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

blorg

Civilian_Target wrote: »

Man, that PR is crappy. I really dislike the little environmental prod thrown in there at the end. I agree with the taxi driver stuff, particularly the separation distance, but I think that they could be a bit more welcoming of the good news.

Agreed. I make sure to take several short haul flights a year to offset all my cycling.

unionman

Dublin Cycling Campaign seem to be consistently gifted striking the wrong note whenever they surface.

What they have failed to grasp is that their stakeholders aren't just cyclists, they are all road users. Though you'd never know that from reading their PR.

I think it's probably time to climb down off the environmental pedestal too. Environmental concerns, awareness of a 'carbon footprint' etc etc have become mainstream, and by no means the preserve of people who choose to cycle to work. There are thousands of people who would love to cycle into the capital every day, but for the vast majority, living more than 10km outside the city (as so many do) makes it impossible.

By maintaining an 'us and them' approach, and coming across as a bit whiney, the campaign doesn't do cyclists any favours*.

*Despite very honourable intentions I'm sure

Gavin

unionman wrote: »

By maintaining an 'us and them' approach, and coming across as a bit whiney, the campaign doesn't do cyclists any favours*.

*Despite very honourable intentions I'm sure

Thoroughly agree, their documents tend to be overly dramatic and emotional. It's particularly annoying when they claim to speak for all cyclists.

lukester

I think this is the problem with something like Reclaim the Streets and other inflammatory approaches. While I may agree with some of their sentiments, particularly regarding globalisation, I don't think peeing off regular Joe Schmoes is going to make things any better.

Cycling needs to be included as part of an overall strategy on transport. Your average commuter is worried about it being safe to cycle in Dublin, and staying warm and dry. I have lots of people in my office not from Dublin who say they'd love to cycle but they're too scared. They also don't fancy the winter months.

If we had proper cycle lanes, maintained, perhaps with a raised edge (not something I'd favour myself) and priority for cyclists to turn left at lights, etc, etc. this would encourage more people to get onto two wheels. Somethign like the Ride to Work scheme in the UK would be a good incentive too.

But the public face of the cycling lobby needs to be something non-cyclists can relate to, not just enthusiasts. I'm sure they're well intentioned too, and I've considered getting involved myself, but people are alienated by groups that come across as cranky and holier than thou.

blorg

I think CTC in the UK often strike a much better note with this. I'm a (non-"involved") member of DCC by the way and support them but often cringe at some of the press releases.

311

I was at one DCC meeting a few years back and tried to ask them about a bike park within the city centre. I got some positive feedback from a few people who were genuinely interested. BUT

Then this elderly lad started talking over me (Head of the group) and completely mistook what I said ,I just couldn't wait to get out of the place.
I think DCC has a case of bad politics going on ,some people are just in it for themselves.

cyclopath2001

unionman wrote: »

but for the vast majority, living more than 10km outside the city (as so many do) makes it impossible.

Average cycling speed is 20kph That's only a half-hour cycle. I would say that up to 20 km is easily possible for an average person. But, they have to be given confidence they can do it and that it's going to be comfortable in terms of space, non-threatening road situations and work facilities.

However, I think the big reason for so many cars coming in is because they can.

blorg

Agree entirely with cyclopath; there are of course those for whom cycling would not be an option but plenty of people could that just don't. 45% of all commuters in the 2002 census (and this includes rural dwellers) had a commute of 4 miles (6.5km) or less (644,500 people.) I am sure commutes have got longer since then but there are still a hell of a lot of people driving short distances that don't have to.

unionman

blorg wrote: »

Agree entirely with cyclopath; there are of course those for whom cycling would not be an option but plenty of people could that just don't. 45% of all commuters in the 2002 census (and this includes rural dwellers) had a commute of 4 miles (6.5km) or less (644,500 people.) I am sure commutes have got longer since then but there are still a hell of a lot of people driving short distances that don't have to.

I agree completely. People are very attached to their cars, and most will keep filling their tanks with increasingly expensive fuel rather than invest in a bike. All of those short commutes play a huge part in congestion, and that is because, given the choice, most will stick with four wheels.

Someone mentioned fear in an earlier post, and I think it plays a big part for a lot of people. There are a few cyclists in my workplace, but majority are drivers, and the conversation often comes up about bike vs car. Most of the drivers shudder at the idea of cycling, sometimes out the mere discomfort of cycling in the rain, but most because the idea of cycling through traffic scares the cr4p out of them.

In spirit, I absolutely support any campaign that promotes cycling. But the PR here is just one big shot in the foot. Alienating potential supporters and allies is counterproductive to what they are trying to achieve, and it pains me to see the same mistakes made over and over again.

the boss of me

Civilian_Target wrote: »

Man, that PR is crappy. I really dislike the little environmental prod thrown in there at the end. I agree with the taxi driver stuff, particularly the separation distance, but I think that they could be a bit more welcoming of the good news.

The PR is not just crappy , it's totally incorrect

Taxis are permitted to use these lanes only while on business – that is with the meter operational and a fare present.

