Can you cycle up a one-way street?

galwaycyclist wrote: »

To follow your logic in the other direction. Are you arguing that because some roads are made one-way then it must follow that all roads must be made one-way?

No because two way roads are still lawful!

GM228

I cant seem to find the legislation linked to allowing cyclists to use a one-way street the wrong way. Can anyone post a link?

monument wrote: »

You should report Dublin City Council to the Department of Transport. If the Department of Transport agree with you they should take action.

The law agrees with me, it's black and white-that's all that matters.

GM228

Really ? Its the same world we all occupy and the laws we agree to "limit" ourself by when taking to the roads.

You're the one advocating and encouraging illegal behaviour - for 13 pages on my browser .
Whether it is the Liffey quays or a small oneway road in , for argument's sake, Westport it doesn't make any difference to the inscription on the tombstone if you are killed, or worse, cause someone else to be killed, because they didn't expect a road user travelling fast in an illegal direction. I wonder why you cannot see this.

I have to say I am amazed at your persistence with this all-right-jack and frankly cavalier attitude to other road users here. You bring the rest of us into disrepute. For shame.

GM228 wrote: »

Not necessarily down to recklessness, but there's a very interesting study here from the US which shows accident rates per kilometer are 26 to 48 times higher for cyclists than for motorists. In the case of cyclist-motorist accidents the motorists are to blame more often than the cyclist.

Skewed data. Few people cycle more than 10-20km on a typical day. Some people drive hundreds of km per day, much of it on motorways. This results in car journeys being relately safer per km, but as or more dangerous per trip or per person.

Flying, per km, is much safer than driving, but if I got into a 737 every time I went to Spar, it wouldn't be very safe, would it?

GM228 wrote: »

Again that doesn't mean motorists are any more reckless than any other group, it just shows that motoring is the biggest cause of death and suffering mostly due to the fact that they go faster and weight more and naturally enough will create a bigger mess.

I know someone who keeps a nerf gun in the office and is wont to using it.

Imagine someone else keeps an AK47 in their office and is is wont to using it.

Imagine they both manage to shoot someone. Who is being more reckless?

dubscottie wrote: »

Got any proof that motorists are the cause of all these deaths?

Driver error is the cause of the vast majority of collisions - just look at the RSA statistics. The mass and speed of the vehicle is a strong determinant of the outcome of a collision. By virtue of being typically heavier and faster, this makes motor vehicles more dangerous.

In cyclist-motorists collisions, international research points to the motorist being wrong in about 85% of cases.

Have you been to every inquest and know the exact cause of death in road accidents?

Based on the terminology you've just used, it would seem you haven't. Cause of death is typically things like blunt trauma or blood loss.This is typically very independent of the cause of the collision.

And the reason injuries caused by cyclists don't get reported is because 99% of the time the cyclist will just keep going, knowing that he/she will never get caught and the pedestrian has no way of identifying the cyclist even if they did report it.

We know that isn't true. If it was truely such a problem, it would have been dealt with, but it isn't and hasn't.

roverrules wrote: »

As a point of interest, could it be argued that the use of gears make a cycle mechanically propelled, and the only true non mechanically propelled cycles would be fixies?

The phrase "mechanically propelled" refer to the power source - a machine - as opposed to human, animal or indeed wind power.

Carawaystick wrote: »

Strictly the bolded part includes all human powered bikes, as all muscle movement is under electrical control.

There is a difference between control and propulsion.

Snickers Man wrote: »

It was not illegal to own or use condoms. It was illegal to sell them. So if you could get hold of a carton of johnnies while visiting abroad (or Newry) you were NOT breaking the law by using them in Dublin, or Ballygobackwards.

Off-topic, but my understanding is that they were de facto illegal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraception_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

Whereas cycling the wrong way down a one-way street IS illegal, and, except in cases where there is a clearly demarked and/or kerb/cone separated contra flow system, rightly so.

You are failing to appreciate the full spectrum of one- and two-way ssytems.

Galwayclylist:-
“there is nothing in law that says that "no-entry" markings must be used at all. The use of an upright no-entry sign with a crossed-arrow is enough. And in law there can simply be a plate on the sign giving an exemption to cyclists (or buses as I recall).”

Galwaycyclist:-
“law provides for contraflow situations that do not require contraflow cycle lanes. The road simply remains two-way for cyclists.”

GM228:-
“That's the point, the signs are not legally allowed for if there is no cycle path to enter, entering a one way street without a cycle lane is not provided for in current regulations.”

Galwayclylist:-
“So please show us all where the regulations say the signs are not legally allowed for without particular road markings.

Such a stark claim should be very very easy to prove.

Ok, I will do just that.

I’ll make it all very clear, apologies but this is going to be a long posting as it isn’t something which can be “proved” as you say in a few sentences!

Before I continue any further I will point out that I am a cyclist (I’m also a motorist and a pedestrian), I have nothing whatsoever against cycling and never stated that I did, I’m speaking strictly within the confines of the law. Whatever is standard and acceptable in other countries is fine, the problem is the laws here don’t allow it without a contra-flow cycle lane, and that is what I have an issue with, not the actual act of contra-flow cycling.

Also I apologise for references to other issues off-topic not related to commuting to all the posters and the mods, no offence was meant and I certainly didn’t want to make comparisons to cycling, in hindsight they were silly examples to have used.

Anyways, onto the subject of contra-flow cycling.

GC, your previous statement of “there is nothing in law that says that "no-entry" markings must be used at all. The use of an upright no-entry sign with a crossed-arrow is enough” is incorrect as is “law provides for contraflow situations that do not require contraflow cycle lanes. The road simply remains two-way for cyclists.” That’s not legally correct. Yes I previously agreed that there was no legal requirement to actually put the RRM 019 marking on a one-way street, however I was actually incorrect as I overlooked some important entries in the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport Traffic Signs Manual 2010 (TSM) and more importantly how it was issued.

We all know that shall legally means something must be done, that it is mandatory etc, and even the TSM confirms this regarding what is contained in it.

The DTTS TSM Section 1 States:

1.1.12 For the purposes of this Manual:
*Shall or must indicates that a particular requirement is mandatory;
Should indicates a recommendation; and
May indicates an option.

The no-entry road marking (RRM 019) is the key to allowing contra-flow cycling legally, not the no-straight ahead sign (RUS 011) simply on its own, a one-way street must by law have RRM 019 present, there are no exceptions, and the only time anything may pass RRM 019 is when entering a cycle lane.

Oddly enough, RRM 019 on a one-way street is one of the few road markings which is specifically shown as mandatory in any specific place in the TSM.

So whilst a no-straight ahead sign (RUS 011) may be present with an exception plate, it also must comply with the legal status of RRM 019. If you have RUS 011 on a one way street with an exception plate for cyclists and no cycle lane then the signs are not in compliance with the law.

The Road Traffic (Signs) Regulations 1997 (SI. 181/1997) Section 6 (4) - (as amended by The Road Traffic (Signs)(Amendment) 1998 (SI. 273/1998) ) states:-

"(4) Traffic sign numbers RUS 011, RUS 012, and RUS 013 may be accompanied by a rectangular plate which shall be placed below the sign and on which may be shown in black letters on a white background,
(a) the message 'Except Buses and Taxis — Ach Amháin Busanna agus Tacsaithe', to indicate that the prohibitions indicated by the said signs do not apply in the case of omnibuses and taxis; or
(b) the message 'Except Cyclists — Ach Amháin Rothaithe', to indicate that the prohibitions indicated by the said signs do not apply in the case of cyclists; or
(c) the message 'Except Buses, Taxis, and Cyclists — Ach Amháin Busanna, Tacsaithe agus Rothaithe', to indicate that the prohibitions indicated by the said signs do not apply in the case of omnibuses, taxis, and cyclists.".

The said sign is RUS 011, the law only gives a cyclist the legal status to ignore RUS 011, it does not give the cyclist the legal status to ignore RRM 019 which means no entry, and RRM 019 must be on a one-way street, there is no exceptions.

So why is RRM 019 mandatory on a one way street?

The DTTS TSM Section 7 States:

7.11.1 Road markings at priority junctions consist of transverse markings indicating the requirement to stop or yield, together with associated centre lines and other markings to guide and inform drivers of the junction layout. In the case of a one-way street, the No Entry Marking, RRM 019, shall be used.

