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

monument · 12-08-2013 06:56PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Did you ask me a question? no problem I'll answer it anyway, taxis don't block the bus lanes otherwise you wouldn't have people complaining about taxis pulling out of bus lanes all the time to over take buses and causing them to jam on, usually mentioned alongside no indicators! You really need to stick to one argument at a time

Ha! Taxi drivers in Dublin are often complaining about the issue oversupply of taxis and that huge oversupply has a massive affect on traffic flow.

Taxis have become of the main sources of congestion in Dublin city centre and even out of the city centre in bus lanes on busy routes! Often at otherwise off-peak times taxis heavily congest streets and block buses.

12-08-2013 07:05PM

Cyclists do what they want, and when they get called on their mischief, the tears are shed.

Spook_ie · 12-08-2013 07:08PM

monument wrote: »

60 people and 40 people -- bicycle, bus, and car:

But because all of these move and the static footprint isn't the real footprint, this is the important image:

So therefore cyclists should be eliminated from bus lanes and footpaths as they have a higher corrider through put in BRTs, footpaths, light rail and rail. Your point being what that cyclists should be on public transport and walk the rest of the way? Seems like a good idea

steve-o · 12-08-2013 07:16PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Because ( particularly in the case of the illustration on the N11 ) there are yield signs on the cyclepath but of course cyclists are allowed to ignore them as well as change their routing to avoid them, so lets have some honesty here for a change what you really mean is YOU don't want to be inconvenienced because YOU don't have a cycle path that allows YOU to take precedence over bus passengers so YOU would rather hold the bus up

I definitely don't want a cycle path that goes straight through a bus stop. Sorry to be difficult and want things to be better. But it's quite a leap to interpret my post as some kind of deliberate selfish act of bus obstruction. Most of the time, no buses are delayed, obstructed or in anyway harmed.

Andy-Pandy · 12-08-2013 07:17PM

I dont know if its been pointed out but the bus lane on the n11 is clearly marked as being a dual bus and bike lane. Bikes are perfectly entitled to use the bus lane on this and many other N roads and the road signs show this clearly

monument · 12-08-2013 07:19PM

A general warning to both sides:

Drop the personalisations of the debate and focus on points, not posters
Drop the talk of bs, tosh, agenda etc

Spook_ie · 12-08-2013 07:20PM

monument wrote: »

Ha! Taxi drivers in Dublin are often complaining about the issue oversupply of taxis and that huge oversupply has a massive affect on traffic flow.

Taxis have become of the main sources of congestion in Dublin city centre and even out of the city centre in bus lanes on busy routes! Often at otherwise off-peak times taxis heavily congest streets and block buses.

If there are 2 taxis and only 1 fare a taxi is in over supply, that's a different argument altogether, but I look forward to your support in the next thread about capping the number of taxis

The congestion you speak of, again, in all likelihood being caused by the mass exodus of cyclists in the bus lanes often overtaking someone overtaking another ( yes, I have seen this several times ) preventing the buses and taxis from overtaking unless they bully themselves into the adjoining lane to overtake, obviously a far greater problem for buses who will probably have to stop at the next bus stop

There is a congestion caused by taxis that directly affects me and that is the ones that constantly Q at night time on both sides of Camden St, along Harcourt St, at the bottom of Grafton St on the x-ing, outside McDs on O'Connel st etc. and the only solution to that is in the hands of the GS and a mindset to set out enforcing the laws as they stand about plying for hire but another subject another time

Jawgap · 12-08-2013 07:21PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Same old tosh recycled forever by the cycling community...

2 thoretical families, both families get the same income after income tax, prsi etc. both families spend exactly the same amount on the same food etc. the ONLY difference is in one family one person cycles to work in the other one person commutes to work via bus/train or car whch one pays the most tax into the system? which one ( considering they are possible able to take advantage of a tax scheme to save them money ) is paying the least tax, therefore which one is subsidising the other?

I cycle, pay all kinds of tax and still have to pay full motor tax, thus subsidising those motorists who don't cycle.

The cyclist described by the OP wasn't breaking any existing laws - most cyclists are compliant, despite what the Joe Duffy / George Hook whinging brigade would have you believe. Have the law changed and cyclists will comply.

Btw- that, like 95% of cycle lanes in the country, is crap piece of infrastructure.

Spook_ie · 12-08-2013 07:28PM

Jawgap wrote: »

I cycle, pay all kinds of tax and still have to pay full motor tax, thus subsidising those motorists who don't cycle.

The cyclist described by the OP wasn't breaking any existing laws - most cyclists are compliant, despite what the Joe Duffy / George Hook whinging brigade would have you believe. Have the law changed and cyclists will comply.

Btw- that, like 95% of cycle lanes in the country, is crap piece of infrastructure.

Again, as is usual from the cycling side of the argument, you are ignoring the facts, in the example which one is subsidising the other?

Jawgap · 12-08-2013 07:40PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Again, as is usual from the cycling side of the argument, you are ignoring the facts, in the example which one is subsidising the other?

Not really, according to the ESRI I'm paying tax at the 85th percentile so I'm subsidising something and someone!

monument · 12-08-2013 07:47PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

If there are 2 taxis and only 1 fare a taxi is in over supply, that's a different argument altogether, but I look forward to your support in the next thread about capping the number of taxis

The congestion you speak of, again, in all likelihood being caused by the mass exodus of cyclists in the bus lanes often overtaking someone overtaking another ( yes, I have seen this several times ) preventing the buses and taxis from overtaking unless they bully themselves into the adjoining lane to overtake, obviously a far greater problem for buses who will probably have to stop at the next bus stop

There is a congestion caused by taxis that directly affects me and that is the ones that constantly Q at night time on both sides of Camden St, along Harcourt St, at the bottom of Grafton St on the x-ing, outside McDs on O'Connel st etc. and the only solution to that is in the hands of the GS and a mindset to set out enforcing the laws as they stand about plying for hire but another subject another time

Take the disruption caused around Camden St alone and you've got more disruption than cyclists anywhere in the city cause.

Spook_ie · 12-08-2013 07:49PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Not really, according to the ESRI I'm paying tax at the 85th percentile so I'm subsidising something and someone!

Answer the question then, in the example cited, which doesn't allow for any personal variations, who is subsiding who?

Or if you like Jawgaps twin pays tax at the 85th percintile and copies EVERYTHING that jawgap does from buying the same newspaper, eating the same food, using the same method of birth control, he even has exactly the same model car and cycle that jawgap does, the only difference jawgaps twin commutes to work in his car while jawgap cycles, are you subsidising your twin or vice versa

Spook_ie · 12-08-2013 07:50PM

monument wrote: »

Take the disruption caused around Camden St alone and you've got more disruption than cyclists anywhere in the city cause.

Does Camden St have this disruption during "normal" working hours? Does Camden St have bus lanes and buses running at 3.00 am?

Jawgap · 12-08-2013 07:57PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Answer the question then, in the example cited, which doesn't allow for any personal variations, who is subsiding who?

Or if you like Jawgaps twin pays tax at the 85th percintile and copies EVERYTHING that jawgap does from buying the same newspaper, eating the same food, using the same method of birth control, he even has exactly the same model car and cycle that jawgap does, the only difference jawgaps twin commutes to work in his car while jawgap cycles, are you subsidising your twin or vice versa

I'm subsidising my "twin" - I'm paying the same amount of motor tax and causing not nearly as much 'externality.'

I may pay less in excise on fuel, but what I'm saving goes to support banks, over-stretched mortgage holders and funds investments in business.

TheChizler · 12-08-2013 07:59PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Again, as is usual from the cycling side of the argument, you are ignoring the facts, in the example which one is subsidising the other?

If you go down that path it's business subsidising everybody on the roads.

Jawgap · 12-08-2013 08:02PM

TheChizler wrote: »

If you go down that path it's business subsidising everybody on the roads.

Not according to Karl Marx

monument · 12-08-2013 08:04PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

So therefore cyclists should be eliminated from bus lanes and footpaths as they have a higher corrider through put in BRTs, footpaths, light rail and rail. Your point being what that cyclists should be on public transport and walk the rest of the way? Seems like a good idea

We don't have BRT in Dublin -- our QBCs are not up to even single lane BRT standard.

But the chart shows with cycling you get 82% of the capacity of singe lane BRT with cycling and with that it's a fraction of the cost -- for the state there's a lesser construction cost, no comparable maintenance cost and no vehicle cost.

LRT and heavy rail both have ridiculous build cost. And walking ranges do not fit into our commuting patterns as well as cycling does.

You should also note that cycling has the lowest energy use bar none.

