to be taken seriously as professional drivers, they should adapt their use of the controls and signals accordingly, and only put on the indicator when they know the bus is ready to move. However the impatience of human nature generally overrides here (and this can be applied to the cyclists overtaking as well).

I cycle down the quays as well, and for the most part there are a couple of points with a lot of bus stops, and to be honest if I'm early and the traffic is quiet enough, I just pass by in the general traffic lane, taking most of the potential for the above (there are a couple of routes/places where the buses have to pull right across the road after departing the stop) out of the equation.

Wildly Boaring

cython wrote: »

, there's also a definite element of "the boy who cried wolf" about indicators with some buses, whereby they throw on the indicator to pull out, and then take 5-10 seconds to even attempt to start moving.

Why would they do it?
Perhaps because when they put on the indicator 7 idiots ignore it and plough on between them and the traffic in lane 1.

Vicious circle. Unfortunately the wacky racer mentality I see from a lot of cyclists on the quays doesn't help.

Another example from this morning.
Fella went up between a bus indicating left and a parked bus. Genius caused bus to have to sit in lane 1 until he got his ass out of dangerous situation. All traffic stopped. He never even acknowledged the driver.

It's common courtesy to let out an indicating bus. But if we've all decided that they're only throwing on the indicator for the craic we can't come crying onto a forum all indignant when a bus driver (like the OP) asks what's the story.

magicbastarder

ganmo wrote: »

it also says cyclists
- you should wear a helmet at all times

i only wear a helmet while cycling.