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?
Hurrache wrote: » Oh, you've changed tact again from being flippant to serious?
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
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.
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...
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...
07Lapierre wrote: » this is a bike lane:https://youtu.be/By1DoD3X4Go
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!
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.
07Lapierre wrote: » Its crap! its a pavement with a white line painted on it. this is a bike lane:https://youtu.be/By1DoD3X4Go
Hurrache wrote: » A rather coincidental story pops up today in Forbes, maybe experts are even watching from afarhttps://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2020/07/01/cyclists-dont-cause-congestion-must-get-in-front-maneuvers-by-motorists-pointless-finds-study/#1f9036b21e3e
Hurrache wrote: » The issue that you like to provoke by admitting to purposely obstructing them because they're in the bus lane?
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?
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
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 never said anything about coming to an immediate stop.
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.
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!"
Better Than Christ wrote: » I'm talking about stretches of road like this, where there is a cycle lane and also a bus lane.
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.
LeinsterDub wrote: » I did. Perhaps you reply to what I actually said
Hurrache wrote: It's bad when you refer to the N11 cycle 'lane' as a back up to your argument.
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.
Better Than Christ wrote: » The bus lane is no better.
Better Than Christ wrote: » It's irrelevant because I don't do it. Here's what I do when I get stuck behind a bike on a road like the Stillorgan dual carriageway and it's possible to safely overtake - I indicate, fully change lanes when it's safe to do so, and when I've cleared the obstacle, I indicate again and pull back in. Having already completed the overtake (i.e. I am now in front of the bike), I indicate again and pull in at the bus stop further down the road. I accept that it must be very annoying for the cyclist, but it's perfectly legal, just like cycling in a bus lane.
LeinsterDub wrote: » Why would that be annoying? I'm able to share the road.
