[PR] Cyclists Welcome Continuing Ban on Motorbikes Use of Bus Lanes

vektarman

murphaph wrote: »

I think some of them are actually "no entries" with the above exceptions. There was one on Pearse Street anyway which was like this. It had a manky non-tsm compliant exception plate stuck on it as an afterthought.

I agree, however it does show that there are 'bus' lanes in Dublin where cyclists and motorcylists share the same lane legally, I'm just wondering why this can't spread to the rest of the city.

Hotblack Desiato

vektarman wrote: »

I agree, however it does show that there are 'bus' lanes in Dublin where cyclists and motorcylists share the same lane legally, I'm just wondering why this can't spread to the rest of the city.

Also don't forget that motorcycles legally and safely share the bus lanes with buses, taxis and YES, even cyclists.. in the non-bus-lane hours.

The safety arguments being put forward are nonsense. Motorcycles already share bus lanes with cyclists, legally outside bus lane hours, illegally within those hours, but there is no evidence whatsoever of any safety issue. None.

Bus lanes are a traffic management tool, anyway, not a safety tool. It's arguable whether they improve cyclist safety at all. I think everyone is in agreement that we need proper cycle lanes wherever possible, and sticking a bit of red tarmac into a bus lane that's often barely wide enough for a bus anyway is a sad joke.

So we should be looking at bus lanes only from the traffic management point of view. There is simply no case to exclude motorcycles from bus lanes, whether with 'cycle lane' or not, they do not hold up buses, taxis etc. and do not endanger cyclists. But the official argument is basically to oppose this in any way possible, e.g. misquote outdated UK policy documents which have been superseded (bikes in bus lanes working very well in an increasing number of UK cities), then bring up spurious safety arguments, then to say "ah well if we let them in then everyone will want to get in" which is just ridiculous nonsense. Motorcyclists are well used to hearing ridiculous nonsense though. John Henry of the DTO once claimed that a valid reason to exclude motorcyclists from bus lanes was that they were 'higher than cars'.

Minds are made up on this one and really there is no point having a 'debate', the official position will not change. It's like when the Green Party call for a 'debate' on nuclear power, when we all know they will not contemplate it under any circumstances (except to hypocritically buy it from France and the UK, but that's another thread...)

Victor wrote: »

Guys, this has gone way off topic. The point being made is that there is already too much traffic in bus and cycle lanes

Perhaps, but that's a nonsense where motorcycles are concerned, as they do not get stuck in the bus lanes. Cyclopath is claiming that motorcycles are getting stuck in cycle lanes, I've never seen this and would not support motorcycles being legally allowed into the cycle lane part of a bus lane anyway. It's a bogus argument as far as I'm concerned, any sensible motorcyclist will go out of their way not to obstruct cyclists.

and DCC are merely agreeing to the decision (by a group that included motorcyclists, but not pedal cyclists) to retain the ban. The point is also made, particularly about taxis.

Whether DCC agree to the ban or not is irrelevant, it's a national legislative ban.

With respect, you, the media and the general public have been sold a pup about 'consultation' with motorcyclists. It's rubbish, it didn't happen. MAG Ireland was not invited to sit on this review body, report to it, or even officialy informed that the review was taking place. If there really were motorcyclists sitting on this review body, I'd love to know who they were, who they were representing - it wasn't Irish motorcyclists as a whole, that's for sure.

DCC supports garda action against everyone who breaks the law.

Again, what is the relevance of this comment, I'm puzzled.
DCC have actually been supportive of motorcycling in the sense of allowing the right turn at Sth. Gt. George's St, left turn at Dawson St. etc. but these are nominally bus lanes only, there are markings but no blue bus lane sign (the ban on cars is enforced by a no left/right/entry sign as appropriate.) It makes no sense at all to allow motorcycles into these pseudo bus lanes but not into 'real' ones which are identical to all intents and purposes.
The best solution is to do as the UK does - no national ban, allow local authorities to allow motorcycles in bus lanes as they see fit. Then everyone can lobby their local authority, not have some RSA body, the make up of which is unknown, which is unelected and answerable to nobody, deliberating behind closed doors.

cyclopath2001

ninja900 wrote: »

Cyclopath is claiming that motorcycles are getting stuck in cycle lanes, I've never seen this

Never? Seriously, not ever? You're going out on a limb there.

ninja900 wrote: »

any sensible motorcyclist will go out of their way not to obstruct cyclists.

Agreed then: Let's allow only sensible motorcyclists use bus lanes. Now, what will we do about the others, the idiot motorcyclists?

I share your frustration about the lack of consultation and the way valuable road space that could be used more efficiently by motorbikes is presently being wasted by cars. I've seen motorbike traffic in various countries in Asia, they're great people movers, often not very fast, but constantly flowing.

Quint

I always thought the problem with bus lanes is the buses. Get rid of them and taxis, and leave the bus lanes to bikes and motorcycles

glenn_lfc

I dont understand what the point of not having motorbikes in the bus lanes would be. bus lanes are designed to help and promote busses as means of transport - IN ORDER TO FREE UP CONGESTION.

I have a daily commute through town and have the option of driving a large saloon car which I will be the only passenger or taking my motorbike.
Surely its in the DCCs and other commuters interestests that I take the bike.

