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

Cyclists in bus lanes (cut from 'giving way to buses' thread)

bmaxi

The whole idea of bus lanes is to shorten bus journey times, so logically buses coming out of bus lanes should always have priority or any advantage
is lost. As usual in Ireland, these things are introduced in a ham fisted way, more for visual than practical effect, politicians showing how advanced in thinking they are without considering the full picture. It's easy to paint lines on roads when they mean fcuk all, for instance, I can never understand why bicycles are allowed to share bus lanes, they should have a dedicated lane to themselves although, having said that, they probably wouldn't use them. 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. Proper penalties and a modicum of enforcement would solve a lot of our traffic congestion problems but apparently there are only two road traffic offences on the statute books, ironically the two which are most easily detected with the minimum of effort.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

monument

SeanW wrote: »

For many if not most, this distinction is academic, since the car is a necessity for using the roads. Ergo it may as well be a road tax.

A car is not needed to use a road!

SeanW wrote: »

Wrong. It is based on use - if your car is off the road, you don't have to pay the tax. Ergo, from the perspective of a motorist, it is a road tax, since if you don't pay it you - as a motorist - cannot use the road. If motorists did not have to pay the tax for using the roads, it wouldn't be called a road tax.

It's not wrong. It is based on emissions or engine size, not on use.

There's no mass of people declaring their cars off the road and only using such cars off-road or on roads not covered by traffic law.

SeanW wrote: »

I'm fairly sure the taxes extracted from motorists more than pay for road maintenance and construction and a lot more besides. If you're going to consider "external costs" then you also have to balance that with the external benefits not measured in tax vs. expenditure figures, and that would also be very high.

Again -- there's loads of threads on this already.

External benefits of say commuters and shoppers is much lower than external benefits of cycling.

worded

Jack Kyle wrote: »

It's pretty obvious that when motorists pay motor tax while cyclists pay sweet FA, motorists are rightly going to feel like they've more rights on the road.

Cyclists generally seem to be over precious, over sensitive and possessing a misplaced sense of righteousness. In my view, their right to be on the road at all is questionable.

Is there a link between Agressive car drivers and obesity ?
If often find these people to be over weight and in need of a ride.

Are you a salad dodger ?

monument

SeanW wrote: »

And that's just the stuff that's technically legal, before we get to cyclists making turns without looking, menacing pedestrians on the footpath, ignoring one-way laws and red traffic lights (and as happened to me in Dublin City last week, two of those at a time), all of which there is no sanction for because cyclists are not required to have a license and the bikes are unregistered.

Err...

Licences and registration does not seem to stop motorists breaking he law on mass
There are sanctions for cyclists
Cyclists do end up in court -- in increasing numbers in the last few years
On-the-spot fines for cyclists are already on the way
Number plates or registration does not affect this

paddyland wrote: »

It says something when cyclists hop on nearly every single thread and try to turn it into a cycling victimisation thread.

It says something when you're blaming cyclists for dragging the thread off-topic when bmaxi mentioned cyclists first!

steve-o wrote: »

It's far from excellent. As a cyclist, when I start off from the previous lights with a bus behind me, people waiting to get on the bus are blocking the bike lane. So I stay on the road past the bus stop. There are no ramps up onto the bike lane, so I stay on the road and rejoin the bike lane when I can. Maybe you expect bikes to wait at bus stops while people get on and off or come to a stop after and lift their bike up the kerb. But it's not going to happen.

Here's that in images:

Crazy shared use space at bus stops:

Yield to a side road and ramps making the route like a roller-coaster -- segregation can be done seamlessly!

Unsuitable concrete surface, covers, and the rumble tiles which are like road rumble strips but 20 times worse and hazardous for many bike tires:

DLR Co Co have done some great work on the N11 but there's a lot to do and the design of shared use space at bus stops on a dual carriageway with frequent buses isn't on anymore and never really was.

Cookie_Monster

SeanW wrote: »

For many if not most, this distinction is academic, since the car is a necessity for using the roads.

no it's not. There are many ways of using the roads that are not car based. I would have thought that's a very obvious thing.