I agree cyclists should be taken off the bus lanes and footpaths -- but that involves providing high-standard cycle paths, not mixing cyclists and pedestrians as is done now on the N11.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Does Camden St have this disruption during "normal" working hours? Does Camden St have bus lanes and buses running at 3.00 am?

It does not matter if it has bus lanes or not if there's such a strong impact on bus routes. The taxi congestion often starts from 6pm onwards -- even if it only hits chronic gridlock long after that.

TheChizler wrote: »

If you go down that path it's business subsidising everybody on the roads.

If we are to go along with the idea that motor tax and tax on fuel is actually a "road tax" than, in Ireland, it's quite likely the average Joe is paying more than business.

Spook_ie · 12-08-2013 08:05PM

Jawgap wrote: »

I'm subsidising my "twin" - I'm paying the same amount of motor tax and causing not nearly as much 'externality.'

I may pay less in excise on fuel, but what I'm saving goes to support banks, over-stretched mortgage holders and funds investments in business.

Really I thought that the excise that your twin was paying would be subsidising seeing as the excise you aren't paying would be sitting in your pocket, remember other than the use of the car EVERYHING else is the same.

dubrov · 12-08-2013 08:07PM

The biggest problem with that bike lane on the N11 is that you have to slow down at every junction when you get there. If you are on the road you can sail through with right of way just like any car.

The road surface is actually quite good and being off-road is a real plus. Having to brake almost to a stop at every junction is a real deal breaker though.

Poor planning really!

Spook_ie · 12-08-2013 08:08PM

TheChizler wrote: »

If you go down that path it's business subsidising everybody on the roads.

If you wish to substitute two identical business's then feel free, the argument still holds, the one using cycles is being subsidised by the other

monument · 12-08-2013 08:11PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Really I thought that the excise that your twin was paying would be subsidising seeing as the excise you aren't paying would be sitting in your pocket, remember other than the use of the car EVERYHING else is the same.

"EVERYHING else is the same"

That's not true -- the positive externalities costs of cycling way outweighs the negative externalities of needlessly driving a car.

Spook_ie wrote: »

If you wish to substitute two identical business's then feel free, the argument still holds, the one using cycles is being subsidised by the other

Back that up please.

Spook_ie · 12-08-2013 08:13PM

monument wrote: »

<snipped>

It does not matter if it has bus lanes or not if there's such a strong impact on bus routes. The taxi congestion often starts from 6pm onwards -- even if it only hits chronic gridlock long after that.

If we are to go along with the idea that motor tax and tax on fuel is actually a "road tax" than, in Ireland, it's quite likely the average Joe is paying more than business.

1 Given the title of the thread and the fact you split it off from another thread then if bus lanes are present is very relevent, as is if buses are actually running

2 Exactly the same point that the Average Joe on a bike contributes less tax than the Average Joe in a car, therefore the Average Joe in a car IS contributing more to the roads

Spook_ie · 12-08-2013 08:19PM

monument wrote: »

"EVERYHING else is the same"

That's not true -- the positive externalities costs of cycling way outweighs the negative externalities of needlessly driving a car.

Back that up please.

There are no positive/negative externalities at work in the example, both are of identical fitness levels, both suffer/don't suffer from the same ailments. The only difference that would be allowable is the effect on the roads, and for that we would need to allow for the wear caused to roads by buses etc. having to break and accelerate due to cyclists in the bus lane.

The effects of road wear are far higher when a vehicle is accelerated/slowed/steered than during a straight run

monument · 12-08-2013 08:25PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

1 Given the title of the thread and the fact you split it off from another thread then if bus lanes are present is very relevent, as is if buses are actually running

In the context on massive gaps in the QBC network -- the taxis are blocking buses regardless and, yes, the taxi congestion happens when buses are running.

If you want to draw a different picture, that's fine but few are going to buy it.

Spook_ie wrote: »

2 Exactly the same point that the Average Joe on a bike contributes less tax than the Average Joe in a car, therefore the Average Joe in a car IS contributing more to the roads

How is the Average Joe on a bike contributes less tax? Please back this up -- explain exactly how you're getting to this conclusion in the context of loads of posts already talking about external costs and well as direct ones.

Some more on the savings cycling gives to the tax payer see here and here.

monument · 12-08-2013 08:35PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

There are no positive/negative externalities at work in the example, both are of identical fitness levels, both suffer/don't suffer from the same ailments. The only difference that would be allowable is the effect on the roads, and for that we would need to allow for the wear caused to roads by buses etc. having to break and accelerate due to cyclists in the bus lane.