We should be given some incentives for biking

Edit:
Bus lanes YES. Cycle lanes- ABSOLUTELY NOT. Their journey is risky enough and again- an incentive of their own lane for safety

monument

I generally take what the RSA says with a bucket of salt, but with stats like the ones in this post here any government, safety body, transport body etc to openly promote motorbike usage would be crazy.

DCC supports garda action against everyone who breaks the law

Again, what is the relevance of this comment, I'm puzzled.

I'm guessing the relevance of what he is saying is that the Dublin Cycling Campaign isn't just picking on bikers.

I take issue with the word 'abusing cyclists' - the fact of the matter is that cyclists behave in a dreadful fashion and by virtue of not needing a license they can get away with breaking many laws. I'm not a motorcyclist, just a car driver to answer that poster.

The police do stop cyclists for braking the law. And having a license or not doesn't seam to affect the general bad standard of driving in this country.

The difference is, as cyclopath2001 pointed out, motorists' bad driving is more likely to harm them self and/or others.

The best solution is to do as the UK does - no national ban, allow local authorities to allow motorcycles in bus lanes as they see fit. Then everyone can lobby their local authority, not have some RSA body, the make up of which is unknown, which is unelected and answerable to nobody, deliberating behind closed doors.

It looks like it was not just the RSA acting on their own, from the Motors supplement in the Irish Times: "A spokesman for the RSA said an expert group comprising gardaí, Dublin City Council, the Dublin Transport Office and expert motorcyclists, had been established to consider the TRL report and recommended no change. The spokesman added that a report was being prepared for the Minister for Transport Noel Dempsey."

With respect, you, the media and the general public have been sold a pup about 'consultation' with motorcyclists. It's rubbish, it didn't happen. MAG Ireland was not invited to sit on this review body, report to it, or even officialy informed that the review was taking place. If there really were motorcyclists sitting on this review body, I'd love to know who they were, who they were representing - it wasn't Irish motorcyclists as a whole, that's for sure.

They probably should have had better consultation, but no lobby group etc can really claim to represent all motorcyclists, motorists, cyclists, etc.

Pineapple stu

Can anyone tell me why some cyclists think its ok to use a cycle line in the wrong direction i.e towards oncoming traffic.

monument

Because they are idiots.

Acts like that endanger them selves and others.

glenn_lfc

Monument let me throw some stats back at you if i may,


Im presuming that we are mainly talking about rush hour, city centre driving here btw.


You pointed to the RSA stats and the high levels of death of bikers. Remember that these figures are just lumped together. 40% of those who were killed were at the weekend.

PLUS nearly 70% of all motorbike deaths in last 10 years were outside what the RSA calls "built up areas" or in high speed limit areas.

That should put the dangerous drivers causing deaths in the city argument to rest.

The police do stop cyclists for braking the law.

I would LOVE to see some figures of people who action has been taken against for cycling offences. I'd imagine its a one handed counting job.

I drive and bike through dublin city every day and they both have risks- biking obviously higher but to cut my commute from an hour and a half to 30 mins I am willing to take risks (of that of other careless drivers). As I said above it surely is more benificial to reward bikers -both pedal and motor in a city.

monument

The RSA also adds: "However, the majority (75%) of bikers are injured as a result of collisions within towns and cities". And how many bike commutes include sections which are "outside what the RSA calls "built up areas" or in high speed limit areas"?

Also promoting commuting motorcycling is likely to increase weekend usage too.

glenn_lfc wrote: »

I would LOVE to see some figures of people who action has been taken against for cycling offences. I'd imagine its a one handed counting job..

Yes, it is likely a low number, but for reasons which can be explained:

1. Cycling - like motorcycling - accounts for a low percentage of total traffic.
2. Cyclists are the least likely traffic to harm the road users at most risk - pedestrian.
3. Bicycles cannot archive high speeds and speeding is one of the main law enforcement targets.
4. Traffic light offences - one of the main things cyclists have been accused of on this thread - go unchecked for the vast majority of traffic, not just cyclists.

glenn_lfc

monument wrote: »

Yes, it is likely a low number, but for reasons which can be explained:

1. Cycling - like motorcycling - accounts for a low percentage of total traffic.
2. Cyclists are the least likely traffic to harm the road users at most risk - pedestrian.
3. Bicycles cannot archive high speeds and speeding is one of the main law enforcement targets.
4. Traffic light offences - one of the main things cyclists have been accused of on this thread - go unchecked for the vast majority of traffic, not just cyclists.

5) The Gardai couldnt be bothered since stopping and dealing with cyclists who have no licence is fairly useless. A warning is pretty much the worst thats going to come from any situation unless its serious.

What Im saying is that motorbikes, as shown in that RSA stat are classified as vunerable road users. All others are given a level of protection, be it cycle or bus lane or pedestrian crossing etc. All except motorbikes, who under current law are banned from a lane barely used and instead thrown out to the main lane to do battle with the other irate (and usually reckless during peak times) car drivers, juggernauts and whatever else is on the road.

