Cycle lane lack of use.

Chips Lovell

I suppose since buses and taxis are allowed use regular traffic lanes as well, we should paint those out and open them to regular traffic too.

Makes no odds to me anyway. Cycle lanes are a waste of money in my opinion.

Flandria

Spook_ie wrote: »

It means those that think bikes are the be all and end all of the transport and commuter system, as typified by DoctorBobs post "Cry me a River"

If you are no longer obliged to use the old mandatory bike lanes then they should be painted out and the area given over to the general road user population rather than kept for the use of cyclists who are no longer obliged to use them

Or pedestrians of course...:rolleyes:

rollingscone

Cycle lanes or as they are also known:

1. Pull out of side road before checking for oncoming traffic spaces.
2. Parking Lanes.
3. Running lanes.
4. Pram lanes.
5. Children frocking on scooters/balance bike lanes.
6. Undertaking without checking mirrors lanes.
7. Cyclo Cross lanes (on account of them being a course with a number of obstacles designed not to be crossed on a bicycle)

Other road users do feel free to use them. Always have.

And Spook's statement seems to indicate that the public healthcare inflation machine he uses is the only legitimate form of road user wibble, wibble (I assume every committed motorist makes that noise at the end fo their sentences).

Spook_ie

Flandria wrote: »

Or pedestrians of course...:rolleyes:

Pedestrians are as legitimate road user as any other class of person, though as with cyclists keeping them separate from traffic would actually be a good idea. In areas where the footpath is too narrow ( 2.5 pushchair widths? ) then yes by all means remove the cycle lanes and convert the recovered space for pedestrian use. However from the answers so far I don't believe the cycling lobby would be that generous.

Hmmzis

Spook_ie wrote: »

Pedestrians are as legitimate road user as any other class of person, though as with cyclists keeping them separate from traffic would actually be a good idea. In areas where the footpath is too narrow ( 2.5 pushchair widths? ) then yes by all means remove the cycle lanes and convert the recovered space for pedestrian use. However from the answers so far I don't believe the cycling lobby would be that generous.

So, cyclists and pedestrians are not traffic you say? Interesting...

From merriam-webster.com:

Definition of Traffic
(1) : the movement (as of vehicles or pedestrians) through an area or along a route (2) : the vehicles, pedestrians, ships, or planes moving along a route (3) : congestion of vehicles <stuck in traffic>

doozerie

Spook_ie wrote: »

Pedestrians are as legitimate road user as any other class of person, though as with cyclists keeping them separate from traffic would actually be a good idea. In areas where the footpath is too narrow ( 2.5 pushchair widths? ) then yes by all means remove the cycle lanes and convert the recovered space for pedestrian use. However from the answers so far I don't believe the cycling lobby would be that generous.

It has been said already but it obviously needs repeating - cyclists *are* traffic. And the roads are for traffic - you know, us, like. We do let motorised traffic use them too, such is our generosity. You're welcome.

Spook_ie

Hmmzis wrote: »

So, cyclists and pedestrians are not traffic you say? Interesting...

Errr No that's not what I said at all, I said

Pedestrians are as legitimate road user as any other class of person

A road user is by definition traffic, your apology accepted in advance

Hmmzis

Spook_ie wrote: »

Errr No that's not what I said at all, I said



A road user is by definition traffic, your apology accepted in advance

In your first sentence (emphasised in bold) you are suggesting that separating pedestrians and cyclists from traffic would be a good idea.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Pedestrians are as legitimate road user as any other class of person, though as with cyclists keeping them separate from traffic would actually be a good idea. In areas where the footpath is too narrow ( 2.5 pushchair widths? ) then yes by all means remove the cycle lanes and convert the recovered space for pedestrian use. However from the answers so far I don't believe the cycling lobby would be that generous.

Therefore you were implying that pedestrians and cyclists are somehow not traffic while also at the same time saying that they are legitimate road users. Do you see the conflict in your statement and how that could be confusing or easily misinterpreted?

Cookie_Monster

Spook_ie wrote: »

Pedestrians are as legitimate road user as any other class of person, though as with cyclists keeping them separate from traffic would actually be a good idea.

what possible reasons could you have for thinking separating cyclists from traffic is a good idea? All it does is re-enforce the same attitude you have, that cyclists are a lesser form of road user and should be subjugated. Sharing the roads and having equal priorities is the only way to solve this.
Don't forget cyclists have an automatic entitlement to use the roads, unlike drivers who need to pass tests and show their able, pay the appropriate fees and be a certain age before they are allowed.

