CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

Bus Lane Cameras

(28 posts)
  • Started 13 years ago by Wilmington's Cow
  • Latest reply from wingpig

No tags yet.


  1. As mentioned on a thread yesterday (must find that) now covered in the EEN.

    And yes, the frothing has started. I particularly like the fact that these people can, no matter what the subject, manage a dig at cyclists!

    "Most bus lanes are simply there to satisfy our politicians eco-vanity. The roads in our city are the arteries that carry the life blood of commerce. Blocking them up with artificially-created congestion is counterproductive and utterly stupid. The same goes for putting traffic lights everywhere, so that traffic has to stop (even when there's nothing coming the other way) while our cyclist friends ignore them, safe in the knowledge that they cannot be traced"

    Posted 13 years ago #
  2. "Anybody driving about during the rush jours already knows most congestion, and therefore polution, is caused by too many buses crammed into narrow streets"

    Posted 13 years ago #
  3. Stepdoh
    Member

    oh that second one is BRILLIANT. It's never too many cars, is it? It's always something else.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  4. Stepdoh
    Member

    Can anyone remember the corstorphine corridor before the greenways? Was the traffic any more free flowing than it isn't now when they had two lanes to play with.

    I suspect the buses were helluva lot less effective back then.

    Big props to the EEN for the most crappily composited picture of the day as well.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  5. chdot
    Admin

    "yes, the frothing has started. I particularly like the fact that these people can, no matter what the subject, manage a dig at cyclists!"

    As being discussed on other thread, difficult to know if this rabid minority (moronity?) is a) representative of many more people b) inhibiting policy change/progress...

    Posted 13 years ago #
  6. Mind, they've established it incontovertibly [sic]... I like to think they're a 'vocal minority'. Anything else is too depressing.

    "as we have already incontovertibly established many, many times, bus lanes are there simply to satisfy our politicians need to be seen to be doing something eco-dogmaish, rather than cater for the allegedly selfish needs of the majority, who want a smooth, pollution-reducing journey, in order to engage in the economic activity required to keep our nation going. No one I know drives for pleasure any more, they can't afford it. For most of us, owning a vehicle is simply necessary to earn a living. Every spurious tax on the movement of people, goods and services acts as a brake on our economy"

    Posted 13 years ago #
  7. chdot
    Admin

    @anth

    There's a certain amount of (selfish) logic to the last comment. But such people can't understand that the consequences (to them) of no bus lanes, no bikes would be more cars and very little extra road space to deal with them!

    Posted 13 years ago #
  8. I still don't see what the problem with a 'revenue generating scheme' is if people are stupid enough to provide such an easy source. For some reason tax on goods we buy in shops, or on our very income, or on simply living in our house is understandable and paid without question. But 'tax' an illegal activity and there's uproar?

    "So the finacial viability of the scheme is dependent on it not deterring people using bus lanes at restricted times! In other words this is a revenue generating scheme"

    Posted 13 years ago #
  9. Arellcat
    Moderator

    The alternative to no bikes and more cars is a horde of Vespas. I quite like the idea of motorscooters, as long as they're not the fume-spilling two strokes that give me a headache, and as long as they're not ridden by progress-at-all-costs people who think they're in London.

    What the non-cycling car drivers seem to forget is that bus lanes – as long as they're in good condition and not actually chockablock with buses – make the most wonderful cycle lanes.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  10. Baldcyclist
    Member

    I have some sympathy with the bus comment, on the odd occasion I have gotten a bus to Ingleston P&R, it can (and has on a number of occasions) take more that 45 minutes just to get along Princess St at 5pm, no cars there just lines and lines of buses, same with George St.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  11. In Baldcyclist, but being on Princes Street they're not holding up the commenter in their car...

    Posted 13 years ago #
  12. Also, why is it people commenting on these things never have a good grasp of English speeling or, grammar's?

    Posted 13 years ago #
  13. Baldcyclist
    Member

    He he, guilty as charged!

    Posted 13 years ago #
  14. chdot
    Admin

    "What the non-cycling car drivers seem to forget is that bus lanes – as long as they're in good condition and not actually chockablock with buses – make the most wonderful cycle lanes."

    NO that's the problem - they think they ARE bike lanes (that buses are allowed to share) and so they are being disadvantaged by cyclists...

    Posted 13 years ago #
  15. "It happens to be far more economical for me to blast down an empty bus lane at 40mph than to wait in line, wasting fuel for 15 minutes. No bus lanes = faster travel all round + buses not affected."

    Posted 13 years ago #
  16. Fuel Heid's back!

    Posted 13 years ago #
  17. "It's not a fine. Let's get this straight right from the outset. What the Police issue are fines. What the council issue are penalty charges. In other words a tax.... on using part of the road. And Whether or not the motorist directly pays for the road in a ring fenced budget is academic. You try driving without tax, insurance and bying fuel. the motorist has the RIGHT to use the roads. ALL of the roads."