The UK is coming round to the idea of the bus lane being used for safety so by my calculation our govt will realise it in about 5-7 years as with everything else

Hotblack Desiato

monument wrote: »

I generally take what the RSA says with a bucket of salt, but with stats like the ones in this post here any government, safety body, transport body etc to openly promote motorbike usage would be crazy.

They have no problem promoting cycling which isn't exactly 'safe' either. The accident rate of cyclists per km is similar than that of motorcyclists. More enlightened countries recognise that pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists are always going to have higher casualty rates than car drivers, and treat them as 'vulnerable road users' deserving of protection.

Here in Ireland we're still stuck in the irrational prejudice against motorcycling phase.

The police do stop cyclists for braking the law. And having a license or not doesn't seam to affect the general bad standard of driving in this country.

Oh come off it. Motorists are registered, numbered, licensed, taxed. Cyclists are none of the above, are practically immune to the law and a lot of them ride accordingly.

The difference is, as cyclopath2001 pointed out, motorists' bad driving is more likely to harm them self and/or others.

When I'm a pedestrian the impact of a cycle may be less, but still far from acceptable, and cyclists are by far the group who show the least respect to pedestrians. Forcing their way through large numbers of people legally crossing the road is common. Riding on the pavement at speed is common. Etc. etc. yet the cycle lobby still get on their high saddle and give out about everyone else.

They probably should have had better consultation, but no lobby group etc can really claim to represent all motorcyclists, motorists, cyclists, etc.

No, but if motorcyclists had been allowed to lobby the group they could have contradicted the nonsense arguments, e.g. pedestrians mingling in the bus lane??? It is a fact that motorcycles in UK bus lanes have improved safety, yet a UK body (giving the answer they were paid to give) says it's not safe. Ho hum. It's a crock.

monument

glenn_lfc wrote: »

5) The Gardai couldnt be bothered since stopping and dealing with cyclists who have no licence is fairly useless. A warning is pretty much the worst thats going to come from any situation unless its serious.

Couldn't you say that for all road users?

ninja900 wrote: »

They have no problem promoting cycling which isn't exactly 'safe' either. The accident rate of cyclists per km is similar than that of motorcyclists...

Do you have the accident rate of cyclists and motorcyclists per km for Ireland? And due to the speed that motorcyclists can achieve, aren't they more likely to be involved in more harmful or life-threatening accidents?

In any case,the death rate for motorcyclists far higher (motorcyclists are three times more likely to die on the roads).

If you're talking about the RSA, they promote safety and nothing but such. I'm no fan of the RSA, their promotion of helmets for cyclists which provide questionable safety, for example, appears to be not based on any real solid research. These actions are counter-productive to a proven way of making cycling safer - increasing numbers (research has shown that accidents rates go down when there is an increase in cycling).

Oh come off it. Motorists are registered, numbered, licensed, taxed. Cyclists are none of the above, are practically immune to the law and a lot of them ride accordingly.

Being registered, numbered, licensed, taxed, has little or no bearing in the general poor standard of driving in this country.

Forget about cyclists or motorcyclists for a second: How many other drivers were registered, numbered, licensed, taxed, and still caused life-threatening or fatal accidents? How many brake lights on a daily bases? etc etc

While there has always the idea of drivers coming down from the north and driving faster etc, even that is now planned to be fixed, or at least the governments are looking into sharing penalty points.

When I'm a pedestrian the impact of a cycle may be less, but still far from acceptable, and cyclists are by far the group who show the least respect to pedestrians. Forcing their way through large numbers of people legally crossing the road is common. Riding on the pavement at speed is common. Etc. etc.

But factually they are the least dangerous to pedestrian, and while other road trafac is far, far more life life-threatening to peds, I'm not sure what "but still far from acceptable" means. In the scale of things I'm guessing it does not mean much.

yet the cycle lobby still get on their high saddle and give out about everyone else.

So, from your logic, let me get this straight:

No pedestrian can complain about cyclists until all pedestrian behave? No cyclists can complain about motorcyclists until all cyclists behave? No motorcyclists can complain about car driver until all motorcyclists behave? No car driver can complain about trucks until all car drivers behave? And so on???

glenn_lfc

monument wrote: »

Couldn't you say that for all road users?

Not really. As a licensed driver I can get penalty points, set fines, disqualified from driving etc- all relatively set out and clear. Also pretty easy to impose.

What can a cyclist get done for? Id imagine a Garda would have to search long and hard for the guidline sanctions for breaking the law.

Anyway I think we are veering way off topic with this danger of motorbikes thing. I still dont see any reason why motorbikes are more dangerous to bicycles than double deckers, bendy busses or crazy taxi drivers. Any biker who drives in the bus lane will usually drive in the middle- away from the cyclist.

Monument, you talk about the poor driving by all users which is correct. Why then dont you support giving motorbikes some safety support. As I said earlier its the only vunerable group without it

I think instead of banning motorbikes the group should be looking at getting more and better cycle lanes, maybe with concrete dividers for protection.

I still think that the argument of the biker causing danger to cyclists is nonsense and no reason to ban them at all.

Tomas_V

glenn_lfc wrote: »

What can a cyclist get done for? Id imagine a Garda would have to search long and hard for the guidline sanctions for breaking the law.

