Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

Based on what the poster has been saying, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if that was him driving. It's a dick move that fits in exactly what this guy describes.

micar

Better Than Christ wrote: »

I'm talking about stretches of road like this, where there is a cycle lane and also a bus lane.

I never said anything about coming to an immediate stop.

This is what we are talking about

https://twitter.com/HughManning/status/1230155661398487040?s=19

Better Than Christ wrote: »

I'm talking about stretches of road like this, where there is a cycle lane and also a bus lane.

It's bad when you refer to the N11 cycle 'lane' as a back up to your argument.

I also refer you to this
https://goo.gl/maps/FzaH2LuaLEjpcQrL9

[Deleted User]

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Yes, I mean that cycle lane, Andy and magic.

I know you may find this hard to believe, Andy, but just because a vehicle is photographed somewhere, it doesn't get frozen in place! There were no lorries, trucks, vans, cars, helicopters, jeeps, roadworks, pathworks or anything else blocking the cycle lane.

There were no pedestrians.

There were a couple of other cyclists.

You might find this hard to believe, but if you find that your route is regularly blocked by illegally parked vehicles, you're probably going to choose a different route in future.

TaurenDruid wrote: »

I don't think anyone came back about to my question about how come the lobby/activist groups aren't actively invited to be involved in design decisions. It hopefully isn't that they never got invited back after being so incredibly negative about everything... "You're giving us a segregated cycle lane, separated from the traffic by a wall, but sometimes people might step on it or have to make deliveries? YOU MONSTERS!"

Lots of these designs are historical, so there was probably no consultation at the time. There is consultation around new developments, and they get loads of feedback, most of which they ignore.

No-one 'has to make deliveries' on a cycle lane. There are always other options, legal options, safe options - even if these might involve a slightly longer walk for the delivery crew.

Better Than Christ wrote: »

I never said anything about coming to an immediate stop.

I did. Perhaps you reply to what I actually said

Hurrache wrote: »

I do think you're talking nonsense too. If there's a road with a bus and cycle lane, all cyclists on the road will be in the bus and cycle lane. There's no cyclists who will cycle in the adjoining traffic lane rather than the adjacent bus and cycle lane.

You've yet to show us the number of bus only 'bus' lanes?

I'm talking about stretches of road like this, where there is a cycle lane and also a bus lane.

It's not perfectly legal to overtake and then come to an immediate stop. There are two different situations at play here. Fish hooking is illegal

I never said anything about coming to an immediate stop.

Better Than Christ wrote: »

Once I'm back in the bus lane, having safely cleared the obstruction, it is perfectly legal to pull in at the next bus stop. Just like it's perfectly legal to cycle in a bus lane.

It's not perfectly legal to overtake and then come to an immediate stop. There are two different situations at play here. Fish hooking is illegal

Better Than Christ wrote: »

I'm not purposely obstructing them; I'm just doing my job, and not showing them the added courtesy that I show towards the majority of cyclists (i.e. the ones who don't feel the need to use bus lanes).

I do think you're talking nonsense too. If there's a road with a bus and cycle lane, all cyclists on the road will be in the bus and cycle lane. There's no cyclists who will cycle in the adjoining traffic lane rather than the adjacent bus and cycle lane.

You've yet to show us the number of bus only 'bus' lanes?

LeinsterDub wrote: »

No it's fairly clear. Don't overtake if you'll have to pull in pretty much directly after overtaking. As a professional driver you'll know the difference.

Once I'm back in the bus lane, having safely cleared the obstruction, it is perfectly legal to pull in at the next bus stop. Just like it's perfectly legal to cycle in a bus lane.

Better Than Christ wrote: »

You mean don't overtake a cyclist, full-stop? Because there's always a bus stop within a few hundred metres. If there is enough space to overtake and also pull back in safely, it's not stressful at all.

No it's fairly clear. Don't overtake if you'll have to pull in pretty much directly after overtaking. As a professional driver you'll know the difference.

Hurrache wrote: »

The issue that you like to provoke by admitting to purposely obstructing them because they're in the bus lane?

I'm not purposely obstructing them; I'm just doing my job, and not showing them the added courtesy that I show towards the majority of cyclists (i.e. the ones who don't feel the need to use bus lanes).

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Don't over take cyclist just before stops so? Why would you add the stress of mamuvering a bus around a cyclist only to pull in a few seconds later?