So whilst RUS 011 may be placed on a road with an exemption plate, RRM 019 also must be present on a one-way road-it is mandatory. If a no-straight ahead exception is to be legal it must comply with the exceptions for passing RRM 019, the only exemption to RRM 019 is to enter a cycle track provided.

The Road Traffic (Signs) Regulations 1997 (SI. 181/1997) Section 23 - (as amended by The Road Traffic (Signs)(Amendment) 1998 (SI. 273/1998) ) states:-

NO ENTRY LINE
23. Traffic sign number RRM 019 shall-
(a) indicate that traffic is prohibited from entering the roadway at the entrance to which it is provided, save for pedal cycles entering a cycle track provided on the roadway, and
(b) consist of a continuous white line and a broken white line parallel thereto and approximately 300 millimetres therefrom, extending transversely across the entrance to a roadway or, where a cycle track is provided on the roadway, extending across the roadway from the right hand edge of the cycle track, each line being approximately 200 millimetres wide and the broken line consisting of segments approximately 1 metre long and spaced approximately 1 metre apart.".

So I have established that RUS 011 can not in itself allow for contra-flow cycling as RRM 019 must be present, and as such the only way to enter a one-way street for contra-flow purposes is to enter a contra-flow cycle lane.

So is a contra-flow cycle lane then required to continue the lenght of the road? The answer is yes.

We all know that you are legally required to stay to the left when driving (and we know cyclists are drivers). The argument that a cyclist will stay to the left when going the wrong direction and a motorist will stay to the left when going in the right direction therefore keeping them on opposite sides of the road is flawed.

The requirement to drive to the left originally meant to the left based on facing the direction you were actually facing irrespective of traffic flow, but in 2006 that was changed to left based on the direction of traffic flow and kept in all acts since.

The Road Traffic (Signs) Regulations 1997 (SI. 181/1997) Section 4 states:-

"left hand side" and "right hand side" shall be determined by facing in the direction of traffic flow;

So if there is no cycle lane, you are going against the traffic flow, therefore you are required to cycle to the left of the road-which is actually the cyclists right because you are cycling against the flow of traffic, a conflict has once again now been created, it is overcome by Section 7.8.8 of the TSM.

The DTTS TSM Section 7 States:-

7.8.8 A contra-flow cycle track may be designated on a road which is one-way to all other traffic. These shall be designed such that cyclists using the track observe the required rules of the road (specifically, that they should keep to the left of the carriageway, whilst oncoming traffic passes to their right).

That aside, coming back to the TSM, it gives an example in the form of an illustration of a contra-flow cycle lane going the entire direction of the one-way street. Whilst only an example and not limited, the TSM is law so you could argue that the legal interpretation of example applies which is “an indication of the principle”. But forget about that because the manual actually states the lane must be segregated from normal traffic after the commencement of such track.

The DTTS TSM Section 7 States:-

7.8.9 Generally there will be physical separation between the cyclists and oncoming vehicles at the commencement of such a cycle track, either by refuges, islands or other kerbed features to provide an entry gate, which may be repeated at intervals. Between such features, the cycle track shall be segregated from the opposing traffic lane by a 150mm wide solid line RRM 022. In addition, arrows to M 118 and cycle symbols to M 116 shall be provided at intervals of not more than 100m, and at any point where it is necessary to clarify to all road users the direction of the cycle track.

So now I’m hearing, oh god John what an an idiot you are trying to show something is legally required based on a simple manual rather than law, yes you would have proved that if the TSM was actually law.

However, very few may realise the fact is the TSM is law.

How is that possible you ask?

The TSM isn’t any old manual, or a guide or a suggestion, it is actually delegated legislation, it’s a statutory instrument by law (such a bold statement to make I hear) and must be followed due to the way it was issued, it wasn’t simply a guide issued by the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport (DTTS), it is actually a Ministerial Direction and that changes its meaning and legal standing completely and makes it mandatory.

The DTTS TSM Preface States:-

This Manual, published by the Department of Transport, constitutes a Direction given by the Minister of Transport to Road Authorities under Section 95(16) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 in relation to the provision of traffic signs.

So what does the RTA 1961 actually state?