This is most disingenous. There are plenty of laws affecting cyclists. At least as many as for drivers.

Cyclists can be done for just about anything other than exceeding the speed limit. In addition, they can be done for not using a cycle track, where a legally valid one is provided, no matter how crappy. Mostly the same laws apply and penalties apply as for motorists. And if a Garda is not satisfied with particulars supplied he/she can seize the bicycle and make the cyclist produce acceptable evidence of identity at a Garda station.

Forfeiture of license (or future banning) is quite unlikely as to be dangerous enough to warrant that penalty, you'd need to be motorised.

glenn_lfc

Tomas_V wrote: »

This is most disingenous. There are plenty of laws affecting cyclists. At least as many as for drivers.

Cyclists can be done for just about anything other than exceeding the speed limit. In addition, they can be done for not using a cycle track, where a legally valid one is provided, no matter how crappy. Mostly the same laws apply and penalties apply as for motorists. And if a Garda is not satisfied with particulars supplied he/she can seize the bicycle and make the cyclist produce acceptable evidence of identity at a Garda station.

Forfeiture of license (or future banning) is quite unlikely as to be dangerous enough to warrant that penalty, you'd need to be motorised.

Do you actually think Gardaí pull cyclists up over things like not using a cycle track. I have never once heard or seen Gardai take any action against cyclists. Well actually I knew someone who cycled home drunk as a fart and was told to "be careful" when he nearly hit a Garda.

Of course people "can" be done. Are they? I "can" be done for doing 52 in a 50 zone. Would any Gardai do it? 1 in 100 is my guess and thats if Im unlucky.

Could you give me a few other rules for cyclists that are regularly enforced

Also what is the sanction for not using a cycle lane? Curiousity

Plus as said before Id rather talk about the motorbike issue

Tomas_V

glenn_lfc wrote: »

Do you actually think Gardaí pull cyclists up over things like not using a cycle track.

Yes.

glenn_lfc wrote: »

I have never once heard or seen Gardai take any action against cyclists.

Perhaps you're not very observant on the road?

glenn_lfc wrote: »

Could you give me a few other rules for cyclists that are regularly enforced

The laws of physics play the biggest role.

glenn_lfc wrote: »

Also what is the sanction for not using a cycle lane? Curiousity

Seems to me that you don't know the road traffic rules very well.

glenn_lfc wrote: »

Plus as said before Id rather talk about the motorbike issue

So will legalising their existing illegal behaviour of using bus lanes do anything to improve the poor safety and law-compliance record of motor-cyclists, or must more be done?

glenn_lfc

Tomas_V wrote: »

Perhaps you're not very observant on the road?

I am very observant. People on motorbikes tend to be to stay safe

Tomas_V wrote: »

The laws of physics play the biggest role.

What???

Tomas_V wrote: »

Seems to me that you don't know the road traffic rules very well.

Well actually I know the ones that apply to me very well. Just saying that I dont know what penalties cyclists receive. I did ask but you didnt give me an answer.

Tomas_V wrote: »

So will legalising their existing illegal behaviour of using bus lanes do anything to improve the poor safety and law-compliance record of motor-cyclists, or must more be done?

Well yes. They wouldnt have to filter through two lanes of opposite moving traffic so safety and law compliance would improve. Let me ask you this- (I presume you cycle) would you cycle in a bus lane if it was illegal to do so?

Tomas_V

glenn_lfc wrote: »

Well yes. They wouldnt have to filter through two lanes of opposite moving traffic so safety and law compliance would improve.

Why do they have to filter through two lanes of opposite moving traffic, are they required to do so by law?

Next thing you'll be telling me that motorcyclists must speed, must break traffic lights and they are obliged by law to drive on the wrong side of a continuous white line.

glenn_lfc wrote: »

would you cycle in a bus lane if it was illegal to do so?

No, of course not, I'd use the cycle track.

Changing the law on motor cycles in bus lanes is not going to make any difference to way motorcycles are being ridden. They already drive in bus lanes. It's clear they make their own rules.

BrianD

monument wrote:

No pedestrian can complain about cyclists until all pedestrian behave? No cyclists can complain about motorcyclists until all cyclists behave? No motorcyclists can complain about car driver until all motorcyclists behave? No car driver can complain about trucks until all car drivers behave? And so on???

While I agree with you about driving standards in this country and that a motorist has a greater duty of care as they are in contol of a one tonne lump of metal one thing never ceases to amaze me. The vast majority of motorists obey the rules of the road which includes not driving or encroaching on cycle lanes (btw I would support the law that motorcycles shouldn't be allowed in cycle lanes). However, the vast majority of cyclists DO NOT obey the rules of the road which includes not signaling, breaking red lights and having adequate lighting on their cycles. It's just odd that the cycling lobby wants to claim the higher moral ground yet everyday cyclists deliberately put themselves in harms way.

Sean9015

I cycle daily along the Quays from Heuston to O'Connell Bridge, and round towards College Green. Several times I have been forced of the road, pipped, shouted at or otherwise abused by motorcyclists, scooter riders and even cars in the bus lanes, including one memorable occasion when a motorcyclist (on a "serious" bike) barged past me at the lights at Heuston Bridge, knocking me off, as I refused to go over the stop line against a red light to let him through.