    Posted 13 years ago #
  18. chdot
    Admin

    "the motorist has the RIGHT to use the roads. ALL of the roads."

    Think we are now in the realms of double-bluff irony.

    As I said earlier - 'how representative'...???

    Posted 13 years ago #
  19. Not sure, but Fuel Heid is definitely frothing. He said at the start that the fine was being doubled and was therefore just revenue. I pointed out it doubles only if you don't pay in the first 14 days. He then said, no no no, it doubles to £120 if you don't pay in 14 days. Erm... No, Mr Fuel Heid, that's not actually right.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  20. I'm giving up now

    "You would have a point if bus lanes actually aided the flow of buses. As you will see by the comments here alone, they do not do so. All they do is to impede the flow of other traffic, which often has the effect of impeding the buses themselves. If this council were genuinely concerned about fuel use, emissions and transport efficiency, they would scrap the bus lanes tomorrow---and also many of the congestion causing traffic calming measures and traffic lights"

    Posted 13 years ago #
  21. chdot
    Admin

    They'd also have to scrap the grid system where main routes cross over and one lot of traffic has to stop for the other - like The Mound/Princes Street.

    Oh they've done that!

    Didn't speed up the traffic...

    Or cause (complete) gridlock.

    Bus and bike only George Street might have some merit.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  22. Min
    Member

    I'd have lane straddling - where drivers cross the line into the bus lane juuust enough to be "not in the bus lane officer" but more than enough to prevent the bus from actually driving down the lane, punishable by death.

    Bus impedement solved.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  23. Min
    Member

    I should write for the EEN.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  24. Darkerside
    Member

    I'd have lane straddling ... punishable by death.

    Easily solved with a small snow plough contraption on the driver's side of the bus. Now you're not in the bus lane.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  25. Nelly
    Member

    anth, just checked the EEN site - that freewheelin guy really, really doesnt like your arguments !!

    Will be interesting to see if he reads the citycycling site now, and perhaps comments.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  26. He really does seem to be suggesting that anyone who is a cycling 'activist' (not a term I like) shouldn't own a car. I find that odd.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  27. This is what I'd said in response to someone else:

    "#71 - I don't think cars are evil. I've got a car. I've got a very nice car. A rather sporty little number (the username may possibly be a clue). What I don't like are two things - unnecessary use of the car (with accompanying excuses as to why public transport of self-propelment is 'impossible'); and a feeling of 'might is right' that seems to surround the car that leads to comments, such as in this thread, that any sort of control on the car is seen as 'anti-motorist' or an attack (someone here even complained about pedestrian crossing lights causing hold-ups - those selfish pedestrians wanting to cross the road safely). Necessary evil is the spot-on phrase (though as with all 'evil' things it can be fun). Day-to-day I choose to cycle; it means the car remains 'fun'. There also seems to be a total lack of understanding that if you empty the buses, and remove the cyclists, for all of them to get in a car... the streets are going to be rather full... In short I hate misguided and incorrect victim-assumption; environmental (meaning the immediate environment of sound and look, not 'green') impact; and legitimisation of illegal or anti-social acts (that simply doesn't happen with anything else. I. Love. My. Car."

    And this was the response from Freewheelin':

    "#72, this is something I see often. Cycling activists who own cars, BUT claim that their case is "different". They only use it when absolutely neccessary(,open to argument). Live in the Grange, in an Architect redesigned house, runs a BMW 4x4, but they say, that their case is "different". MMMhh really ?"

    Then my two responses (thus far not answered):

    "@Freewheelin ??? Sorry? Not sure what I said that was saying my case is different? I ride according to the rules of the road; I drive according to the rules of the road... And I'm in Duddingston in a 30s Bungalow and own a Mini - one car between the two of us... I ride every day and run citycycling.co.uk. Not eeeeentirely sure what I've done wrong in your eyes, or is everyone who cycles not allowed to own a car???"

    "Actually, @Freewheelin, counter-intuitive though it seems, the car is also helping me get my other half back on the bike after being scared off the road a couple of years back. http:www.citycycling.co.ukIssue6Car1.html Serious offer, contact me through the site if you want to meet for a coffee and chat through cycle 'activism'. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts."

    Posted 13 years ago #
  28. wingpig
    Member

    Hmm. Because they've deemed you to be an activist they therefore evaluates all your subsequent statements according to this? You can't then understand the pain of owning a car and having to encroach on bus lanes because you only have a car to try and disguise your cyclistic activismness? You should mention that you're also a keen rollerblader and hold a PSV license to really confuse them.

    Posted 13 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin