Pity bus users are not as motivated as cyclists

Stephen15

Danjamin1 wrote: »

That’s not an adequate cycle lane, it’s a disaster. I used to cycle that route daily and the cycle lane in in a poor state of disrepair

It looks fine to me its level with the footpath. I know I'd rather cycle on a cycle thats at level with the footpath than in a bus lane and risk being hit by a bus. Its surely safer to cycle in the cycle lane.

LeinsterDub

Stephen15 wrote: »

It looks fine to me its level with the footpath. I know I'd rather cycle on a cycle thats at level with the footpath than in a bus lane and risk being hit by a bus. Its surely safer to cycle in the cycle lane.

I've not cycled that particular route so I can't comment. But I've cycled the Finglas painted footpath/bike lane and it's a nightmare.

Now I use it as I'm only averaging about 15 kph but club cyclist who can easily do 25 kph plus all avoid it as there are buses unloading in the middle of it, the numerous blind junctions, you're dumped out on to the middle of the road numerous times. If I was capable of those sorts of speeds I'd stick to the road and wouldn't consider my presence a major delay for buses who will be stopping in less than 200 metres anyway.

magicbastarder

Stephen15 wrote: »

It looks fine to me its level with the footpath.

is that your sole criteria?

anyway, if it's this lane:
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3186104,-6.2315566,100m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

i can see an immediate issue. they've rather ironically stuck the left turning arrow for the motorised traffic, right beside where the bike path merges with the road - for bikes which will almost all be proceeding straight on. and this is about 25m from the corner. that's hideously badly designed - off road cycle paths are much more likely to mean cyclists are not on the motorist's mental radar, and that junction plonks them right back in just as the car is about to execute a left turn.

if i cycled that route, i'd stay in the bus lane.

cython

Stephen15 wrote: »

It looks fine to me its level with the footpath. I know I'd rather cycle on a cycle thats at level with the footpath than in a bus lane and risk being hit by a bus. Its surely safer to cycle in the cycle lane.

magicbastarder wrote: »

is that your sole criteria?

anyway, if it's this lane:
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3186104,-6.2315566,100m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

i can see an immediate issue. they've rather ironically stuck the left turning arrow for the motorised traffic, right beside where the bike path merges with the road - for bikes which will almost all be proceeding straight on. and this is about 25m from the corner. that's hideously badly designed - off road cycle paths are much more likely to mean cyclists are not on the motorist's mental radar, and that junction plonks them right back in just as the car is about to execute a left turn.

if i cycled that route, i'd stay in the bus lane.

Yep, nothing shoddy with this arrangement whatsoever either..... :rolleyes:

PS I realise Streetview is from 2014 and it may have changed since then, but this particular design flaw is endemic in Dublin cycling "infrastructure" all over the place.

Danjamin1

Stephen15 wrote: »

It looks fine to me its level with the footpath. I know I'd rather cycle on a cycle thats at level with the footpath than in a bus lane and risk being hit by a bus. Its surely safer to cycle in the cycle lane.

You don’t cycle do you

Stephen15

magicbastarder wrote: »

is that your sole criteria?

anyway, if it's this lane:
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3186104,-6.2315566,100m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

i can see an immediate issue. they've rather ironically stuck the left turning arrow for the motorised traffic, right beside where the bike path merges with the road - for bikes which will almost all be proceeding straight on. and this is about 25m from the corner. that's hideously badly designed - off road cycle paths are much more likely to mean cyclists are not on the motorist's mental radar, and that junction plonks them right back in just as the car is about to execute a left turn.

if i cycled that route, i'd stay in the bus lane.

Even in the bus lane you'd still get cars cutting across you to turn left. You know cars have to gI into the bus lane to left.

If your so concerned about your safety why don't get down off your bike and cross at the pedestrian crossing.

07Lapierre

Stephen15 wrote: »

Even in the bus lane you'd still get cars cutting across you to turn left. You know cars have to gI into the bus lane to left.

If your so concerned about your safety why don't get down off your bike and cross at the pedestrian crossing.

Cutting across is illegal...you can only turn "when safe to do so". If there is a cyclist in your way, you need to wait until it's safe to turn.

Wishbone Ash

Stephen15 wrote: »

Even in the bus lane you'd still get cars cutting across you to turn left. You know cars have to gI into the bus lane to left..

Most drivers will check the bus lane before moving across to make a left turn. Unfortunately, many won't check the cycle track before turning left as many motorists only think of yielding to motorised vehicles.

Stephe15 - you say the cycle track 'looks fine'. Have you ever cycled on it?