At least two instances have been witnessed by Gardai motorcycle officers, who took no action - and when I quered it with one, was told to "go away" - or words to that effect.

I have never had an issue with a bus.

So my vote is a very definite NO - and yes, as a cyclist and motorist, I do obey traffic laws.

Tarabuses

BrianD wrote: »

While I agree with you about driving standards in this country and that a motorist has a greater duty of care as they are in contol of a one tonne lump of metal one thing never ceases to amaze me. The vast majority of motorists obey the rules of the road which includes not driving or encroaching on cycle lanes (btw I would support the law that motorcycles shouldn't be allowed in cycle lanes). However, the vast majority of cyclists DO NOT obey the rules of the road which includes not signaling, breaking red lights and having adequate lighting on their cycles. It's just odd that the cycling lobby wants to claim the higher moral ground yet everyday cyclists deliberately put themselves in harms way.

In all of this what amazes me the most is that cyclists seem perfectly happy to place their safety in someone else's hands. I would never drive my car with such disregard for what is happening around me even though I'm much safer in my vehicle. Why do most cyclists ride as if their safety is solely someone else's responsibility?

monument

glenn_lfc wrote: »

Do you actually think Gardaí pull cyclists up over things like not using a cycle track. ....

Yes. There's plenty mention of such on threads over on the cycling board. One that sticks in my mind is the Gardaí stopping people for not using a cycle track with out legal markings (ie one which cyclists do not have to use).

glenn_lfc wrote: »

Not really. As a licensed driver I can get penalty points, set fines, disqualified from driving etc- all relatively set out and clear. Also pretty easy to impose.

It's pretty simple, motorists are driving large objects which can archive high speeds. From motorbikes to cars to trucks they are far more dangerous than bicycles. That's why motorists are deemed to required licenses and cyclists are not.

Set fines? Speeding and parking are the only thing really covered, aren't they?

glenn_lfc wrote: »

What can a cyclist get done for? Id imagine a Garda would have to search long and hard for the guidline sanctions for breaking the law.

How many times does it have to be said? - A cyclist can "get done for" nearly every road law. (although clearly some like wearing a safety belt etc can't apply and speeding would be hard in for a cyclist to do in the vast majority of cases)

And as for how little action is apparent, I already addressed this here.

glenn_lfc wrote: »

Monument, you talk about the poor driving by all users which is correct. Why then dont you support giving motorbikes some safety support. As I said earlier its the only vunerable group without it

I think instead of banning motorbikes the group should be looking at getting more and better cycle lanes, maybe with concrete dividers for protection.

I'm not at all clear that allowing motorcyclist into bus lanes is good for anybody. It would not be wise for government, a transport body or a safity body to be promoting motorcycling in light of the RSA stats already highlighted.

On your second point there, I would have at least expected more on the need for kerb-separated cycling lanes in the press release.

BrianD wrote: »

While I agree with you about driving standards in this country and that a motorist has a greater duty of care as they are in contol of a one tonne lump of metal one thing never ceases to amaze me. The vast majority of motorists obey the rules of the road...

With more than 630,000 penalty points issued up to April 2008 (and how many aren't getting caught breaking the rules? And add in those caught for non-penalty points issues), that's more than debatable.

BrianD wrote: »

...which includes not driving or encroaching on cycle lanes

Motorists are allowed to encroach on the broken line lanes, but cyclists can only laugh or cry at that statement. There's little or no respect for any kind of cycle lanes in Dublin (and they are poor lanes in the first place).

BrianD wrote: »

.However, the vast majority of cyclists DO NOT obey the rules of the road which includes not signaling, breaking red lights and having adequate lighting on their cycles.

Not signalling (or signalling late) and breaking lights are common offence among motorists. And as you said: "a motorist has a greater duty of care as they are in contol of a one tonne lump of metal". These are problems for all road users.

I wouldn't say the majority of cyclists have inadequate lighting on their bikes, but an unacceptable number do not have lights, have lights attached to them self, or use red lights facing to their front etc.

I'd fully support garda action against any of these idiots.

BrianD wrote: »

It's just odd that the cycling lobby wants to claim the higher moral ground yet everyday cyclists deliberately put themselves in harms way.

I'm reposting this as you replied to it without answering:

No pedestrian can complain about cyclists until all pedestrian behave? No cyclists can complain about motorcyclists until all cyclists behave? No motorcyclists can complain about car driver until all motorcyclists behave? No car driver can complain about trucks until all car drivers behave? And so on???

Again, I have to mention that it is funny that motorcyclists and their supporters are continuing to try to tar cyclists when motorcyclists' reputation is very poor.

cyclopath2001

BrianD wrote: »

The vast majority of motorists obey the rules of the road

This statement might be true if we exclude speeding, illegal parking, unlawful overtaking, stopping on amber and also indicating.

BrianD wrote: »

which includes not signaling

Try stiicking your arm out into a line of speeding cars, or holding it in the air for two or three minutes at traffic lights.

What excuse do motorists have for not indicating?

BrianD wrote: »

breaking red lights

Funny how any time motorists mention traffic light offences, they always refer to 'breaking red lights'. The law is to stop on amber. But maybe not a lot of motorists know this.

