Taxi drivers, cyclists want to use busway

[Ixion]

Well, I don't reckon psyclists should be allowed to use it, cos they wear lycra. Which is a crime against humainity. And also bits of them get stuck between the knobs on my tyres.

And cages certainly shouldn't be able to use it, especially taxis , because it would cause chaos. The taxis will be performing U turns all over the bus way.

And buses shouldn't be allowed to use it, because they are too slow and cause too much smokey pollution. They are already a right pain in the neck on the ordinary buslanes, holding everybody up (well, everybody on a bike). I'm constantly getting stuck behind one of them.

[Swoop]

I think cyclists need a break because they use the single most environmentally sound form of transport over anything more than walking distance.

But the "carbon footprint" that they leave, with all the petroleum products that go into making thier lycra clothing, is massive!

cyclist should be left alone and alowed to continue using the roads at no cost as they aren't doing any damage to the roads.

Correct, they do not do any damage to the roads, BUT their behaviour on the road causes much angst - especially when they do not obey road rules and ride side by side or in large groups.

[grusomhat]

Correct, they do not do any damage to the roads, BUT their behaviour on the road causes much angst - especially when they do not obey road rules and ride side by side or in large groups.

Many, many cars don't obey the road rules and some Motorbikers are just as bad. So what's the difference?

[jcupit69]

Well, I don't reckon psyclists should be allowed to use it, cos they wear lycra. Which is a crime against humainity. And also bits of them get stuck between the knobs on my tyres.

And cages certainly shouldn't be able to use it, especially taxis , because it would cause chaos. The taxis will be performing U turns all over the bus way.

And buses shouldn't be allowed to use it, because they are too slow and cause too much smokey pollution. They are already a right pain in the neck on the ordinary buslanes, holding everybody up (well, everybody on a bike). I'm constantly getting stuck behind one of them.

Give this man a medal!

But the "carbon footprint" that they leave, with all the petroleum products that go into making thier lycra clothing, is massive!

Correct, they do not do any damage to the roads, BUT their behaviour on the road causes much angst - especially when they do not obey road rules and ride side by side or in large groups.

Flying threw red lights, driving up on the pavements, riding all over the road way below the speed limit for no good reason....pisses the hell outa me

[pzkpfw]

Flying threw red lights, driving up on the pavements, riding all over the road way below the speed limit for no good reason....pisses the hell outa me

Down here on a road called the "old hutt motorway" we have a cycle lane on just one side of the road, meant to be used in both directions by cyclists.

I admit it's a crappy cycle lane, because it's really just a wide footpath, and cars going in and out of businesses don't look for bikes when they cross the path.

But I still hate the cyclists that insist on using the road, on the non-cycle-path side. There's just no room for them, and the cars just can't give them their "bubble".

Last week there was a fucker using it on a reclining bicycle - with a body on it! The cars were having to stop as they got behind him, as the lanes (2 of 'em) were not wide enough to let the cars in the 1st lane get past him, without using some of the 2nd lane.

Inconsiderate twat who probably thinks he has every right to use the road blaa blaa blaa (that he didn't pay to use, on his bike...).

[swbarnett]

Inconsiderate twat who probably thinks he has every right to use the road blaa blaa blaa (that he didn't pay to use, on his bike...).

Well isn't that the pot calling the kettle a more movy shade of pinky russet.

We complain all the time about roads that aren't built for the needs of motorcyclists - cheesecutters, road snakes, manhole covers etc...

The roads in NZ cities just aren't designed for cyclists, blame the town planners, not the cyclists.

And to those that want to remove cyclists from our roads - what's next? As soon as we allow cyclists to be removed someone will feel justified in calling for the removal of motorcycles.

And by the way, pedestrians don't directly pay for the roads either. Are you saying that we should stop putting in crossings because they haven't paid for them? How inconsiderate of pedestrians for stopping traffic.

[Soul.Trader]

Agreed that cyclists should pay ACC etc. like the rest of us. In Switzerland you had to pay $5/year that gave you third party insurance to the tune of Fr2million (no ACC over there, compulsary health insurance).

Compulsory health insurance is EXACTLY what ACC is.

edit: Though I should qualify, it's no general health insurance, rather accident insurance.

[pzkpfw]

What a bunch of twaddle.

Well isn't that the pot calling the kettle a more movy shade of pinky russet.

We complain all the time about roads that aren't built for the needs of motorcyclists - cheesecutters, road snakes, manhole covers etc...

Don't give me that pot/kettle thing. You have no idea what my opinions are on those other issues.

For one thing, I've kept out of the cheescutter debate, for another, I pay for my use of the roads and therefore have a reason (perhaps not a right) to expect a certain standard out of them.