I use the bus lane there also as the cycle track was more than likely designed by a motorist.

magicbastarder

Stephen15 wrote: »

Even in the bus lane you'd still get cars cutting across you to turn left. You know cars have to gI into the bus lane to left.

you didn't happen to look at the layout before you said that? the lane ceases to be a bus lane 110m before the junction (i.e. 85m before the cyclists are forced into it). a car cutting *across* that lane that late would be executing a stupidly dangerous manouevre.

Stephen15

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Most drivers will check the bus lane before moving across to make a left turn. Unfortunately, many won't check the cycle track before turning left as many motorists only think of yielding to motorised vehicles.

Stephe15 - you say the cycle track 'looks fine'. Have you ever cycled on it?

I use the bus lane there also as the cycle track was more than likely designed by a motorist.

As I said if your so concerned about your safety dismount and use the pedestrian crossing I have cycled on similar stretches such the Whites Cross Junction and if your careful and look over shoulder you'll see if there is any cars turnine left.

I fail to see what cyclist lobbies you complain about the lack of cycle lanes and then don't use the ones that have been provided.

LeinsterDub

Stephen15 wrote: »

I fail to see what cyclist lobbies you complain about the lack of cycle lanes and then don't use the ones that have been provided.

Because a dotted white line painted on the ground does not a cycle lane make.

Stephen15

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Because a dotted white line painted on the ground does not a cycle lane make.

If you read one of the OPs posts they were saying that dotted line cycle paths were less dangerous than at level footpaths. So what do cyclists really want?

magicbastarder

Stephen15 wrote: »

As I said if your so concerned about your safety dismount and use the pedestrian crossing

is a cycle lane a cycle lane if it can't be cycled?

magicbastarder

Stephen15 wrote: »

If you read one of the OPs posts they were saying that dotted line cycle paths were less dangerous than at level footpaths. So what do cyclists really want?

the OP never claimed to be a cyclist, and i'm not inclined to guess what non-cyclists want from infrastructure provided for cyclists.

P_1

Stephen15 wrote: »

I fail to see what cyclist lobbies you complain about the lack of adequate cycle lanes and then don't use the inadequate ones that have been provided.

The lane south of Donnybrook is a classic example of such an inadequate lane.

Stephen15

P_1 wrote: »

The lane south of Donnybrook is a classic example of such an inadequate lane.

So what do want then, a bloody underpass for cyclists

LeinsterDub

Stephen15 wrote: »

If you read one of the OPs posts they were saying that dotted line cycle paths were less dangerous than at level footpaths. So what do cyclists really want?

The OP said no such thing but since you asked we want dedicated infrastructure no more no less. And no you can't paint on dedicated infrastructure

LeinsterDub

Stephen15 wrote: »

So what do want then, a bloody underpass for cyclists

Nice strawman. No one suggested an underpass

monument

Boulevardier wrote: »

"Interestingly, in Amsterdam, when cycle lanes are closed to do maintenance (yes, they actually do regular, continuous maintenance of cycle lanes, imagine!), they actually close the bus lane next to the cycle lane and turn it into a temporary dedicated cycle lane. The idea of mixing cyclists and massive vehicles is pretty abhorrent to them."

What happens to the buses in that situation? Do they lose priority over general traffic? If so, I would be very unhappy.

Bus priority over cycling safety...

end of the road wrote: »

agreed, especially as it's likely bus users and even pedestrians, would be in greater numbers then cyclists.

...numbers over cycling safety...

Is it any wonder that people involved with cycling are protesting?!?!

Stephen15

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The OP said no such thing but since you asked we want dedicated infrastructure no more no less. And no you can't paint on dedicated infrastructure

So how can you negotiate junctions with dedicated cycling infrastructure. Pedestrians still have to cross using pedestrian crossings at junctions even though there is dedicated pedestrian infrastructure (footpaths). So how do you suggest cyclists manage.

Stephen15

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Nice strawman. No one suggested an underpass

So what do you suggest to segregate cyclists from other road users

brokenarms

07Lapierre wrote: »

Cutting across is illegal...you can only turn "when safe to do so". If there is a cyclist in your way, you need to wait until it's safe to turn.

Just to be clear on what's illegal.
A cyclist must yield

If the vehicle is turning left and looks like it will turn left before the cyclist undertakes.

Of course. if by doing so you will cause the cycle to break hard or crash the driver must yield.

LeinsterDub

Stephen15 wrote: »

So what do you suggest to segregate cyclists from other road users

The Dutch model

LeinsterDub

Stephen15 wrote: »

So how can you negotiate junctions with dedicated cycling infrastructure. Pedestrians still have to cross using pedestrian crossings at junctions even though there is dedicated pedestrian infrastructure (footpaths). So how do you suggest cyclists manage.