The effects of road wear are far higher when a vehicle is accelerated/slowed/steered than during a straight run

Your fictional example of both having identical fitness levels is just that -- fictional.

And, even without that, it's not just the affect on the roads, for cars it includes:

congestion costs
air pollution health costs
noise pollution health costs
accident costs related to motor use

For public transport it includes the above to a lesser extent (and congestion to a far lesser extent), but also includes higher costs in subsidising construction, purchase costs, maintenance and on-going costs such as payroll costs etc.

TheChizler · 12-08-2013 08:38PM

monument wrote: »

If we are to go along with the idea that motor tax and tax on fuel is actually a "road tax" than, in Ireland, it's quite likely the average Joe is paying more than business.

I'm following the trend of constantly widening the goalposts!

TheChizler · 12-08-2013 08:52PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Exactly the same point that the Average Joe on a bike contributes less tax than the Average Joe in a car, therefore the Average Joe in a car IS contributing more to the roads

The Average Joe in a Micra contributes less tax than the Average Joe in a Land Rover, therefore the Average Joe in a Land Rover IS contributing more to the roads.

For that reason I demand that vehicles with lower fuel consumption should give way to vehicles with higher fuel consumption, as they pay more X-tax. As is the logical conclusion of the above argument.

Also buses should give way to any car that has tax paid on it, as that tax paid would be more than the %age of the passenger fare going towards taxing the bus, which is the logical conclusion of another argument.

Spook_ie · 12-08-2013 08:53PM

monument wrote: »

<snpped>

How is the Average Joe on a bike contributes less tax? Please back this up -- explain exactly how you're getting to this conclusion in the context of loads of posts already talking about external costs and well as direct ones.

Some more on the savings cycling gives to the tax payer see here and here.

Average Joe on a bike contributes tax 1 Without any contribution to infrastructure, Average Joe in a car contibutes tax 1 + x ( x = partial contribution to infra structure ), Average Joe on Public Transport contributes tax 1 plus y ( y = fare costs which incorporate a degree of costs in the fare towards infrastucture), therefore Average Joe the cyclist is paying less tax.

But again you are disregarding the thread, Cyclists in bus lanes (cut from 'giving way to buses' thread) none of your arguments or trying to drag taxis into will sway the fact that so far cyclists do hold up buses in bus lanes

Spook_ie · 12-08-2013 09:01PM

TheChizler wrote: »

The Average Joe in a Micra contributes less tax than the Average Joe in a Land Rover, therefore the Average Joe in a Land Rover IS contributing more to the roads.

For that reason I demand that vehicles with lower fuel consumption should give way to vehicles with higher fuel consumption, as they pay more X-tax. As is the logical conclusion of the above argument.

Surely that is one of the points being made that cyclists should cede to buses

If you wish to diversify the thread to include why Joe in a Micra should cede to Joe in Range Rover it's going to get very confusing and perhaps should be in it's own thread

TheChizler wrote: »

The Average Joe in a Micra contributes less tax than the Average Joe in a Land Rover, therefore the Average Joe in a Land Rover IS contributing more to the roads.

For that reason I demand that vehicles with lower fuel consumption should give way to vehicles with higher fuel consumption, as they pay more X-tax. As is the logical conclusion of the above argument.

Also buses should give way to any car that has tax paid on it, as that tax paid would be more than the %age of the passenger fare going towards taxing the bus, which is the logical conclusion of another argument.

I see you modified your post whilst I was typing, how much of the lifetimes fares on a bus go to revenue in the form of some kind of taxation?

Jawgap · 12-08-2013 09:01PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Average Joe on a bike contributes tax 1 Without any contribution to infrastructure, Average Joe in a car contibutes tax 1 + x ( x = partial contribution to infra structure ), Average Joe on Public Transport contributes tax 1 plus y ( y = fare costs which incorporate a degree of costs in the fare towards infrastucture), therefore Average Joe the cyclist is paying less tax.

But again you are disregarding the thread, Cyclists in bus lanes (cut from 'giving way to buses' thread) none of your arguments or trying to drag taxis into will sway the fact that so far cyclists do hold up buses in bus lanes

So do slow taxi drivers and other buses - cyclists as road users are permitted to use "bus" lanes. Until they change the law that's just one of life's little inconveniences people will just have to put up with..........

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

Comments