You mean don't overtake a cyclist, full-stop? Because there's always a bus stop within a few hundred metres. If there is enough space to overtake and also pull back in safely, it's not stressful at all.

Hurrache wrote: »

A rather coincidental story pops up today in Forbes, maybe experts are even watching from afar

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2020/07/01/cyclists-dont-cause-congestion-must-get-in-front-maneuvers-by-motorists-pointless-finds-study/#1f9036b21e3e

And in shocking and surprising news. Traffic caused by cars which are the traffic. Shocked for sure

07Lapierre wrote: »

Its crap! its a pavement with a white line painted on it.

this is a bike lane:

https://youtu.be/By1DoD3X4Go

Now now its fairly simple. Cycling in the footpath is reckless and dangerous, unless someone randomly painted a white line on it in which case it becomes reckless and dangerous not to use it

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2020/07/01/cyclists-dont-cause-congestion-must-get-in-front-maneuvers-by-motorists-pointless-finds-study/#1f9036b21e3e

A rather coincidental story pops up today in Forbes, maybe experts are even watching from afar

Some motorists object to the presence of cyclists on roads, claiming a reduction in speed causes traffic snarl-ups. However, a study said to be the first to use on-road speed measurement data, has found that the loss of time to be “negligible.”

“Bicycles are not likely to lead to reduced passenger car travel speed, despite their differences in performance capabilities,” says the study, conducted in Portland, Oregon, on roads without bicycle lanes.
........

overtakes by motorists desperate to get past, even in dense traffic, when motor vehicles are likely to get stuck ahead anyway. The “must get in front” maneuver, or MGIF, is well known to regular cyclists.

The Portland study was published June 12 in the Transportation Research Record, the journal of the National Academy of Sciences’ Transportation Research Board.

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Also - amazing how quickly Andy came back with a pic of where I meant.

Do you have the whole of Dublin's cycling lanes all indexed by tweet, youtube upload and facebook post, with matching photos and videis?! Let's try another... North Circular Road, junction of Russell St. Aaaand... GO!

When pretty much all cycling infrastructure in the city is ****e, you don't need to go looking for any issues, they're there all day, every day.

TaurenDruid

Also - amazing how quickly Andy came back with a pic of where I meant.

Do you have the whole of Dublin's cycling lanes all indexed by tweet, youtube upload and facebook post, with matching photos and videis?! Let's try another... North Circular Road, junction of Russell St. Aaaand... GO!

ewc78

07Lapierre wrote: »

this is a bike lane:

https://youtu.be/By1DoD3X4Go

That would be ideal for running on!!

TaurenDruid

I must actually find out how this multiquote thing works at some point.

But:

Yes, I mean that cycle lane, Andy and magic.

I know you may find this hard to believe, Andy, but just because a vehicle is photographed somewhere, it doesn't get frozen in place! There were no lorries, trucks, vans, cars, helicopters, jeeps, roadworks, pathworks or anything else blocking the cycle lane.

There were no pedestrians.

There were a couple of other cyclists.

It did look a little like that guy, as it happens.

There are traffic lights at the top, and a cyclist can see them, and can tell when it's safe to enter the road. Which is just before the lights, so if he's going to get hit by left-turning traffic (inbound) that traffic is already taking out any pedestrians at the crossing, and the traffic light, and if it's right-turning traffic (outbound) then they have a filter light.

It's not a terrible design, in other words.

The one at Lombard Street is - I dunno wtf they were thinking with that.

I don't think anyone came back about to my question about how come the lobby/activist groups aren't actively invited to be involved in design decisions. It hopefully isn't that they never got invited back after being so incredibly negative about everything... "You're giving us a segregated cycle lane, separated from the traffic by a wall, but sometimes people might step on it or have to make deliveries? YOU MONSTERS!"

FinnC

07Lapierre wrote: »

this is a bike lane:

https://youtu.be/By1DoD3X4Go

That looks class.

07Lapierre

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Case in point: North Strand Road, inbound. Approaching the canal and railway bridge, steep enough hill, with a two lanes. One is a bus lane. There's a segregated cycle lane, behind a wall, from the entrance to Costcutter all the way up to the traffic lights. This morning (and many morningS), there's a guy huffing and puffing his way up the hill, in the middle of the bus lane, with two full double deckers following him at something like 5kmh.