BrianD wrote: »

It's just odd that the cycling lobby wants to claim the higher moral ground

Cyclists pollute less and kill an injure consderbly fewer people than motorists. Some may be unruly, but they're generally harmless.

BrianD wrote: »

everyday cyclists deliberately put themselves in harms way.

This is, of course, blame-shifting.

The thrust of this thread seems to be an attempt to defame all cyclists and strip away any claim they might have to legal protection of their safety and environmentally-sound use of scarce roadspace.

Stark

Sean9015 wrote:

I have never had an issue with a bus.

Lucky you. I've been forced off the road on more than one occasion by the pscyhopaths.

faceman

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Try stiicking your arm out into a line of speeding cars, or holding it in the air for two or three minutes at traffic lights.

What excuse do motorists have for not indicating?

As much as not signalling gets on every road user and pedestrian's nerves, technically its not illegal to not signal.

wrote:

Funny how any time motorists mention traffic light offences, they always refer to 'breaking red lights'. The law is to stop on amber. But maybe not a lot of motorists know this.

Cyclists pollute less and kill an injure consderbly fewer people than motorists. Some may be unruly, but they're generally harmless.

So are you saying that because some motorists break the law and because cyclists are environmentally friendly, its ok for cyclists to break the law?

wrote:

The thrust of this thread seems to be an attempt to defame all cyclists and strip away any claim they might have to legal protection of their safety and environmentally-sound use of scarce roadspace.

While some posts seem that, the frustration that motorcyclists have is that there is very little provision and consideration given to them on this country's roads. Everything from parking, road safety, mandatory training - all non existent. So when an ill thought through decision is made to continue with existing practises on the roads regarding bus lanes (despite the research done in other countries), it pours salt in the wounds when another road user lobby welcomes a ill thought out decision.

monument

faceman wrote: »

So are you saying that because some motorists break the law and because cyclists are environmentally friendly, its ok for cyclists to break the law?

He also said: "and kill an injure consderbly fewer people than motorists. Some may be unruly, but they're generally harmless" - you looked to have somehow miss that?

Del2005

monument wrote: »

I'm not at all clear that allowing motorcyclist into bus lanes is good for anybody. It would not be wise for government, a transport body or a safity body to be promoting motorcycling in light of the RSA stats already highlighted.

But there has been research done on motorcycles in bus lanes and a recent TfL report which they haven't released proves that accidents go down ~40% for ALL road users when motorcycles use bus lanes.

The vast majority of non single bike accidents aren't caused by the biker, they are caused by people pulling across/in front of them. But since our stats don't record that there is no proof. Of all the bikers I know who have been involved in an accident it was always the other persons fault.

On your second point there, I would have at least expected more on the need for kerb-separated cycling lanes in the press release.


Motorists are allowed to encroach on the broken line lanes, but cyclists can only laugh or cry at that statement. There's little or no respect for any kind of cycle lanes in Dublin (and they are poor lanes in the first place).

No one here is asking for motor bikes in bicycle lanes. All that is being said is that motorbikes should be allowed in bus lanes. And if motorbikes are in dedicated bike lanes they shoud be done.

As for all this cyclists break reds, motorbikes speed etc. The vast majoritity of ALL road users don't obey the law when on the road. The only way to stop this is for proper Garda enforcement, which our goverment doesn't think is necessary, and till that happens nothing will change.

What this should be about is what is safest for ALL road users. It has been proven in several countries that motorbikes in bus lanes are safer for everyone, so why not go with whats safest and not argue over a few nut jobs who make live hell for everyone.

Rawr

Del2005 wrote: »

What this should be about is what is safest for ALL road users. It has been proven in several countries that motorbikes in bus lanes are safer for everyone, so why not go with whats safest and not argue over a few nut jobs who make live hell for everyone.

+1 Del, well said

faceman

monument wrote: »

He also said: "and kill an injure consderbly fewer people than motorists. Some may be unruly, but they're generally harmless" - you looked to have somehow miss that?

Ultimately his point was that one group of road users are better than another so shouldnt have to abide by the rules.

monument

Yeah, better as in killing and injuring "consderbly fewer people than motorists," and are "generally harmless". Are you saying that's not better?

...so shouldnt have to abide by the rules.

I can't see where cyclopath2001 said cyclists shouldn't have to abide by the rules.

In fact, he commented as such...

cyclopath2001 wrote:

BrianD wrote:

It's just odd that the cycling lobby wants to claim the higher moral ground

Cyclists pollute less and kill an injure consderbly fewer people than motorists. Some may be unruly, but they're generally harmless.

But you quoted him as such...

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Funny how any time motorists mention traffic light offences, they always refer to 'breaking red lights'. The law is to stop on amber. But maybe not a lot of motorists know this.

Cyclists pollute less and kill an injure consderbly fewer people than motorists. Some may be unruly, but they're generally harmless.

faceman wrote:

So are you saying that because some motorists break the law and because cyclists are environmentally friendly, its ok for cyclists to break the law?

...making a link between two different comments he had made.

seamus

monument wrote: »

On your second point there, I would have at least expected more on the need for kerb-separated cycling lanes in the press release.

