Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1…1011121315

Comments

  • #422
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    Granolite wrote: »
    I wasnt attacking you at all. :) i was referring to other person's on the thread topic who were using it as a cycling bashing exercise..nothing more.

    The only thing I'd say is to consider going through the 27 or so pages of content and then consider why "Thisregards" may have let loose at you in frustration rather than out of malice I'd suggest.


    I know :) Sorry if you thought I thought you were :D

    edit: in any case, why would someone beep at a cyclist? Scare the sh1t out of them and risk them wobbling into your path? I know I'm a novice but I can't understand the thinking that a horn is there to lash out at someone and vent your frustration. Goes for driver -v- driver also. A horn is for raising the alarm about an imminent danger surely, not for screaming at someone. The amount of people I see who actually have time to sound their horn when someone does somethign wrong, rather than using that time to do more valuable things...like put their foot on the break!


  • #423
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,554 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    I've never given a cyclist a hard time and am super aware of them. I was simoply responding to a post that said cyclists were using the road when there was a cycle lane available to them,and yet complaining that they were being beeped at :confused:

    Cue attack of my reading, comprehension and driving skills. Jeeez :(

    In fairness, I see where you're coming from but I still disagree. Cyclists are entitled under law to cycle on the road, they shouldn't be forced onto haphazard cycle lanes in order to avoid idiots who are horn-friendly.


  • #424
    steamengine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭steamengine


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    thankfully the ROTR are nothing more than a meaningless interpretation of the RTAs. If it ain't in the RTAs then it's completely irrelevant.
    Care to put it up as described in the RTA?

    The ROTR are meaningless - yes - I thought they might be in certain quarters ok. No surprises there. And 'No' to the last bit as I'm quite happy to accept the RSA's interpretation.


  • #425
    sarumite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,909 ✭✭✭sarumite


    SeanW wrote: »
    W
    It's a colloquial term. Maybe you should look it up :cool:

    Interesting article about the term on the BBC.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23694438

    While the below quote is with respect to motor tax in the UK, it could equally apply to Ireland

    "This is a tax on cars, not roads, and it goes straight into the general Treasury fund. Many government agencies have now started calling VED "car tax" but it might be classified as a pollution tax, since it's now based on the size of engine and emissions."


  • #426
    AltAccount
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,058 ✭✭✭AltAccount


    steamengine wrote: »
    The ROTR are meaningless - yes - I thought they might be in certain quarters ok. No surprises there. And 'No' to the last bit as I'm quite happy to accept the RSA's interpretation.

    It's been proven above that the person who put together this section of the ROTR misinterpreted or misunderstood the law, yet you're still happy to use their interpretation.

    Why?


  • Advertisement
  • #427
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    steamengine wrote: »
    The ROTR are meaningless - yes - I thought they might be in certain quarters ok. No surprises there. And 'No' to the last bit as I'm quite happy to accept the RSA's interpretation.

    Bottom of page 27 :eek: of this thread, I put up the relevant legislation.

    Linky


  • #428
    steamengine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭steamengine


    AltAccount wrote: »
    It's been proven above that the person who put together this section of the ROTR misinterpreted or misunderstood the law, yet you're still happy to use their interpretation.

    Why?

    Where is the proof ? If your assertion is correct then why does the rule I quoted appear in the ROTR ?


  • #429
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Page 9 of the RoTR
    The overall aim of this book is to promote safety, good driving practice and courtesy in using our roads according to the law. It is an interpretation of the law from a road safety view; it is not the law. If you have a query you should check the original legislation or ask a Garda.


  • #430
    steamengine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭steamengine


    Jawgap wrote: »
    The RoTR document carries not weight of law - it's informative, but not enforceable.

    the relevant legislation is
    Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997.
    ...


    So cyclists going two abreast is fine - if the legislation said "....in such a manner as to result in two or more pedal cyclists driving abreast"

    You'd have a point.

    The RoTR are also brought to you by the same organisation that still recommends that cyclists "don’t get into shouting matches with motorists."

    I agree that the vast majority of motorists give plenty of room when overtaking me (in the car or on the bike) the vast majority of the time.

    Given a half-decent cycle lane, reasonable well surfaced and maintained and logically laid out, most cyclists will use it. The problem around Dublin is that cycle lanes are poorly designed, neglected and unpredictably hazardous. Better, imo, to stay on the road (where you are permitted to) where you get some decent surface, the hazards are known and more predictable, and - assuming it's a major road - you maintain the right of way

    Ok, there is the interpretation above and the RSA's and one only can be correct. If as you say the RSA have got it wrong, they should remove the rule I quoted. Until such time as they might do, assuming the above interpretation is correct then the ROTR remains the common hymn sheet for cyclists and motorists as the average Joe blog motorist is not going to root through RTA's or SI's on the subject.

    Both motorists and cyclists should have the same understanding of what each other is legally entitled to do on the road and two differing beliefs particularly on two abreast cycling doesn't help one bit.

    Your last paragraph - I would suggest the majority of cyclists do use them and while perfection is a long way off, they are still the safest option for the average cyclist. In a lot of cases I've noticed the roads immediately to the right of cycle lanes are not much better.


  • #431
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    steamengine wrote: »
    Ok, there is the interpretation above and the RSA's and one only can be correct. If as you say the RSA have got it wrong, they should remove the rule I quoted. Until such time as they might do, assuming the above interpretation is correct then the ROTR remains the common hymn sheet for cyclists and motorists as the average Joe blog motorist is not going to root through RTA's or SI's on the subject.

    Both motorists and cyclists should have the same understanding of what each other is legally entitled to do on the road and two differing beliefs particularly on two abreast cycling doesn't help one bit.

    Your last paragraph - I would suggest the majority of cyclists do use them and while perfection is a long way off, they are still the safest option for the average cyclist. In a lot of cases I've noticed the roads immediately to the right of cycle lanes are not much better.

    There are various problems with the RoTR booklet that require revision. Unfortunately whether you like it or not the primary source of the law is the Statutory Instruments. Welcome to public information "Irish style".


  • Advertisement
  • #432
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    steamengine wrote: »
    ......

    Your last paragraph - I would suggest the majority of cyclists do use them and while perfection is a long way off, they are still the safest option for the average cyclist. In a lot of cases I've noticed the roads immediately to the right of cycle lanes are not much better.

    I could be wrong, but I'm willing to get you don't cycle much - if I'm wrong I'm happy to apologise now.

    I'm not looking for perfection, just some practicality - three stretches of cycle lane have been added to my commute recently.....
    • At Balbriggan a north running cycle lane has been added to *right* of the road, meaning to use it I have to cross over the whole road. It's also punctuated with numerous yields for bus stops etc and - in the middle of one part of the north running section - there is a metal pole supporting a bus stop, just to add to the challenge.
    • An underpass has been added at Lissenhall junction - nice bit of work even if the beer cans have already started to arrive. I use it all the time heading north and south.
    • A new cycle / pedestrian lane has been added at the airport - lovely and wide with a great surface. Except there's no way to keep heading north - it 'carries' you into the airport. Your choices are go into the airport and come back out again; bunnyhop off the kerb into traffic or (my preferred option) not use it and stay on the road in the signed bus / cycle lane and continue on your journey in a more hassle-free fashion.

    The scary part is someone designed nos. 1 & 3 and someone signed off on those designs thinking they were a good idea. Certainly in the case of no. 3 there was plenty of space to do something more practical. I think in the case of no.1 the design logic revolved around the idea that 'sure any cycle lane is better than no cycle lane.'


  • #433
    valleyoftheunos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,332 ✭✭✭valleyoftheunos


    Jawgap wrote: »
    ...the design logic revolved around the idea that 'sure any cycle lane is better than no cycle lane.'


    This seems to be a abiding approach amongst motorists, road planners and numerous commenters on this thread.


  • #434
    Chiparus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,292 ✭✭✭Chiparus


    Interesting piece about women cyclists and the reasons of higher fatality rate and pulling over to allow vehicles to pass.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/may/13/cycling-lorries-women-road-deaths

    There's one simple piece of advice for dealing with lorries - don't be intimidated by them. Mason says: "If you cycle in the gutter they'll treat you accordingly."


    And here is a nice site for the "I pay road tax" gang.

    http://ipayroadtax.com/


  • #435
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Jawgap wrote: »
    'sure any cycle lane is better than no cycle lane.'
    valleyoftheunos wrote: »
    This seems to be a abiding approach amongst motorists, road planners and numerous commenters on this thread.



    Same often applies to pedestrian infrastructure.

    In my locality there was a proposal to modify a four-arm roundabout for the alleged benefit of pedestrians (many of them children on foot or in prams) by means of removing a narrow left-only filter lane and the installation of a few metres of guard-rail on one arm only. No other part of the busy junction was to be modified, despite it's being a popular area for pedestrians, cyclists and bus users and a key junction on the way to residential estates, shops, schools, services and amenities. When I queried the rationale for this proposed minimalist intervention I was told that it was "better than nothing". Meanwhile a senior official in the local authority, with unintended poetic irony, declared that they were "ahead of the curve" with regard to providing for pedestrians and cyclists.

    It's scary to think that Irish local authorities might well be stuffed full of decision makers and "planners" who have fully internalised the notion that since motorists pay "road tax" they must get the lion's share of everything and that "better than nothing" for pedestrians and cyclists equates to being "ahead of the curve" on sustainable traffic and transportation policy.


  • #436
    Zyzz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,874 ✭✭✭Zyzz


    bmaxi wrote: »
    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.

    lol.


  • #437
    Jack Kyle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 442 ✭✭Jack Kyle


    Zyzz wrote: »
    lol.

    A perfect example where my blast them out of it with the horn and scare/intimidate them off the road strategies are apt.

    They have no right to be there.

    They are akin to pedestrians walking on the road when there's a path there.


  • #438
    super_furry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,355 ✭✭✭✭super_furry


    Jack Kyle wrote: »
    A perfect example where my blast them out of it with the horn and scare/intimidate them off the road strategies are apt.