If motorists did not have to pay the tax for using the roads, it wouldn't be called a road tax.

But it's not called (a) road tax, only by the short-sighted idiots who are too stupid to learn the proper term and the reason for it. Revenue call it motor tax, any govt website you care to mention call it motor tax. the website is called motortax.ie for god's sake.

SeanW

There's a lot of relevance in the name because the name points out that the tax is not for the privilege of being on the road (that would be a "road tax"), but for the privilege of using a motor vehicle on the road. An important difference.

For many if not most, this distinction is academic, since the car is a necessity for using the roads. Ergo it may as well be a road tax.

It's based on emissions or engine size, not on use.

Wrong. It is based on use - if your car is off the road, you don't have to pay the tax. Ergo, from the perspective of a motorist, it is a road tax, since if you don't pay it you - as a motorist - cannot use the road. If motorists did not have to pay the tax for using the roads, it wouldn't be called a road tax.

it's highly debated if motor tax or other motoring tax pays for all the costs

I'm fairly sure the taxes extracted from motorists more than pay for road maintenance and construction and a lot more besides. If you're going to consider "external costs" then you also have to balance that with the external benefits not measured in tax vs. expenditure figures, and that would also be very high.

Cookie_Monster

Jack Kyle wrote: »

I for one blast cyclists out of it with the horn if I see them on the road when they're a cycling lane off road.

I also blast cyclists out of it when they cycle two abreast.

both are perfectly legal. Why on earth would you do that?
It serves no purpose at all other than to make those cyclists think you're an inconsiderate idiot with no concept of the rules of the road.

Cookie_Monster

bmaxi wrote: »

As I said earlier, if cyclists want pristine conditions, let them pay for them.

Cyclist don't want pristine conditions. They just want the same access and respect on the roads that any other vehicle has. They are fully entitled to use the roads and most don't want to be needlessly segregated onto **** cycle track and lanes that have a wide variety or problems (no right of way, bad access to junctions, poor surfaces, rubbish, gravel and glass swept into them etc etc)

And just to make the point (yet again) motor tax is paid for using an engine and belching out pollution, not for use of the roads. Cyclists pay taxes like everyone else, PAYE, VAT, (probably most motor taxes too) so the argument is entirely irrelevant.

steve-o

bmaxi wrote: »

... which are not relevant to this thread but the cycle lane I referred to is in essence, IMO, an excellent amenity...

It's far from excellent. As a cyclist, when I start off from the previous lights with a bus behind me, people waiting to get on the bus are blocking the bike lane. So I stay on the road past the bus stop. There are no ramps up onto the bike lane, so I stay on the road and rejoin the bike lane when I can. Maybe you expect bikes to wait at bus stops while people get on and off or come to a stop after and lift their bike up the kerb. But it's not going to happen.

monument

bmaxi wrote: »

Yet your views on providing superhighways for bikes are perfectly reasonable?

Yes, because it's based on solid arguments, not on rants which are proved to be rants because when somebody explains one thing to you then you move the goal posts with another rant...

Maybe the two most important things you're not getting in your "cyclists should pay" argument is that:

An increase in cycling is wanted by our national and local government -- and tax breaks are provided for when purchasing bicycles -- taxing bike use would be lunacy in that context.
Most cyclists are also motorists* (and daily cyclists-motorist are paying the same level of motor tax as those who use their cars ever day)

bmaxi wrote: »

It's irrelevant what the taxes are called or where they eventually end up, the fact remains they have to be paid just for the privilege of being on the road. What do cyclists pay for the same privilege?

There's a lot of relevance in the name because the name points out that the tax is not for the privilege of being on the road (that would be a "road tax"), but for the privilege of using a motor vehicle on the road. An important difference.

It's based on emissions or engine size, not on use.

bmaxi wrote: »

...they should be prepared to pay for them, the normal way for other road users is through taxes.

Let's see:

General motorists -- it's highly debated if motor tax or other motoring tax pays for all the costs including the external costs of motoring (and there's loads of threads on that topic already if you want to get into detail).
Pedestrians -- no tax, no registration.
Public transport users -- highly subsidised.
Freight transport -- subsidised to highly subsidised (in fairness, likely mostly by other motorists).
Electric car users -- highly subsidised to an unreal extent.