Spook_ie

Hmmzis wrote: »

In your first sentence (emphasised in bold) you are suggesting that separating pedestrians and cyclists from traffic would be a good idea.



Therefore you were implying that pedestrians and cyclists are somehow not traffic while also at the same time saying that they are legitimate road users. Do you see the conflict in your statement and how that could be confusing or easily misinterpreted?

I believe that traffic that moves at differing speeds should be segregated, after all you wouldn't be putting Luas trams on the same bit of road would you and they are traffic.

Spook_ie

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

what possible reasons could you have for thinking separating cyclists from traffic is a good idea? All it does is re-enforce the same attitude you have, that cyclists are a lesser form of road user and should be subjugated. Sharing the roads and having equal priorities is the only way to solve this.
Don't forget cyclists have an automatic entitlement to use the roads, unlike drivers who need to pass tests and show their able, pay the appropriate fees and be a certain age before they are allowed.

Hmmm different argument altogether, should cyclists have an automatic entitlement? Personally I don't think they should

ford2600

Average speeds? Maximum speeds?
Can you give a few examples?
Thought provoking idea, could you flesh it out a bit?

Spook_ie wrote: »

I believe that traffic that moves at differing speeds should be segregated, after all you wouldn't be putting Luas trams on the same bit of road would you and they are traffic.

Chips Lovell

Spook banned for continuing to troll despite a mod warning yesterday.

The forum is for cyclists to discuss cycling. It is not here for people to air their grievances with cyclists.

Cookie_Monster

Spook_ie wrote: »

Hmmm different argument altogether, should cyclists have an automatic entitlement? Personally I don't think they should

Ignore the original question and why shouldn't they have such an entitlement?

Edit: I see Spook has been banned and won't be able to reply so I'll leave it.

Hmmzis

Spook_ie wrote: »

I believe that traffic that moves at differing speeds should be segregated, after all you wouldn't be putting Luas trams on the same bit of road would you and they are traffic.

Part of both Luas lines does go along regular roads they just use rails to steer them. I see no issue with that at all, many tram lines are built on regular roads all over the world. Sorry, but I'm really not getting your point here.

Chemical Burn

kenmc wrote: »

Leave 5 mins earlier. Problem solved.
And then you'll have a couple of mins to use the search function.

I absolutely fucking HATE that expression, it is used by cyclists and slow drivers alike. Leave 5 minutes early. Why should I?
It is not often possible, I could be in a hurry, I could be between two appointments, I could have to be in place A from 1-2pm and place B from 2.30 pm on wards, it is not often possible to leave early. Cyclists always break the rules of the road and traffic lights. I hate them. They are a scourge, they should have insurance. good on you OP.

MOD NOTE: Yellow carded for flaming

Cookie_Monster

Chemical Burn wrote: »

Cyclists always break the rules of the road and traffic lights.

don't be ridiculous, that's exactly the same as saying motorist always break the ROTR and we all know neither is true. Some do sometimes, not all :mad:

good on you OP.

Have you read the entire thread, the OP now cycles and has completely changed his attitude...

Chemical Burn

Why should I leave 5 mins early to accommodate a bunch of irresponsible, selfish, dangerous, inconsiderate, law-breaking, organic food-loving, allotment-growing, hippy freaks.

I am paying for the privilege of driving a car through over-inflated tax, insurance and diesel and NCT, etc, why should I be forced to drive at the same speed as a cyclist. Good man OP for standing up to these "people".

Chips Lovell

And Chemical Burn is now banned too for his troubles.

ezra_pound

Chemical Burn wrote: »

I absolutely f[SIZE="2"]u[/SIZE]cking HATE that expression, it is used by cyclists and slow drivers alike. Leave 5 minutes early. Why should I?
It is not often possible, I could be in a hurry, I could be between two appointments, I could have to be in place A from 1-2pm and place B from 2.30 pm on wards, it is not often possible to leave early. Cyclists always break the rules of the road and traffic lights. I hate them. They are a scourge, they should have insurance. good on you OP.

MOD NOTE: Yellow carded for flaming

Yes. Good on the op for getting ass out of car and cycling to work.

Beasty

TBH this thread now only seems to serve to attract trolls to have a go at cyclists and the past 2 pages seem to be entirely focussed on posts from people trolling the forum

Well done to the OP for coming back here to explain his change of views and share his cycling experiences. I don't think there is anything further to be gained from keeping this thread open (and possibly more hassle to the mods and aggravation to other forum regulars if we do).

If anyone feels strongly that it should be re-opened, please PM one of the Mods

Thanks