This statement is just plain wrong. Taxis are in fact entitled to use bus lanes at all times .

As a cyclist myself I would distance myself from DCC. as they do not represent me. It would be interseting to find out what percentage of cyclists are members of this group, I'd imagine it's a very small number.

My two cents ;as a Dublin Bus driver and cyclist I would have no problem whatsoever with motorbikes in bus lanes. Many bus lanes are half empty most of the time anyway and motorbikes would not increase my journey times whether on my bike or driving a bus.

Ciaran500

the boss of me wrote: »

This statement is just plain wrong. Taxis are in fact entitled to use bus lanes at all times .

Are you sure about that?

the boss of me

100% sure .

Chips Lovell

Statutory Instrument No. 182/1997
Road Traffic (Traffice and Parking) Regulations, 1997

32. (1) A bus lane shall be indicated by means of traffic sign number RUS 028 or traffic sign number RUS 029 used in association with traffic sign number RRM 024, and a contra flow bus lane shall be indicated by means of traffic sign number RUS 030 used in association with traffic sign number RRM 024.


(2) A person shall not enter a bus lane with a vehicle other than an omnibus or a pedal cycle during the period of operation of the bus lane which shall be indicated on an information plate.


(3) A person shall not enter a contra flow bus lane with a vehicle other than an omnibus.


(4) A person shall not enter a bus only street with a vehicle other than an omnibus except for the purpose of access.


(5) ( a ) Sub-articles (1) and (2) shall not apply to a vehicle crossing a with flow bus lane or a contra flow bus lane solely for the purpose—


(i) of entering or leaving premises or property adjacent to such a bus lane, or


(ii) of entering or leaving a road inset adjacent to such a bus lane in order to load or unload goods.


( b ) Sub-article (2) shall not apply to a taxi or a wheelchair accessible taxi which is being used in the course of business.

It doesn't specify what "in the course of business is", whether it is on duty or occupied by a passenger. I suspect it is the former.

311

Hey ,sorry for posting in this thread again. I know I don't contribute a lot ,but I do understand most of whats going on in the cycling forum.I'm not a cycling commuter nor do I cycle regurlarly ,not at the moment anyway.
I love cycling myself ,but my job means I'm in van 16 hours a day (Trade)

It seems that a few people carry a lot of vengeance ,in the detail of other road users. I can't see how this is a healthy thing to do ,especially when you have to keep the eye on the road like a cyclist would.
Maybe lighten up a little ,otherwise you'll end up in a hole somewhere.

FrankGrimes

Interesting stats on commute distances there blorg, though I agree they have probably increased since 2002, particularly in Dublin with so many people having bought in Kildare etc. I actually had a laugh to myself when we cycled through Prosperous on Sunday as I still remember the ads selling houses in 'Prosperous, 8 miles beyond Naas. 30 minutes from Dublin'. Yeh right, I'm pretty sure flying vehicles with warp speed aren't being mass produced for the consumer yet.

But there are plenty of people who could cycle to work probably even faster than they could drive but they just don't. I'm not sure of the reasons behind this but I think there's 2 things that could be done to really make it seem like less of an ordeal to joe public to get on his bike and cycle the 8km to work:

1. Provide cyclepaths that are safe (see Templeogue village for an example of what not to do) and give cyclists priority at least over traffic coming into their path from small tributary roads on their left. The current cyclepaths are mostly either dangerous or require cyclists to yield far more often than they would have to do by just being on the road.

2. Incent employers to provide shower facilities and lockers. Maybe require all companies with over X employees to provide Y lockers and shower facilities, all with significant tax breaks and possibly further incentives.

I wouldn't cycle even 2km to work if I couldn't have a shower and change of clothes when I get there.

If you can tell joe public there's safe cyclepaths which he can just use to cruise along and rarely have to stop and start and that he can have a shower and change of clothes at the other end, he's far more likely to go for it.

Hermy

A taxi driver may use a bus lane when engaged in a hiring or on route to a booking but not at all times as mentioned earlier.
Why do people object to taxi's using bus lanes? A taxi legally using a bus lane is doing so to facilitate the customer and not the driver. If taxi's were not permitted to use bus lanes then journeys by taxi would be of a longer duration and be more costly to the customer.

p

the boss of me wrote: »

As a cyclist myself I would distance myself from DCC. as they do not represent me. It would be interseting to find out what percentage of cyclists are members of this group, I'd imagine it's a very small number.

Would it not be better to get involved in the group, rather than distancing yourself from it. Since you're not a person of any politicial importance (relatively speaking) distancing yourself from it achieves pretty much zero. If you joined it and even just went to the AGM it would do considerably more.

Bicyclegadabout

Hermy wrote: »

A taxi driver may use a bus lane when engaged in a hiring or on route to a booking but not at all times as mentioned earlier.
Why do people object to taxi's using bus lanes? A taxi legally using a bus lane is doing so to facilitate the customer and not the driver. If taxi's were not permitted to use bus lanes then journeys by taxi would be of a longer duration and be more costly to the customer.

It's fine when they're on a job, obviously. It's not so fine when they're taking the piss.

jimmycrackcorm

Hermy wrote: »

Why do people object to taxi's using bus lanes? A taxi legally using a bus lane is doing so to facilitate the customer and not the driver.

I object to it because I don't see how, given the amount of tax I pay through VRT, motor tax, petrol and car derived VAT, how someone else who is not contributing anywhere near as much to the public coffers is getting the benefit of this facility. At least a bus / bike reduces the traffic volume.

The only advantage is that if you do need to get somewhere in a hurry (such as the airport ) then at least the taxi in a bus lane is the only option available.

Hermy

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I object to it because I don't see how, given the amount of tax I pay through VRT, motor tax, petrol and car derived VAT, how someone else who is not contributing anywhere near as much to the public coffers is getting the benefit of this facility. At least a bus / bike reduces the traffic volume.

The only advantage is that if you do need to get somewhere in a hurry (such as the airport ) then at least the taxi in a bus lane is the only option available.

Sweeping statements about who pays more tax are unhelpful.
The taxi driver availing of the bus lane is doing so to serve the customer.

Dandelion6

The purpose of bus lanes is to encourage bus travel by reducing the amount of traffic buses have to fight their way through. If a bus lane is full of taxis, it's just as difficult for a bus to get through as if the lane is full of private cars. Look at O'Connell Street southbound which is off limits to motor vehicles except buses and taxis. Still takes forever for a bus to get from one end to the other. (And still not safe for cyclists.)

Chips Lovell

I've found the reason traffic is so slow on O'Connoll Street has more to do with the number of buses on it and the fact that so many bus stops on the street means they are constantly pulling in and out.

I use O'Connoll Street any time I cycle into work. I've always found it be slow moving, but pretty safe for cyclists.

mikemac

Dandelion6 wrote: »

The purpose of bus lanes is to encourage bus travel by reducing the amount of traffic buses have to fight their way through. If a bus lane is full of taxis, it's just as difficult for a bus to get through as if the lane is full of private cars. Look at O'Connell Street southbound which is off limits to motor vehicles except buses and taxis. Still takes forever for a bus to get from one end to the other. (And still not safe for cyclists.)

Those private tourist buses don’t help things. They block up the street while they tout for passengers.
Maybe that’s their designated stop but it might be worth finding a new stop for them. Not sure where though

el tonto wrote: »

I use O'Connoll Street any time I cycle into work. I've always found it be slow moving, but pretty safe for cyclists.

Can be slippery at times.
And if you're the only traffic then pedestrians will walk in front of you irregardless of lights.
Watch for the ol’ push the childs buggy onto the road to test the traffic trick :eek:
But it's good mostly

Hermy

Dandelion6 wrote: »

Look at O'Connell Street southbound which is off limits to motor vehicles except buses and taxis.

Unfortunately that restriction is only in place between Parnell Street and Cathal Brugha Street.

p

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I object to it because I don't see how, given the amount of tax I pay through VRT, motor tax, petrol and car derived VAT, how someone else who is not contributing anywhere near as much to the public coffers is getting the benefit of this facility. At least a bus / bike reduces the traffic volume.

The only advantage is that if you do need to get somewhere in a hurry (such as the airport ) then at least the taxi in a bus lane is the only option available.

I believe the point of allowing Taxi's use of bus lanes is to make it easier for people to not own a car. Imagine a family with 2 cars, making tons of trips, causing traffic etc... Now imaging they sell 1 car, and alternate between cycling/public transport. Cars are useful on occasion where distance, speed or location might be an issue. In that case you use a taxi. Taxi's are a form of public transport and so there's no reason they shouldn't use bus lanes, since it discourages car ownership, by making it easier to avoid having one which is generally going to reduce traffic considerably.

Hermy

p wrote: »

I believe the point of allowing Taxi's use of bus lanes is to make it easier for people to not own a car. Imagine a family with 2 cars, making tons of trips, causing traffic etc... Now imaging they sell 1 car, and alternate between cycling/public transport. Cars are useful on occasion where distance, speed or location might be an issue. In that case you use a taxi. Taxi's are a form of public transport and so there's no reason they shouldn't use bus lanes, since it discourages car ownership, by making it easier to avoid having one which is generally going to reduce traffic considerably.

Well said.
Thank you.

oobydooby

The original statement certainly seems to be poorly researched and a bit of an irrelavance to cyclists. Having said that, I'm a member of DCC (non-active) and agree with almost all their campaigns. Especially the one on repealing the mandatory cycle lane usage. I can empathise with 311's report of the meeting he/she attended. There are some very committed individuals in the DCC though who put in a lot of work behind the scenes and are very knowledgeable. IMO they do some very good work as individuals, despite some of these ineffective PR statements.

Just on the taxi thing, I thought taxis could use the bus lanes as it would stop people driving to work and parking in the city. Seems ok to me and as said above if I need to get to hospital/airport/job interview quickly then I'm happy to be able to skip the traffic. Also motorbikes using the bus lanes is a no-brainer. Sure even if they have a decent speed up they can overtake a slow cyclist in the bus lane with plenty of spare room.