The roads in NZ cities just aren't designed for cyclists, blame the town planners, not the cyclists.

As I pointed out, there is a cycle lane in that area - it's not great (as I also pointed out) - but he still could have used it.

Besides, he's the dork in the body-kitted recumbant bike. Should we suffer every fool who pops up with their own unusual and annoying conveyance?

And by the way, pedestrians don't directly pay for the roads either. Are you saying that we should stop putting in crossings because they haven't paid for them? How inconsiderate of pedestrians for stopping traffic.

That's now the kind of liberal wishy-washyness that leads to the "if I kill the muderer I'm just a murderer too" kind of thinking.

There are lots of pedestrians. I'm one too sometimes. They also need a choice to cross the roads.

I was complaining about the one loner looney on his unusal bike getting in everyones way.

It was dangerous, as rush hour traffic had to find a way past him.

Burn him!

[Swoop]

Many, many cars don't obey the road rules and some Motorbikers are just as bad. So what's the difference?

The difference is that powered transport requires the operator to undergo licencing and testing to operate said vehicles. There is also the registration and roadworthiness of those vehicles to consider.
LCTP's throw their lycra bodybag on, then head out to do whatever they please on the roads. It isn't like the ecilops will give them demerits or remove their licence if they are caught being a twat.

Compulsory health insurance is EXACTLY what ACC is.

I would rather call it a compulsory lotto ticket. The way in which some people get treated by ACC varies considerably.
A proper medical insurance would allow prompt treatment in a world class hospital.
NZ's health system is comparable with some 3rd world countries at times.

[swbarnett]

Don't give me that pot/kettle thing. You have no idea what my opinions are on those other issues.

Forgive me for over generalising and ascribing opinions to you that you do not hold. When I wrote that I was thinking of past debates and not you personally.

I pay for my use of the roads and therefore have a reason (perhaps not a right) to expect a certain standard out of them.

Quite right. We all pay to varying degrees through our taxes (even most cyclists, or at least their parents).

As I pointed out, there is a cycle lane in that area - it's not great (as I also pointed out) - but he still could have used it.

Point taken.

That's now the kind of liberal wishy-washyness that leads to the "if I kill the muderer I'm just a murderer too" kind of thinking.

Sorry, I don't see the connection.

[DingoZ]

The police have been granted permission to use it on priority one jobs, the inspector told everyone this week. My boss is ringing transit tomorrow about us using it for priority one jobs as well. Will be a big time saver for us in peak hour. Taxi drivers can fuck off, i hate those terrorists of the streets, and as for cyclists, when those whinging cunts stop for red lights and start obeying the traffic rules (we are road users too.. bullshit) then maybe they can be considered, otherwise they can fuck off too.

Very well stated and emergency Response Services should get Access before taxis or cyclists...

[grusomhat]

Flying threw red lights, driving up on the pavements, riding all over the road way below the speed limit for no good reason....pisses the hell outa me

Yeah so what. Other than the riding all over the road. That's the benefit cyclist have of beeing a cyclist, just like motorbikes and their filtering. As long as they aren't causing a danger when they go though the red lights then them doing that is just a time saver. And you expect them to ride the speed limit?

[Soul.Trader]

Wow, I'd have thought people on a motorcycling forum would be more tolerant of cyclists. So what if they skip onto the footpath to get around something sometimes? It doesn't affect you any more than your traffic-filtering affects other road users. Why do some people here have a serious axe to grind with cyclists? Was you mother raped by a bicycle once?

[pzkpfw]

Sorry, I don't see the connection.

I think I was trying to talk about over-generalisation (or something similar to that that I can't name). That is, your comparison of nether cyclists nor pedestrians paying (directly) for roads, and asking if I therefore want them treated the same way (burned).

(In doing it, I popped in my own axe-to-grind.)

Probably a bit obscure.

Cyclists and pedestrians are different cases. Pedestrians generally don't use the shoulder of "main roads" to walk on. And someone walking down the footpath wearing a refridgerator box would be annoying too.

Cheers,

[Squiggles]

And how much of that goes towards the roads?

Besides, we pay less than cars and trucks through petrol because we use less. Same applies to bicycles.

I think cyclists need a break because they use the single most environmentally sound form of transport over anything more than walking distance. As bikers we expect breaks because we contribute less to environmental issues, congestion etc. It only stands to reason that we extend the same courtesy to cyclists.

I find myself agreeing with this 100%, bus lanes with cyclists in them are pretty killer for the cyclists, much prefer they had their own lane. 80k down the side in rushhour is just retarded.