The Road Traffic Act 1961 (SI. 24/1961) Section 95 (16) States:-

Traffic Signs
95 (16) Where a traffic sign, not being a traffic sign to which regulations under subsection (2) of this section relate, is provided under this section by a road authority, it shall be in conformity with any general or particular directions that may be given from time to time by the Minister.

That means that the TSM must be conformed with-making it mandatory, so why is the TSM mandatory or a statutory instrument without Oireachtas approval?

The power to issue such directions, to not seek Oireachtas approval and the legal requirement for an authority/person follow them is also confirmed by local government acts.

The Local Government Act 2001 (SI. 37/2001) Section 4 Subsections 3, 4(a) and 6(b) States:-

Regulations, orders and directions
4.—((3) A regulation or an order under this Act may—
(a) apply to local authorities generally, to any class or classes of local authorities
specified in the regulations or the order or to a particular local authority so
specified,
(b) contain different provisions in relation to different local authorities or to
different parts of the administrative area of a local authority,
(c) provide for the giving of directions by the Minister (including directions
amending or revoking any such directions).

(4)(a) Except where paragraph (c) applies, every order and regulation made by the
Minister or any other Minister of the Government under this Act shall be laid
before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made.

(6)(b) A person to whom a direction is given under this Act shall comply with that direction.

And why is the TSM a Statutory Instrument?

Well the TSM is an official direction from the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport and the Interpretation Act 2005 states a direction is a statutory instrument.

The Interpretation Act 2005 (SI. 23/2005) Section 2 States:-

“statutory instrument” means an order, regulation, rule, bye-law, warrant, licence, certificate, direction, notice, guideline or other like document made, issued, granted or otherwise created by or under an Act and references, in relation to a statutory instrument, to “made” or to “made under” include references to made, issued, granted or otherwise created by or under such instrument.

And if all that isn’t enough to show the TSM (a direction) is actually a legal statutory instrument and therefore law, there have been a few test cases regarding the legalities of a ministerial direction before the High Court (such as McDaid v Sheehy [1991]) and the Supreme Court (Cityview Press v An Comhairle Oiliúna [1980], Leontjawa v DPP and Chang [2004] or Meagher v Minister for Agriculture [1994]), the courts found that ministerial directions were delegated law and in compliance with the Constitution and European Law.

So after all that the answer as I have stated all along to the OPs question is:-

Yes, you can contra-flow cycle on a one way street, but only if a contra-flow cycle lane is provided!

A most comprehensive answer to a very simple question

GM228

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Without getting into blow by blow at this point.

1. Cyclists are traffic. A road with cyclists using it in both directions has flows of traffic in both directions.

2. Once a road has two-way traffic it is no longer one-way. The signs applied may have the effect of making usable only in one direction by certain classes of traffic but it is no longer one-way.

Indeed both statements are true, but for a one-way street to become a two-way contra-flow street the provisions are still required to be followed. That has been my point all along.

GM228

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Sorry but this part is silly in my view. With or without a cycle lane the cyclist is in a traffic flow consisting of cycles going in a particular direction. Therefore they stay the the left of their traffic flow.

I'm not disagreeing with you, however in legal terms (which is generally all road laws deal with) it could be argued that because contra means against the normal flow (by definition) that anything which references normal flow still stands and can't be overruled by something which is contra (contrary) to it.

For example a contra-flow bus lane is not a two-way street, it's a one way street which provides a bus lane against the normal flow of traffic, and it's the lane (rather than the act of contra-flow itself) that gives traffic in the lane a normal flow of traffic in that direction.

Anyway we won't get into any catfights over it!

GM228

galwaycyclist wrote: »

No it sounds as if whoever put together the Signs Manual {Roughan O'Donovan if I recall) has managed to sabotage, or at any rate make a dogs dinner of, an important aspect of state transport policy.

Malice or incompetence? Either way its a mess.

The same can be said for at least 50% of all laws made!

Indeed it was put together by Roughan & O’Donovan (AECOM) with the assistance of the NRA, county councils and required signing (and some tweaking apparently) by the ministers department.

The problem is the signs manual is delegated law unfortunately as I pointed out and therefore it limits certain things which could be done, no doubt that whoever actually writes up certain Acts also had a hand in the manual.

GM228