I can't make up my mind about these.

I saw these done the right way in Copenhagan. They were heavily used, every single motorist gave way at junctions (as they are required to do), and pedestrians didn't walk in it.
Then as we were leaving, my Irish colleague called over a taxi, walked straight across the cycle lane and caused a number of cyclists have to brake sharply and wait for her and her luggage to get off the lane. She was completely oblivious, didn't even notice that the cyclists were there.

And it's this second bit that has me so-so about separated lanes here - I can't see Irish people taking them seriously at all. I can also see it causing cyclists to lose out, i.e. motorists will think that because cyclists aren't on the road, that they don't have right of way, and pulling across the lane without yielding would be rampant. You'll have pedestrians and joggers using the lane exclusively and tutting and complaining when a cyclist tells them to move.

Couple that with Dublin City Council/SDCC's complete inability to create a cycle lane that presents any kind of convenience or safety for the cyclist, and it ends up in a whole world of pain.

cyclopath2001

faceman wrote: »

As much as not signalling gets on every road user and pedestrian's nerves, technically its not illegal to not signal.

Are you quite certain about it?

SI 182/1997 ROAD TRAFFIC (TRAFFIC AND PARKING) REGULATIONS, 1997
18. (1) A driver intending to slow down, stop, or alter course, shall either give a signal by using a direction indicator or stop lamp, as appropriate, or give the appropriate hand signal set out in Table A in the Second Schedule.

So are you saying that because some motorists break the law and because cyclists are environmentally friendly, its ok for cyclists to break the law?

No.

Studoc

Everyone breaks the rules of the road at some point. I think that motorists notice cyclists breaking red lights etc because they're stopped in cars while cyclists wobble off. They tend to forget the car or two that race through the lights just as they change. And anyway, having collided on my bike on two separate occasions with a car and a bike that broke red lights, I don't think I need to say which was the more bruising event.

Stark

I've been beeped at quite a few times in the car for not going through certain red lights (filter lights and the like). They're probably the same people who would go "tut tut" if I went through them on a bicycle.

faceman

monument wrote: »

I can't see where cyclopath2001 said cyclists shouldn't have to abide by the rules.

Well i guess its not clear what he's saying. There is so much mud slinging in the thread its become really pointless.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Are you quite certain about it?

And whats the penalty for failing to indicate?

Halfdog

The NRA are correct, they have their priorities right, They know how to kill and seriously maime motorcyclists like let them play chicken with on coming traffic down the central medium of our city streets and decapitating them by placing cable barriers along all our national highways.

cyclopath2001

Halfdog wrote: »

The NRA are correct, they have their priorities right, They know how to kill and seriously maime motorcyclists like let them play chicken with on coming traffic down the central medium of our city streets.

The NRA is not responsible for motorcyclists riding illegally and dangerously. That's the responsibility of the individual motorcyclists.

murphaph

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

The NRA is not responsible for motorcyclists riding illegally and dangerously. That's the responsibility of the individual motorcyclists.

He refered to the high tensile cable barriers as installed under the auspices of the NRA. These barriers have been rejected by many national highways agencies across Europe as they believe they are needlessly dangerous to motorcyclists when compared to shrouded barriers or Jersey barriers.

Is it the motorcyclists fault that he/she is cut in half by a cable barrier if someone veers into his/her path? Of course not.

cyclopath2001

murphaph wrote: »

Is it the motorcyclists fault that he/she is cut in half by a cable barrier if someone veers into his/her path? Of course not.

Based on the high-speed and downright reckless riding what I've seen on motorways, that's debatable.

He was also trying to justify driving down the wrong side of a city street.

Small wonder nobody wants to share a lane with them.

seamus

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Based on the high-speed and downright reckless riding what I've seen on motorways, that's debatable.

He was also trying to justify driving down the wrong side of a city street.

Small wonder nobody wants to share a lane with them.

You're the first person who'd be responding if someone made a similarly blanket and inflammatory generalising statement about cyclists.

Del2005

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Based on the high-speed and downright reckless riding what I've seen on motorways, that's debatable.

That's a terrible thing to say. Nobody deserves to be injured or killed by other peoples incompetence.

And again, you are tarring all bikers as lunatics but if anyone says that cyclists break a law you say stop making generalisations Everyone admits there are stupid bikers, and most people apart from you admit there are lunatic cyclists. But we don't say run all cyclists down because of a few nutters

He was also trying to justify driving down the wrong side of a city street.

And again, when there is a broken white line motorcycles can legally cross it like everyone else.

Small wonder nobody wants to share a lane with them.

The only people who don't want to share with motor bikes are you and some bunch of lunes called the DCC. Most other people can see that safety is improved for everyone not just the bikers.

murphaph

The old militant cyclist mentality is starting to out itself now.

monument

First off I think the NRA's stance on the cable barrier is stupidity amounting to recklessness.

But while cyclopath2001 might not have been very diplomat, the stats on motorcycling deaths does at least somewhat back him up.

As for generalisations, welcome to this thread!

faceman wrote: »

Well i guess its not clear what he's saying.