The Dutch model

monument

Stephen15 wrote: »

I fail to see what cyclist lobbies you complain about the lack of cycle lanes and then don't use the ones that have been provided.

Can you tell the difference between:

(1) cycling campaigners lobbying for high-quality infrastructure, and:

(2) the low-quality cycling infrastructure currently in place

?

LeinsterDub

brokenarms wrote: »

Just to be clear on what's illegal.
A cyclist must yield

If the vehicle is turning left and looks like it will turn left before the cyclist undertakes.

Of course. if by doing so you will cause the cycle to break hard or crash the driver must yield.

Cyclist must yield? Citation needed.
What may not be illegal but is certainly is dangerous is to overtake a cyclist only to turn left almost immediately

P_1

brokenarms wrote: »

Just to be clear on what's illegal.
A cyclist must yield

If the vehicle is turning left and looks like it will turn left before the cyclist undertakes.

Of course. if by doing so you will cause the cycle to break hard or crash the driver must yield.

Indeed, sadly quite a lot of drivers are prone to not using their indicators prior to the dreaded left hook mind.

07Lapierre

brokenarms wrote: »

Just to be clear on what's illegal.
A cyclist must yield

If the vehicle is turning left and looks like it will turn left before the cyclist undertakes.

Of course. if by doing so you will cause the cycle to break hard or crash the driver must yield.

Correct! The driver would never speed up and cut in front of a cyclist....that would be dangerous ( for the cyclist)

Wishbone Ash

Stephen15 wrote: »

As I said if your so concerned about your safety dismount and use the pedestrian crossing...

Why would I do that when there is a part of the road available to me that I'm perfectly entitled to use.

Stephen15 wrote:

..I fail to see what cyclist lobbies you complain about the lack of cycle lanes and then don't use the ones that have been provided.

Eh?....I've never lobbied for cycle tracks and I rarely use them as I prefer not to be relegated to a second class status.

Stephen15

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Why would I do that when there is a part of the road available to me that I'm perfectly entitled to use.

Its inconsiderate to bus drivers and passengers for a start and would be illegal if I was in charge. So why are you risking getting hit by a bus in order to get to your destination quicker, your basically favouring getting hit by a car in favour of getting hit by a bus. As cycling in the cycle lane your risking getting by car and cycling bus lane your risking getting hit by a bus.

ixoy

I regularly walk into work - it takes over an hour. If I cycled it, I could likely do it in 10-15 minutes. That'd be hours saved a week. The reason I don't is I'd be far too afraid of getting smeared under a truck or clipped by a car because even looking at some of the cyclists going by, and how close they are to traffic, can be freaky. Too much risk. Be great if there was something more viable for the likes of myself.

LeinsterDub

Stephen15 wrote: »

Its inconsiderate to bus drivers and passengers for a start and would be illegal if I was in charge. So why are you risking getting hit by a bus in order to get to your destination quicker, your basically favouring getting hit by a car in favour of getting hit by a bus. As cycling in the cycle lane your risking getting by car and cycling bus lane your risking getting hit by a bus.

Honestly what does this even mean. Who is in favour of getting hit by a car instead of a bus?

Stephen15

ixoy wrote: »

I regularly walk into work - it takes over an hour. If I cycled it, I could likely do it in 10-15 minutes. That'd be hours saved a week. The reason I don't is I'd be far too afraid of getting smeared under a truck or clipped by a car because even looking at some of the cyclists going by, and how close they are to traffic, can be freaky. Too much risk. Be great if there was something more viable for the likes of myself.

Fair enough I see the point that we should have proper cycling infrastructure like in The Netherlands but really what I can't understand is why cyclists can't have to cycle on the road and hold up buses while risking their life. If they were segrated properly it would be great yes but they are not.

I personally think cyclists are stupid they are risking they're lives on a daily basis. Why do they bother wait until we have Amsterdam like infrastructure before getting on your bike or just stick to quiter roads with less buses or cycle on the footpath.

I do cycle from time to time but when I do I stick to quiet roads like housing estates and the better cycle like around Blackrock for example.

Wishbone Ash

Stephen15 wrote: »

Its inconsiderate to bus drivers and passengers for a start and would be illegal if I was in charge. So why are you risking getting hit by a bus in order to get to your destination quicker, your basically favouring getting hit by a car in favour of getting hit by a bus. As cycling in the cycle lane your risking getting by car and cycling bus lane your risking getting hit by a bus.

OK a few points (but I don't even know why I'm feeding a troll).