No Pants

bmaxi wrote: »

Of course it has to do with the roads, it is an offence to be on the road in a motor vehicle if you have not paid it.

Not used to fund roads, so it doesn't matter.

monument

Posts moved -- This is a new thread about cycling in bus lanes when there's a cycle track / lane / shared use footpath etc.

bmaxi

No Pants wrote: »

Motor tax has as much to do with the roads as stamp duty does. As for cyclists being sensitive, you're the one beeping your horn simply because they are on the road.

Of course it has to do with the roads, it is an offence to be on the road in a motor vehicle if you have not paid it.

bmaxi

markpb wrote: »

That's a fair point and without mentioning that everyone pays taxes which, like motor tax, go into a general fund to pay for everything including roads, it's worth pointing out that I didn't ask for pristine cycle lanes, just ones that aren't stupid. Putting the bus stop in front of the cycle lane instead of behind it doesn't cost money. Keeping sigh posts off the cycle lane doesn't cost money. Not dishing kerbs so I don't feel like I'm cycling on a rollercoaster doesn't cost money. Most cyclists just want safety, not super highways.

Well you have mentioned it and it should be remembered that motorists pay all those taxes plus DL, VRT, tax, insurance, NCT, fuel etc. There is no disputing that local authorities make stupid decisions regarding where thy place road signs, bus stops and many other things which are not relevant to this thread but the cycle lane I referred to is in essence, IMO, an excellent amenity. It seems that that opinion is not shared by others on here so I'm asking what do they want and are they prepared to pay for it?

paddyland

Is this a thread about giving way to buses, or just another cyclists-versus-everyone-else thread?

It says something when cyclists hop on nearly every single thread and try to turn it into a cycling victimisation thread.

What happened to the point the OP was making?

SeanW

No Pants wrote: »

Using a road is discourteous?

No, but ignoring a cycle lane without good reason, and/or cycling more than single file, most definitely are.

And that's just the stuff that's technically legal, before we get to cyclists making turns without looking, menacing pedestrians on the footpath, ignoring one-way laws and red traffic lights (and as happened to me in Dublin City last week, two of those at a time), all of which there is no sanction for because cyclists are not required to have a license and the bikes are unregistered.

No Pants

Jack Kyle wrote: »

I've never beeped my horn because a cyclist has been on the road...only when they're discourteous.

Using a road is discourteous?

Surveyor11

Jack Kyle wrote: »

......only when they're discourteous.

In your view of course. I cycle a mix of country and urban roads on a 40km return commute daily, have to say I've never been beeped. You're entitled to your view, but thankfully in a very small minority.

Jack Kyle

No Pants wrote: »

Motor tax has as much to do with the roads as stamp duty does. As for cyclists being sensitive, you're the one beeping your horn simply because they are on the road.

I've never beeped my horn because a cyclist has been on the road...only when they're discourteous.

Surveyor11

Jack Kyle wrote: »

It's pretty obvious that when motorists pay motor tax while cyclists pay sweet FA, motorists are rightly going to feel like they've more rights on the road.

Cyclists generally seem to be over precious, over sensitive and possessing a misplaced sense of righteousness. In my view, their right to be on the road at all is questionable.

Eh, I pay €626 motor tax as well. So that knocks that one on the head. Also, you're totally misguided if you think motor tax is being out into road maintenance - with some of the highest motor tax and fuel costs in Europe our roads should be truly magnificent. Instead, bar the newer road ways, a lot of our roads are on par with a developing country.

Cyclists will come off worse in an incident with a car, when's the last time a cyclist killed a motorist in an accident? Thankfully your views are in the minirity of road users, given your attitude I would question why you should be allowed behind the wheel of a one tonne plus vehicle.

No Pants

Jack Kyle wrote: »

It's pretty obvious that when motorists pay motor tax while cyclists pay sweet FA, motorists are rightly going to feel like they've more rights on the road.

Cyclists generally seem to be over precious, over sensitive and possessing a misplaced sense of righteousness. In my view, their right to be on the road at all is questionable.

Motor tax has as much to do with the roads as stamp duty does. As for cyclists being sensitive, you're the one beeping your horn simply because they are on the road.

Jack Kyle

It's pretty obvious that when motorists pay motor tax while cyclists pay sweet FA, motorists are rightly going to feel like they've more rights on the road.

Cyclists generally seem to be over precious, over sensitive and possessing a misplaced sense of righteousness. In my view, their right to be on the road at all is questionable.

markpb

bmaxi wrote: »

I'm suggesting if cyclists want pristine conditions they should be prepared to pay for them, the normal way for other road users is through taxes.

That's a fair point and without mentioning that everyone pays taxes which, like motor tax, go into a general fund to pay for everything including roads, it's worth pointing out that I didn't ask for pristine cycle lanes, just ones that aren't stupid. Putting the bus stop in front of the cycle lane instead of behind it doesn't cost money. Keeping sigh posts off the cycle lane doesn't cost money. Not dishing kerbs so I don't feel like I'm cycling on a rollercoaster doesn't cost money. Most cyclists just want safety, not super highways.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

The amount of commuter traffic on the M50 going north-south or vice versa in the morning/evening would suggest that there are in fact a lot of people who are doing these orbital commutes to work so there's definitely a demand for say an orbital LUAS or express bus... certainly more so than a LUAS extension that'll disrupt most of the city centre and which terminates in a no-go area and with no real requirement for it given the areas it will serve are well covered by bus routes.

I think both are essential, it's not a battle between the two. The suburban industrial estates are huge areas of employment but aren't a fraction on the city centre.

Also the luas extension will end at a rail interchange and tram depot and pass by DITs new campus which will also be a huge trip generator. It's a relatively cheap and very useful train line of its own.

No Pants

Jack Kyle wrote: »

I also blast cyclists out of it when they cycle two abreast.

Why? They're simply using the road that they paid for in a manner in which they're entitled to.

Surveyor11

Jack Kyle wrote: »

You need to learn the meaning of manners and giving due consideration to other people.

I applaud your grasp of irony

Surveyor11

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Sorry, I was blocked the other day by an inconsiderate cyclist on a road with an empty cycling path on the pavement.

Blasting him out of it for his stupidity was the right thing to do.

You need to chill out jack, Jesus what is it with some people?

Jack Kyle

Surveyor11 wrote: »

You sound like a right tw@t. There's a variety of cycling lanes and not all are mandatory. Cycling two abreast perfectly legal, but like everything consideration needs to be given. You don't sound like that type

So your logic is as follows:

A cyclist ignores the cycling lane that has been provided for him and instead obstructs a motorist on the road. The motorist beeps his horn and he's an inconsiderate twat?

Two cyclists travel two abreast deliberately obstructing motorists instead of moving into single file and the motorist who asks them to switch to single file is an inconsiderate twat?

You need to learn the meaning of manners and giving due consideration to other people.

Jack Kyle

Surveyor11 wrote: »

You sound like a right tw@t TBH

Sorry, I was blocked the other day by an inconsiderate cyclist on a road with an empty cycling path on the pavement.

Blasting him out of it for his stupidity was the right thing to do.

Surveyor11

You sound like a right tw@t. There's a variety of cycling lanes and not all are mandatory. Cycling two abreast perfectly legal, but like everything consideration needs to be given. You don't sound like that type

Jack Kyle

I for one blast cyclists out of it with the horn if I see them on the road when they're a cycling lane off road.

I also blast cyclists out of it when they cycle two abreast.

bmaxi

lxflyer wrote: »

To be fair if you were to travel along the entire length of the N11 cycle lane on both sides of the road, you would find that much of it is nothing like that particular stretch and requires cyclists to constantly stop and start at every junction, irrespective of what the main traffic flow is doing, and is a constantly undulating surface.

That is the section to which I referred in my original post, it continues in much the same vein as far as Loughlinstown and from both perspectives, is infinitely preferable to cyclists being in the bus lane. As I said earlier, if cyclists want pristine conditions, let them pay for them.