bmaxi wrote: » Just the other day I came across three buses stuck behind a bicycle in the bus lane on Stillorgan Road, even though there is a perfectly good cycle lane on the footpath.
JayRoc wrote: » I know you mean well and I know it can be hard to understand, but do you think being chased by 3 buses, and taxi's and whatever else, many of whom beep or aggressively accelerate at you, come close to sideswipe you to "teach you a lesson" is fun? Do you think cyclists enjoy it? Why, then, do you think we don't use the bicycle paths? Seriously?
bmaxi wrote: » Did you read my post before you replied? There was a perfectly good cycle lane not five feet away, where the nasty buses and taxis couldn't get you.
markpb wrote: » Maybe the cycle lane isn't as good as you think?
Cookie_Monster wrote: » his point was clearly that the bus lane under those conditions is still preferable to the awful cycle lane
bmaxi wrote: » http://goo.gl/maps/iTNHP If you call this an awful cycle lane I really don't know what you want.
Scortho wrote: » A bus should be in the bus lane. It's there for the bus. Keep out of the driving lane. He's slowing down the traffic of other road users. At the end of the day I can't drive in the bus lane so why should he be in the driving lane. In other cities the bus stays in the bus lane, regardless of traffic conditions. Also if that's the case, since there's little traffic surely the bus lane should be open to cars as well?
monument wrote: » I'd call it an awful cycle lane! How about some basics like it being a decent width? The bus lane they are talking about are not fit for use when traffic is at full flow. And you can take it that all lanes are lanes for buses -- just as all lanes are lanes for bicycles.
steamengine wrote: » There seems to be varying opinions but I would agree with your sentiment. What I do think exists amongst a minority of cyclists is a common agenda which could be best described as a 'cycling rights movement', the aims of which are an infinite amount of road for themselves and zero other vehicles impinging on their space. It is really difficult for other road users to absorb why cyclists should be able to block buses in a bus lane when there is an adjacent cycle lane, or even out of common courtesy just pull in and let the bus pass.
steamengine wrote: » It is really difficult for other road users to absorb why cyclists should be able to block buses in a bus lane when there is an adjacent cycle lane, or even out of common courtesy just pull in and let the bus pass.
monument wrote: » It's an indication of how poor the cycle lanes are. But why can't you see that?
BenShermin wrote: » Typical Irish attitude here, did you ever stop to consider that cars (not cyclists) are the reason the bus is blocked?
If lanes two and three were not full of cars the bus could have easily crossed into lane two to overtake the cyclists.
If all the drivers in lane two decided to cycle or take public transport instead there wouldn't be any problem, would there?
JayRoc wrote: » If I were a driver looking at a cyclist riding on the road, beside a "perfectly good" cycle path, I would wonder what was wrong with the cycle path.
This doesn't seem to occur to a lot of people behind the wheel.
steamengine wrote: » What I do think exists amongst a minority of cyclists is a common agenda which could be best described as a 'cycling rights movement', the aims of which are an infinite amount of road for themselves and zero other vehicles impinging on their space.
SeanW wrote: » Or *crazy idea* the cyclist could actually have used the cycle lane provided for them and not intentionally blocked the buses.
BenShermin wrote: » Here in Ireland, motorists regularly break the speed limit in the pathetic small area of 30km/h zones that we have, putting cyclists and pedestrians in danger.
SeanW wrote: » , it's only natural to expect them to take no notice of a good cycle lane.
SeanW wrote: » I didn't realise that the cars were blocking the bus in the bus lane. If only there had been lanes for the cars that they were using, legally and within their rights. :rolleyes:
SeanW wrote: » Because the world is full of countries were every single motorist has decided to pack in the car? :rolleyes:
BenShermin wrote: » I never said that, there's still plenty of room in lane three for cars:D!
SeanW wrote: » There may be a good reason for 30kph speed limits in Dublin City Centre, but if you were a driver throughout our land you would know that many urban limits are mis applied, for example 50 and 60kph speed limits going way out into the countryside for no reason, and the supposed "danger" to pedestrians etc is only theoretical as there are some urban peripheral limits where you would have a better chance of being struck by lightening than meeting a pedestrian.
SeanW wrote: » You do realise that all the motorist would be breaking the law if they all travelled in lane 3?
TheChizler wrote: » If they were intentionally blocking the bus that's something else altogether. But it's more likely that they were there out of self preservation/getting to where they needed to go.
Spook_ie wrote: » Or possibly that they didn't want to go to the extent of following the signs on the cycle path and actually yield to pedestrians, so they'd rather impede the bus full of passengers instead
monument wrote: » Amazingly such problems don't arise in countries and cities where cycle paths are designed to a decent standard. OR What I do think exists amongst a minority of posters is a common agenda which could be best described as a 'not having a clue about cycling movement', the aims of which to keep cyclists out of their way at all costs and to even go as far as making out our crap cycle lanes are just dandy. It's an indication of how poor the cycle lanes are. But why can't you see that?
SeanW wrote: » Taxis operate at the same speed as other road vehicles. They are also public transport.