1. What makes you think I'm trying to get to my destination more quickly?
2. There are no cycle lanes on my normal commute so I don't see it as anything different from what I'm accustomed to.
3. Many of us were cycling long before there were any bus lanes and back then we weren't accused of doing anything inconsiderate.
4. Saying something would be illegal if you were in charge is a very naive argument which anyone could use to suit their own agenda.
5. I could argue that buses delay my journey, as do other vehicles which are entitled to use the bus lane.
6. I don't feel 'at risk' from bus drivers - most of them don't engage in risky behaviour.

Stephen15

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

OK a few points (but I don't even know why I'm feeding a troll).

1. What makes you think I'm trying to get to my destination more quickly?
2. There are no cycle lanes on my normal commute so I don't see it as anything different from what I'm accustomed to.
3. Many of us were cycling long before there were any bus lanes and back then we weren't accused of doing anything inconsiderate.
4. Saying something would be illegal if you were in charge is a very naive argument which anyone could use to suit their own agenda.
5. I could argue that buses delay my journey, as do other vehicles which are entitled to use the bus lane.
6. I don't feel 'at risk' from bus drivers - most of them don't engage in risky behaviour.

You're cycling in the bus lane instead of dismounting and crossing at the pedestrian lights.

Well if there is no cycle lane then cycle as near as possible to the kerb without touching it allowing cars and other road users to overtake.

Holding up other road users and not allowing them overtake you is what I would call inconsiderate.

Buses may delay your journey but bus users are the majority and cyclists are in the miniority I don't why the majority should be delayed by a miniority.

As for bus drivers not engaging in risky behaviour. No sane minded induvidual willing goes out to knock down cyclists they try to avoid but unfortunately people make mistakes and accidents happen.

brokenarms

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Cyclist must yield? Citation needed.
What may not be illegal but is certainly is dangerous is to overtake a cyclist only to turn left almost immediately

I am not going to argue with that. You are 100% right.



Citation is here in Part 3

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2012/si/332/made/en/print

(b) A pedal cyclist may overtake on the left where vehicles to the pedal cyclist’s right are stationary or are moving more slowly than the overtaking pedal cycle, except where the vehicle to be overtaken—

(i) has signalled an intention to turn to the left and there is a reasonable expectation that the vehicle in which the driver has signalled an intention to turn to the left will execute a movement to the left before the cycle overtakes the vehicle,

(ii) is stationary for the purposes of permitting a passenger or passengers to alight or board the vehicle, or

(iii) is stationary for the purposes of loading or unloading.”,

monument

Stephen15 wrote: »

Its inconsiderate to bus drivers and passengers for a start and would be illegal if I was in charge. So why are you risking getting hit by a bus in order to get to your destination quicker, your basically favouring getting hit by a car in favour of getting hit by a bus. As cycling in the cycle lane your risking getting by car and cycling bus lane your risking getting hit by a bus.

Stephen15 wrote: »

I personally think cyclists are stupid....

The warning for trolling is for this.

Nobody is choosing to get hit by a car or a bus and to suggest otherwise is trolling and calling people you disagree with stupid is another bit of clear trolling.

-- moderator

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

OK a few points (but I don't even know why I'm feeding a troll)

Please don't refer to other posters as trolls -- report their posts if you want. We have this rule in C&T to avoid threads going off-topic and to leave dealing trolls to the mods.

-- moderator

P_1

Stephen15 wrote: »

You're cycling in the bus lane instead of dismounting and crossing at the pedestrian lights.

Bikes are traffic, why would traffic mix with pedestrians?

Well if there is no cycle lane then cycle as near as possible to the kerb without touching it allowing cars and other road users to overtake.

Where to begin here? Are you aware of the risks that hugging the kerb causes? Best practice is to leave at least a foot (if not more) between your left and the kerb.

Holding up other road users and not allowing them overtake you is what I would call inconsiderate.

Average speed for urban traffic is what? 15km/h or something. Most cyclists would be averaging more than that.

Buses may delay your journey but bus users are the majority and cyclists are in the miniority I don't why the majority should be delayed by a miniority.

See the point above.

As for bus drivers not engaging in risky behaviour. No sane minded induvidual willing goes out to knock down cyclists they try to avoid but unfortunately people make mistakes and accidents happen.

True for the majority. Untrue for a dangerous minority.

magicbastarder

Stephen15 wrote: »

Its inconsiderate to bus drivers and passengers for a start and would be illegal if I was in charge.

funny then that two recent ministers for transport have admitted, after seeking advice (including from the RSA), that forcing cyclists to use cycle lanes or cycle paths is a bad idea.
if you were in charge of such decisions, you know your duty would be to serve *all* road users, not just your own needs?

amcalester

magicbastarder wrote: »

if you were in charge of such decisions, you know your duty would be to serve *all* road users, not just your own needs?