I'd totally get it if there wasn't a cycle lane, but there is, and it's perfectly fine and unobstructed, and much safer. He's possibly one here now, wondering why some buses get so aggressive with some cyclists...

Its crap! its a pavement with a white line painted on it.

this is a bike lane:

https://youtu.be/By1DoD3X4Go

[Deleted User]

TaurenDruid wrote: »

So, I get the "some cycle lanes are so **** I'm safer on the road" argument - for some cycle lanes. What about (to coin a phrase!) the ones that aren't? What about the ones where it's demonstrably safer to use the segregated cycle lane?

Case in point: North Strand Road, inbound. Approaching the canal and railway bridge, steep enough hill, with a two lanes. One is a bus lane. There's a segregated cycle lane, behind a wall, from the entrance to Costcutter all the way up to the traffic lights. This morning (and many morningS), there's a guy huffing and puffing his way up the hill, in the middle of the bus lane, with two full double deckers following him at something like 5kmh.

I'd totally get it if there wasn't a cycle lane, but there is, and it's perfectly fine and unobstructed, and much safer. He's possibly one here now, wondering why some buses get so aggressive with some cyclists...

Do you mean this cycle lane, which seems to be designed for particularly skinny cyclists ?

https://twitter.com/Nialltoner/status/1131545713085751297?s=19

https://twitter.com/chaarlone/status/1121476665337626624?s=19

Can anyone think of any possible reason why cyclists might not choose this lane?

https://twitter.com/AlanDub13/status/1152945554382557184?s=19

Anyone at all?

https://twitter.com/moran_anto/status/1060454647066955776?s=19

Last call for suggestions?

https://twitter.com/SkepticalSeamus/status/1169224858779230208?s=19

Casey78 wrote: »

Hope the younglad is ok of course before I'm accused of condoning what happened, but what you posted is ridiculous even for this thread.

This is the issue, people think there's no association between peoples attitude to cyclists and ultimately violence towards. It's not, and it either manifests itself in dangerous driving around cyclists, or physical violence.

I of course don't know the reason here, I was being pretty Maude Flanders'ers, but it's not unheard of, and naïve to think otherwise.

Casey78

Hurrache wrote: »

But sadly this is the behaviour that threads like this leads to, roads are full of cowards, reflective of these type of threads.

https://twitter.com/SafeCyclingEire/status/1278238610899304449

Hope the younglad is ok of course before I'm accused of condoning what happened, but what you posted is ridiculous even for this thread.

meeeeh

Hurrache wrote: »

Oh, you've changed tact again from being flippant to serious?

I was being truthful that's all.

Better Than Christ wrote: »

And I'm legally entitled (contractually obliged, tbh) to stop at bus stops - even if I've just overtaken a cyclist who has chosen to use the bus lane. Some cyclists on here seem to have issues with that. Is there a course they could do to resolve those issues?

Don't over take cyclist just before stops so? Why would you add the stress of mamuvering a bus around a cyclist only to pull in a few seconds later?

Better Than Christ wrote: »

And I'm legally entitled (contractually obliged, tbh) to stop at bus stops - even if I've just overtaken a cyclist who has chosen to use the bus lane. Some cyclists on here seem to have issues with that. Is there a course they could do to resolve those issues?

The issue that you like to provoke by admitting to purposely obstructing them because they're in the bus lane?

Hurrache wrote: »

You have the strange mentality that the bus lanes are only for buses and admitted to having issues with others in them, who are legally entitled to be there. In fact you'd be hard pressed to find many bus only bus lanes.

A quick course will clarify all that for you, you could even do that online.

And I'm legally entitled (contractually obliged, tbh) to stop at bus stops - even if I've just overtaken a cyclist who has chosen to use the bus lane. Some cyclists on here seem to have issues with that. Is there a course they could do to resolve those issues?

meeeeh wrote: »

Yes isn't sexual harassment funny. hahaha

Oh, you've changed tact again from being flippant to serious?

meeeeh

Hurrache wrote: »

I'm a driver, I only know them too well. That guy was obviously not a serious deckhand though, has he been he'd be wearing Navy standard bell bottoms which have a rather roomy fly, hence no need for pants off.

Yes isn't sexual harassment funny. hahaha