I think it is clear that he was not saying cyclists shouldn't have to abide by the rules, and I also think it's clear that - by accident or not - you replied misquoting him in a way it looked like he was saying it was ok.

faceman wrote: »

There is so much mud slinging in the thread its become really pointless.

I fear you might be correct.... the end is nigh!!!

seamus wrote: »

Copenhagan. ...my Irish colleague called over a taxi, walked straight across the cycle lane and caused a number of cyclists have to brake sharply and wait for her and her luggage to get off the lane. She was completely oblivious, didn't even notice that the cyclists were there.

Oh they couldn't have been real Copenhageners! Where were their bicycle bells???... the fact she was a visitor to the city was likely very clear to them.

seamus wrote: »

And it's this second bit that has me so-so about separated lanes here - I can't see Irish people taking them seriously at all. ...

I think respect or notice would come - at least to a large extent - with time, and partly forced too as the lanes would cycling look safer and more attractive.

seamus wrote: »

... I can also see it causing cyclists to lose out, i.e. motorists will think that because cyclists aren't on the road, that they don't have right of way, and pulling across the lane without yielding would be rampant. You'll have pedestrians and joggers using the lane exclusively and tutting and complaining when a cyclist tells them to move.

Couple that with Dublin City Council/SDCC's complete inability to create a cycle lane that presents any kind of convenience or safety for the cyclist, and it ends up in a whole world of pain.

A lot of this comes down to design, and, yes, as Dublin's current lanes can testify - there are major problems here. Hopefully the city council getting full time engineer / cycle officer.

Hotblack Desiato

monument wrote: »

But while cyclopath2001 might not have been very diplomat, the stats on motorcycling deaths does at least somewhat back him up.

No, they don't. As has been pointed out many times on this thread, motorcyclists (like cyclists) are vulnerable road users, vulnerable to their own mistakes yes, but more often the careless driving of others.

75% of car-motorcycle collisions are entirely the fault of the car driver, this is a fact confirmed by motorcycle insurers.

Hotblack Desiato

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Based on the high-speed and downright reckless riding what I've seen on motorways, that's debatable.

On your bicycle???

He was also trying to justify driving down the wrong side of a city street.

No, he was justifying legal overtaking, while legal it is less safe than using a bus lane.

Small wonder nobody wants to share a lane with them.

Reported.

monument

ninja900 wrote: »

No, they don't. As has been pointed out many times on this thread, motorcyclists (like cyclists) are vulnerable road users, vulnerable to their own mistakes yes, but more often the careless driving of others.

75% of car-motorcycle collisions are entirely the fault of the car driver, this is a fact confirmed by motorcycle insurers.

I said deaths... as quoted before from the RSA...

The majority (65%) of motorcyclists are killed in single vehicle crashes outside built-up areas where it is more likely that high-speed and powerful bikes are major contributory factors.

The above facts do seem to back up cyclopath2001's views.

Hotblack Desiato

monument wrote: »

I said deaths... as quoted before from the RSA...



The above facts do seem to back up cyclopath2001's views.

Totally irrelevant to this thread which is about bus lanes, and anyway the RSA is making a lot of assumptions there with little to back them up. 'more likely'. Facts please.

monument

Halfdog wrote: »

The NRA are correct, they have their priorities right, They know how to kill and seriously maime motorcyclists like let them play chicken with on coming traffic down the central medium of our city streets and decapitating them by placing cable barriers along all our national highways.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

The NRA is not responsible for motorcyclists riding illegally and dangerously. That's the responsibility of the individual motorcyclists.

Wow...

ninja900 wrote: »

No, he was justifying legal overtaking, while legal it is less safe than using a bus lane.

Del2005 wrote: »

And again, when there is a broken white line motorcycles can legally cross it like everyone else.

Really, even in this thread, I'm amazed that the two of you could interpretation "like let them play chicken with on coming traffic down the central medium of our city streets" (as said by Halfdog) could somehow be "legal overtaking".

monument

ninja900 wrote: »

Totally irrelevant to this thread which is about bus lanes,

It is relevant to what has been talked about between your posts this morning and your last posts a few days ago.

I like when people engage, but when you don't feel like it please don't tell me what's relevant or not. Report my posts to the moderators if you wish.

ninja900 wrote: »

and anyway the RSA is making a lot of assumptions there with little to back them up. 'more likely'. Facts please.

Ok, lets look at what is fact and assumption...

The majority (65%) of motorcyclists are killed in single vehicle crashes outside built-up areas where it is more likely that high-speed and powerful bikes are major contributory factors.

"The majority (65%) of motorcyclists are killed in single vehicle crashes outside built-up areas" - these are facts. And this: "where it is more likely that high-speed and powerful bikes are major contributory factors" is really one educated guess or assumption.

So... where is "a lot of assumptions there with little to back them up"? Maybe you're looking at the stat that 65 percent of motorcyclists are killed in single vehicle crashes. And then like any reasonable person you're thinking if they are single vehicles at least the majority are likely to be the drivers' fault*.

If you're thinking like that, or even thinking others may think like that, yeah, I can see why you'd want to debunk the fact 65 percent of motorcyclists are killed in single vehicle crashes. But if you're going to debunk something please do so.

[I'm open to suggestions of other reasons if anybody has them]