Unfortunately a sense of duty is not always the main influencer on decisions by people in such positions.

Infini

07Lapierre wrote: »

Cutting across is illegal...you can only turn "when safe to do so". If there is a cyclist in your way, you need to wait until it's safe to turn.

Yeah Ive seen this with a few drivers myself, dangerous idiots as well risking a crash. Cyclists I find worse though as some will come up weave in between cars not realising that some will approach from a bling angle to a driver and not be seen, others just go everywhere instead of keeping close to the kerb where its safest.

magicbastarder

do you mean keeping close to the kerb is safest when approaching a car from behind? i.e. so you're line of sight to wing mirrors?

Stephen15

Ok so here's a question for all the cyclists out there who think the infrastructure is not good enough. You probably have a valid point but why do you keep cycling if you feel the infratructure is inadequate and only cycle when the infrastructure is adequate. Why do you continue to risk your life on a daily basis?

I do recognise that the infrastructure isin't great its better than some cities where the cycling infrastructure is non existant.

magicbastarder

Stephen15 wrote: »

why do you keep cycling if you feel the infratructure is inadequate and only cycle when the infrastructure is adequate. Why do you continue to risk your life on a daily basis?

but i'm not risking my life on a daily basis. cycling *adds* to your lifespan.
it's not mad max out there, you know.

Danjamin1

magicbastarder wrote: »

but i'm not risking my life on a daily basis. cycling *adds* to your lifespan.
it's not mad max out there, you know.

Agreed, for the most part cycling is perfectly safe & enjoyable. The only thing that makes it dangerous is morons who think you don’t have a right to be on the road & people not paying enough attention.

P_1

Stephen15 wrote: »

Ok so here's a question for all the cyclists out there who think the infrastructure is not good enough. You probably have a valid point but why do you keep cycling if you feel the infratructure is inadequate and only cycle when the infrastructure is adequate. Why do you continue to risk your life on a daily basis?

I do recognise that the infrastructure isin't great its better than some cities where the cycling infrastructure is non existant.

Well on can't speak for others but I don't exactly feel as if I'm risking my life on a daily basis.

As to why I cycle. It's free, the time your journey takes rarely varies, you're not stuck in traffic, you're not stuck freezing your backside waiting on a bus or train that was due to arrive 15 minutes ago and so on.

Stephen15

magicbastarder wrote: »

but i'm not risking my life on a daily basis. cycling *adds* to your lifespan.
it's not mad max out there, you know.

So why do you complain

magicbastarder

you're the one doing the complaining.

cython

Stephen15 wrote: »

Ok so here's a question for all the cyclists out there who think the infrastructure is not good enough. You probably have a valid point but why do you keep cycling if you feel the infratructure is inadequate and only cycle when the infrastructure is adequate. Why do you continue to risk your life on a daily basis?

If you were to follow that line of thinking, then cycling would be dead tomorrow, if due to nothing other than "out of sight, out of mind" mentality. Thankfully logical people can recognise that while there is scope for improvement, the lack of perfection is not a reason to avoid cycling entirely. I mean if you were to apply the same "logic" to driving, why would anyone have ever considered driving between towns and cities in Ireland before motorway or dual-carriageway connections were built, given that they are the gold-standard of roadway in Ireland at this point? Or at the very least they should surely have ceased these journeys once the motorway was announced, given that the infrastructure was essentially proven to be able to be improved upon? This is a farcical scenario, but it is directly analogous to the question you pose to cyclists.

Stephen15 wrote: »

Ok I do recognise that the infrastructure isin't great its better than some cities where the cycling infrastructure is non existant.

And in parts the so-called infrastructure is worse than if there was nothing, due to luring inexperienced cyclists into more dangerous road positioning.

07Lapierre

Infini wrote: »

Yeah Ive seen this with a few drivers myself, dangerous idiots as well risking a crash. Cyclists I find worse though as some will come up weave in between cars not realising that some will approach from a bling angle to a driver and not be seen, others just go everywhere instead of keeping close to the kerb where its safest.

It's kinda hard to turn right if a cyclist keeps close to the kerb. Staying close to the kerb is not the safest place for a cyclist. If you cycle too close to the kerb, motorists don't see any reason to slow down when overtaking. If they can physically pass the cyclist (and I mean pass with only mm's to spare) they do so, which can be very intimidating for inexperienced cyclists. It also doesn't leave any room for error. If for any reason the motorist (or the cyclist) have to take evasive action, it's the cyclist that will be injured.