monument wrote: » I'd call it an awful cycle lane! How about some basics like it being a decent width?
monument wrote: » Taxis are small public service vehicle, but they are not public transport. Taxi congestion is so bad in parts of Dublin that taxis are the main source of congestion. At rush hour in places in central Dublin etc cyclists travel faster than most or all modes.
Kaiser2000 wrote: » (why for example would I take a bus to get from Sandyford to Blanch via the centre of town and 90 mins+ when I could just take the M50 and be there in 20 mins.
bmaxi wrote: » What do you want, a dual carriageway for bikes? It's a single direction cycle lane, there's an identical one on the other side of the road. Why not go the whole hog and cover them in so little precious doesn't get wet or have to cope with a head wind, while we're at it we could level out all the hills. This could be paid for by ring fencing the contributions cyclists make to road tax, licence and excise duty pot.
bmaxi wrote: » Of course they do, the don't have traffic lights, one way streets or pedestrians to slow them down, they just ignore them all.
monument wrote: » Exhibit a and exhibit b. Reasons why your views on the quality of cycle paths should not be taken seriously.
BTW there's no such thing as road tax
SeanW wrote: » Whatever about "Exhibit a," the latter ("exhibit b") is most definitely true, as any pedestrian in our major cities can attest to. It's a colloquial term. Maybe you should look it up :cool:
monument wrote: » Exhibit a and exhibit b. Reasons why your views on the quality of cycle paths should not be taken seriously. BTW there's no such thing as road tax, and driver licence fees goes into the unneeded quango that is the RSA -- not something to boast too much about!
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?
markpb wrote: » Your problem is that some cyclists weren't using a cycle lane. I've pointed out why they weren't using it. Then you complained about cyclists not obeying the RTAs. Now you're talking about taxes. Is there an anti-cyclists thread somewhere that you got mixed up and thought you were replying to because the rest of us are talking about bus priority.
bmaxi wrote: » You're quite right, my original gripe was with cyclists not using the cycle lane, I don't believe cyclists should be using the bus lane the bus lane should be for buses and emergency vehicles only, thereby giving those vehicles priority. Later a poster said that the cyclist was probably using the bus lane because the cycle lane was in poor condition and I posted a picture of the cycle lane in question which I consider to be perfectly adequate. Following on that we had criticism of that particular cycle lane so 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.
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.
Surveyor11 wrote: » You sound like a right tw@t TBH
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
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.
Jack Kyle wrote: » You need to learn the meaning of manners and giving due consideration to other people.
Jack Kyle wrote: » I also blast cyclists out of it when they cycle two abreast.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Jack Kyle wrote: » ......only when they're discourteous.
Jack Kyle wrote: » I've never beeped my horn because a cyclist has been on the road...only when they're discourteous.
No Pants wrote: » Using a road is discourteous?
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.