    So your answer is to risk killing or causing serious injury to someone?


  • #439
    Surveyor11
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,036 ✭✭✭Surveyor11


    Jack, you ever cycled? Should give it a go, great for stress relief. Seriously - intimidating and scaring cyclists? Again, I'd question your fitness behind the wheel.


  • #440
    Zyzz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,874 ✭✭✭Zyzz


    Jack Kyle wrote: »
    A perfect example where my blast them out of it with the horn and scare/intimidate them off the road strategies are apt.

    They have no right to be there.

    They are akin to pedestrians walking on the road when there's a path there.

    You do realise cyclists are not legally bound to cycle lanes right?

    http://www.businesspost.ie/#!story/Home/News/Varadkar+abolishes+requirement+for+cyclists+to+use+cycle+lanes/id/19410615-5218-5085-7ae6-7b87b0401760


  • #441
    Jack Kyle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 442 ✭✭Jack Kyle


    Zyzz wrote: »
    You do realise cyclists are not legally bound to cycle lanes right?

    http://www.businesspost.ie/#!story/Home/News/Varadkar+abolishes+requirement+for+cyclists+to+use+cycle+lanes/id/19410615-5218-5085-7ae6-7b87b0401760

    Which is an outrage.


  • Advertisement
  • #442
    Grandpa Hassan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,945 ✭✭✭Grandpa Hassan


    Chiparus wrote: »
    "If you cycle in the gutter they'll treat you accordingly."

    Like that quote. It's exactly the approach to cycling I take, but have never heard it expressed so eloquently.


  • #443
    Zyzz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,874 ✭✭✭Zyzz


    Jack Kyle wrote: »
    Which is an outrage.

    Im treading on thin ice with the mods here so Ill keep it civil, its not an outrage. Far from it. Quite a lot of motorist's attitude to cyclists is terrible, tell me this, who would come off worse in an accident, a car/lorry or a cyclist?

    Actually wait, Ill answer that for you.

    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/female-cyclist-dies-after-dublin-collision-29501843.html


  • #444
    ezra_pound
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭ezra_pound


    steamengine wrote: »
    From my observations most cyclists do use the cycle lanes. I assume common sense indicates that this is the safest place for a cyclist to be and that's why the majority use the lanes, how ever imperfect the vocal minority here deem them to be.

    As regards two abreast cycling the ROTR, which is the common hymn sheet for cyclists and motorists, also clearly states :-



    From my observations the vast majority of motorists give an adequate margin when overtaking cyclists. The majority of motorists don't require or want marshalling from cyclists because they know how to drive competently.

    You clearly don't cycle.


  • #445
    steamengine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭steamengine


    ezra_pound wrote: »
    You clearly don't cycle.

    I do indeed - an average of 50 miles per week all year round largely for leisure, being retired. Not in the top league, but not in the bottom either, and I can assure you I didn't come up the river on my bicycle either. ;)


  • #446
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Jack Kyle wrote: »
    A perfect example where my blast them out of it with the horn and scare/intimidate them off the road strategies are apt.

    They have no right to be there.

    They are akin to pedestrians walking on the road when there's a path there.


    ROTFLMAO :D:D


  • #447
    Chris_5339762
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,148 ✭✭✭Chris_5339762


    I think part of the problem is that the cycle lanes are so badly designed/potholed/etc/you-name-it. Cyclists should not WANT to avoid them. They should WANT to use them. If they're ****e, of course the poor cyclist would avoid them, just like I'd avoid dirty great holes in my car.


  • #448
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,109 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Jack Kyle wrote: »
    A perfect example where my blast them out of it with the horn and scare/intimidate them off the road strategies are apt.

    They have no right to be there.

    They are akin to pedestrians walking on the road when there's a path there.

    Trolling or real admiting to law breaking of this kind won't be tolerated here.


  • #449
    No Pants
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭No Pants


    Jack Kyle wrote: »
    A perfect example where my blast them out of it with the horn and scare/intimidate them off the road strategies are apt.
    Threatening someone is an offence.
    Jack Kyle wrote: »
    They have no right to be there.
    Wrong.
    Jack Kyle wrote: »
    They are akin to pedestrians walking on the road when there's a path there.
    As far as I know, this is also not illegal.


  • #450
    Jack Kyle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 442 ✭✭Jack Kyle


    The point that virtually none of you seem to realise is that it's the cyclist who eschews the cycling lane or cycles two abreast that's the inconsiderate one.

    But then the pro cycling lobby that populates these threads don't do apologetic or humble.


  • Advertisement
  • #451
    BenShermin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 701 ✭✭✭BenShermin


    Jack Kyle wrote: »
    The point that virtually none of you seem to realise is that it's the cyclist who eschews the cycling lane or cycles two abreast that's the inconsiderate one.

    But then the pro cycling lobby that populates these threads don't do apologetic or humble.

    Why should I be in anyway apologetic or humble for refusing to cycle in death traps of cycle lanes?

    Motorists are neither apologetic nor humble when they illegally park on cycle lanes, double yellows and clearways.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement