Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Pedestrian Injured - Junction of Dame St/Sth Great George's Street

Options
123468

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    Giblet
    Registered Users Posts: 11,977 ✭✭✭✭Giblet


    These threads always turn into

    "Well cars do the same so.."

    So ignore the issue completely?


    Worst junction I've ever seen for pedestrians

    https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.2763658,-6.2216678,3a,75y,3.39h,81.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2ubzNO4253KUj9RLJUerzQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

    If you are taking a right there by the Beacon hospital, it will take you over 5 seconds to complete by car, most people break reds here too, so usually get caught in the middle. I see this every day.



    https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.2765709,-6.2215821,3a,75y,161.42h,74.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2rgOK70WdQP-TNk_nMDGEQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
    Also, worse for pedestrians, the left coming around the beacon hospital. Broken reds every day, the drivers aren't even looking the right direction here as they are staring right while turning left, missing the light completely. I'm surprised there aren't more accidents.


  • Options
    #153
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Giblet wrote: »
    These threads always turn into

    "Well cars do the same so.."

    So ignore the issue completely?
    ....

    .

    No-one says ignore it. But to look at the facts in context.

    Who is saying ignore a cyclist crashing into someone at speed, and breaking a red light???


  • Options
    #154
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    TheExile1878 wrote: »
    Yes, only one cyclist has ever sped through a red light at that junction.

    Dear me the blindness of some!!

    If you are gojng to reply to a person that has quoted someone else then at least make a little effort to read both previous posts. It would help you get some context. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #155
    Vic_08
    Registered Users Posts: 3,042 ✭✭✭Vic_08


    beauf wrote: »
    No-one says ignore it. But to look at the facts in context.

    Who is saying ignore a cyclist crashing into someone at speed, and breaking a red light???

    All the people whose response to a cyclist law breaking thread is "but motorists are worse and they are killing people" are.

    You can put whatever spin you want on it but the level of rule breaking from cyclists in Dublin is huge; red lights, pavements, one way streets, etc, and distraction responses of "well others also break rules and are more dangerous than cyclists" is just nonsense.

    Get caught stealing a few wallets and the fact that there are murderers and rapists also at large is in no way relevant to your crime. The same goes for cyclists, that others are also breaking laws in no way excuses your law breaking.


  • Options
    #156
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Strumms wrote: »
    No fatality since 2002 ?
    Actually there have been no fatalities from collisions in recent memory. The incident in 2002 didn't involve a collision, but a pedestrian stumbling after being frightened by a bicycle coming the wrong way down the road.
    Great.. but if a danger or risks exists and a concern among people and I am sure the poor lady mentioned in this thread might agree should it not be discussed
    I totally agree. First point of action - figure out what danger exists. We don't even have that. Assess it, quantify it and scale it.
    Then put in place appropriate and proportional measures to mitigate it.

    There's a lot of hyperbole on this thread about the dangers posed by speeding bikes and bikes breaking red lights, but not a single shred of evidence that such a danger exists in any measurable way.

    Quantify it, demonstrate the danger. Then you can figure out how to reduce the risk.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    jive
    Registered Users Posts: 5,762 ✭✭✭jive


    People always harp on about cyclists breaking red lights when I see more cars breaking red lights day-to-day in Dublin.

    The issue isn't not obeying the rules of the road it's just crap infrastructure. As a result, cyclists 'obstruct' traffic, cars take risks, cyclists justify breaking rules in the guise of personal safety and everyone gets a bit p1ssed off.

    Cycle to work and Dublin bikes has resulted in a massive increase in cyclists in Dublin and elsewhere, infrastructure hasn't been developed one iota to accommodate this increase. By comparison to progressive countries in Europe we are decades behind.

    Georges street is a perfect example of an accident waiting to happen.


  • Options
    #158
    2RockMountain
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,012 ✭✭✭2RockMountain


    Vic_08 wrote: »
    All the people whose response to a cyclist law breaking thread is "but motorists are worse and they are killing people" are.

    You can put whatever spin you want on it but the level of rule breaking from cyclists in Dublin is huge; red lights, pavements, one way streets, etc, and distraction responses of "well others also break rules and are more dangerous than cyclists" is just nonsense.

    Get caught stealing a few wallets and the fact that there are murderers and rapists also at large is in no way relevant to your crime. The same goes for cyclists, that others are also breaking laws in no way excuses your law breaking.

    There is no spin - just the facts. Yes, you correctly point out that the level of rule breaking from cyclists in Dublin is huge. You seem to ignore the fact that the level of law breaking from motorists is at least at similar levels - red lights (x5 times more than cyclists, according to Luas camera), speeding (60%-80% of drivers, depending on the survey), one way streets, driving on pavements and parking on pavements and many more.

    So we've established that both groups break the law hugely. And yet only one of the groups kills 4000+ people over the last 15-ish years, compared to killing 1 person in the last 15 more years. So where would you want to prioritise action again?


  • Options
    #159
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Vic_08 wrote: »
    All the people whose response to a cyclist law breaking thread is "but motorists are worse and they are killing people" are.

    You can put whatever spin you want on it but the level of rule breaking from cyclists in Dublin is huge; red lights, pavements, one way streets, etc, and distraction responses of "well others also break rules and are more dangerous than cyclists" is just nonsense.

    Get caught stealing a few wallets and the fact that there are murderers and rapists also at large is in no way relevant to your crime. The same goes for cyclists, that others are also breaking laws in no way excuses your law breaking.

    That's like me saying all the people who point out cyclists breaking the lights are ignoring how dangerous cars are.

    You either didn't understand or ignored the word "context" in what you quoted.


  • Options
    #160
    Vic_08
    Registered Users Posts: 3,042 ✭✭✭Vic_08


    2RockMountain wrote: »
    There is no spin - just the facts. Yes, you correctly point out that the level of rule breaking from cyclists in Dublin is huge. You seem to ignore the fact that the level of law breaking from motorists is at least at similar levels - red lights (x5 times more than cyclists, according to Luas camera), speeding (60%-80% of drivers, depending on the survey), one way streets, driving on pavements and parking on pavements and many more.

    So we've established that both groups break the law hugely. And yet only one of the groups kills 4000+ people over the last 15-ish years, compared to killing 1 person in the last 15 more years. So where would you want to prioritise action again?

    :rolleyes:

    And again. Thread is about a cyclist colliding with a pedestrian. Discussion of motorist flaws is an off-topic distraction and one that is being deliberately used by the cycling lobby to prevent criticism of the appalling behaviour of many cyclists in the city.

    I never said anything about prioritising action.
    beauf wrote: »
    That's like me saying all the people who point out cyclists breaking the lights are ignoring how dangerous cars are.

    You either didn't understand or ignored the word "context" in what you quoted.

    The "context" is a thread about a cyclist hitting and injuring a pedestrian and leaving the scene, nothing to do with cars. Responding to this topic with complaints about motorists is ignoring the entire premise as a deliberate distraction because you do not want the behaviour of cyclists to be put under a microscope.

    There are plenty of other threads about motorist behaviour and bringing up cyclists rule breaking in those would be just as much off topic and irrelevant.


  • Options
    #161
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    Vic_08 wrote: »
    :rolleyes:

    And again. Thread is about a cyclist colliding with a pedestrian.

    So why do you keep and others keep going about all cyclists. As you say this thread is about one cyclist and not all cyclists.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    2RockMountain
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,012 ✭✭✭2RockMountain


    Vic_08 wrote: »
    I never said anything about prioritising action.

    Yes, I noticed that. Don't you think that you should have?


  • Options
    #163
    ED E
    Registered Users Posts: 36,166 ✭✭✭✭ED E


    All of this is moot when AGS use their "discretion" to ignore everything but 3-4 offences. We dont have a legal problem, we've a policing problem.


  • Options
    #164
    schemingbohemia
    Registered Users Posts: 5,606 ✭✭✭schemingbohemia


    cython wrote: »
    The ROTR are not law, as you have already been told. They are simply an RSA interpretation of the relevant legislation, and to be quite frank the RSA attitude to cyclists is generally quite poor. The SI in question (332/2012 as you rightly state) also contains an explanatory note, which elaborates "(only use of contraflow cycle track and of any cycle track in pedestrianised area is mandatory); " - that's pretty bloody clear, so quite frankly the RotR are wrong if they say cycle tracks have to be used.

    The explanatory memorandum contradicts the legislation and has no legal standing. It's an error.


  • Options
    #165
    ArmaniJeanss
    Registered Users Posts: 13,313 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    Vic_08 wrote: »
    :The "context" is a thread about a cyclist hitting and injuring a pedestrian and leaving the scene, nothing to do with cars.

    Obsessed about sticking to the context of the thread, yet missed the many posts clarifying that the cyclist didn't actually leave the scene?


  • Options
    #166
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Vic_08 wrote: »
    ...The "context" is a thread about a cyclist hitting and injuring a pedestrian and leaving the scene, nothing to do with cars. Responding to this topic with complaints about motorists is ignoring the entire premise as a deliberate distraction because you do not want the behaviour of cyclists to be put under a microscope.torist behaviour and bringing up cyclists rule breaking in those would be just as much off topic and irrelevant....

    The reason cars gets brought up is because drivers bring cars into it. Make sweeping generalizations about cyclists and cars that aren't true, which are then disproved by links to stats, which then the drivers complain about drivers being brought into the topic.

    Likewise suggesting laws that don't work for cars, will somehow work for cyclists when a lot of them already exist, aren't enforced, are aren't applicable to cyclists. Like speeding on a bicycle when its not speeding that's the issue but dangerous cycling.

    If drivers don't want replies about cars, don't post about them in the first place.


  • Options
    #167
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Warning to all:
    Vic_08 wrote: »
    The "context" is a thread about a cyclist hitting and injuring a pedestrian and leaving the scene, nothing to do with cars. Responding to this topic with complaints about motorists is ignoring the entire premise as a deliberate distraction because you do not want the behaviour of cyclists to be put under a microscope.

    The cyclist didn't leave according to two apparent wittinesses on the thread, the one who looked like he said he did then make clear he did not mean to say that, and one witness claimed the cyclist was the one to phone 999.

    These points are not up for debate.

    -- moderator


  • Options
    #168
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,516 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    schemingbohemia wrote: »
    The explanatory memorandum contradicts the legislation and has no legal standing. It's an error.
    Any further detail on this?


  • Options
    #169
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    ..or a translation into english...


  • Options
    #170
    trellheim
    Registered Users Posts: 5,864 ✭✭✭trellheim


    I have just read the SI.

    Although - true - the memo has no legal standing. - which piece is in error.

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


  • Options
    #171
    cython
    Registered Users Posts: 4,758 ✭✭✭cython


    schemingbohemia wrote: »
    The explanatory memorandum contradicts the legislation and has no legal standing. It's an error.

    I'd also suggest you read the full context of the "shall" you are so interested in actually:
    (4) A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where—

    (a) a cycle track is provided on a road, a portion of a road, or an area at the entrance to which traffic sign number RUS 021 (pedestrianised street or area) is provided, or

    (b) a cycle track is a contra-flow cycle track where traffic sign number RUS 059 is provided and pedal cycles shall only be driven in a contra-flow direction on such track.
    i.e. the shall applies to pedestrianised roads and areas (i.e. the "at the entrance to which traffic sign number RUS 021 (pedestrianised street or area) is provided" applies to all previously listed items, and contra-flow tracks only. There is no mandatory requirement elsewhere. Either that or we have the dumbest lawmakers in the world, who couldn't simply have written something like:
    (a) a cycle track is provided on a road, a portion of a road
    (b) a cycle track is provided in an area at the entrance to which traffic sign number RUS 021 (pedestrianised street or area) is provided, or

    (c) a cycle track is a contra-flow cycle track where traffic sign number RUS 059 is provided and pedal cycles shall only be driven in a contra-flow direction on such track.
    The interpretation I have outlined aligns exactly with the explanatory note, so I would repeat the note is not an error, and the section in question is still being misunderstood.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    schemingbohemia wrote: »
    The explanatory memorandum contradicts the legislation and has no legal standing. It's an error.

    Can you please back this up or at least try to explain how the two contradict each other? Thanks.

    -- moderator


  • Options
    #173
    Jan Laco
    Closed Accounts Posts: 284 ✭✭Jan Laco


    The "context" is a thread about a cyclist hitting and injuring a pedestrian and leaving the scene, nothing to do with cars.

    Jesus Christ, the OP stated 3 TIMES within the 1st 5 pages that the cyclist did not leave the scene. People will just believe what they want to believe, especially relating to people who like to ride a bicycle.


  • Options
    #174
    schemingbohemia
    Registered Users Posts: 5,606 ✭✭✭schemingbohemia


    cython wrote: »
    I'd also suggest you read the full context of the "shall" you are so interested in actually:

    i.e. the shall applies to pedestrianised roads and areas (i.e. the "at the entrance to which traffic sign number RUS 021 (pedestrianised street or area) is provided" applies to all previously listed items, and contra-flow tracks only. There is no mandatory requirement elsewhere. Either that or we have the dumbest lawmakers in the world, who couldn't simply have written something like: RUS 021 only applies to the pedestrianized area, the other sections are what they say they are, where a cycle track if provided on a road or portion thereof you shall use it. The word "or" is used to differentiate road from area with RUS 021 in front of it.

    The interpretation I have outlined aligns exactly with the explanatory note, so I would repeat the note is not an error, and the section in question is still being misunderstood.

    Cycle tracks
    14. (1) A cycle track shall be indicated by—
    (a) traffic sign number RUS 009 (with-flow cycle track) provided in association with traffic sign number RRM 022 (continuous white line) or RRM 023 (broken white line) which latter signs may be marked on the right hand edge of the cycle track or on the right hand and left hand edges of the cycle track,
    (b) traffic sign number RUS 059 (contra-flow cycle track) provided in association with traffic sign number RRM 022 (continuous white line) which may be marked on the right hand edge of the cycle track or on the left hand edge of the cycle track or on both sides, or
    (c) traffic sign number RUS 058 (shared track for pedal cycles and pedestrians).
    (2) The periods of operation of a cycle track may be indicated on an information plate which may be provided in association with traffic sign number RUS 009, RUS 059 or RUS 058.
    (3) Where a cycle track, provided by traffic sign number RUS 009 in association with traffic sign number RRM 022 (continuous white line) or RRM 023 (broken white line), is two-way, pedal cycles shall be driven as near as possible to the left hand side of each lane.
    (4) A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where—
    (a) a cycle track is provided on a road, a portion of a road, or an area at the entrance to which traffic sign number RUS 021 (pedestrianised street or area) is provided, or
    (b) a cycle track is a contra-flow cycle track where traffic sign number RUS 059 is provided and pedal cycles shall only be driven in a contra-flow direction on such track.
    (5)(a) A mechanically propelled vehicle, other than a mechanically propelled wheelchair, shall not be driven along or across a cycle track on the right hand edge of which traffic sign number RRM 022 has been provided, save for the purposes of access to or egress from a place adjacent to the cycle track or from a roadway to such a place.
    (b) A reference in paragraph (a) to driving along or across a cycle track shall include a reference to driving wholly or partly along or across a cycle track.
    (6) Where a vehicle is parked on that part of a road in relation to which traffic sign number RUS 009 is provided in association with traffic sign number RRM 022 or RRM 023 or traffic sign number RUS 059 is provided in association with traffic sign number RRM 022 or at a place where traffic sign number RUS 058 is provided, in advance of the commencement of the period indicated on an information plate which may accompany traffic sign number RUS 009, RUS 059 or RUS 058, the parking of the said vehicle shall cease and the vehicle shall be removed from that part of the road prior to the commencement of that period save where article 5(5) applies.
    (7)(a) A shared track shall be indicated by the provision of traffic sign number RUS 058 (shared track for pedal cycles and pedestrians) and the design displayed on the particular traffic sign number RUS 058 that is provided will indicate if the shared track is a non-segregated track where there is no visual or physical segregation of use between pedestrians and persons driving pedal cycles or if the shared track is a segregated track with a continuous white line on the track or a barrier provided along the length of the track signifying a separate area for use by persons driving pedal cycles and an adjoining separate area for use by pedestrians.
    (b) At a location where traffic sign number RUS 058 indicates that a shared track is non-segregated, as described in paragraph (a), pedestrians and persons driving pedal cycles may use that track.
    (c) At a location where traffic sign number RUS 058 indicates that a shared track is segregated, as described in paragraph (a), persons driving pedal cycles shall only use the area of the track that is designated on the sign for use by them and pedestrians shall only use the area of the track that is designated on the sign for use by them.
    (d) A mechanically propelled vehicle, other than a mechanically propelled wheelchair, shall not be driven along or across a shared track where traffic sign number RUS 058 is provided, save for the purposes of access to or egress from a place adjacent to the shared track or from a roadway to such a place.
    (e) A reference in paragraph (d) to driving along or across a shared track shall include a reference to driving wholly or partly along or across a shared track.
    (f) The end of a prohibition or of a restriction under this sub-article shall be indicated by the provision of traffic sign number RUS 058 accompanied by an information plate specifying the word ‘Críoch/END’.
    (g) In this sub-article, ‘pedestrians’ includes any person using a wheelchair, mechanically propelled, or otherwise.”,

    monument wrote: »
    Can you please back this up or at least try to explain how the two contradict each other? Thanks.

    -- moderator

    I've tried. Article 14 inserted here sets out what a cycle track is and then clearly states that you shall use one where it is provided. The explanatory memorandum states something entirely different, only the legislation counts, not the memo.


  • Options
    #175
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    schemingbohemia wrote: »
    I've tried. Article 14 inserted here sets out what a cycle track is and then clearly states that you shall use one where it is provided. The explanatory memorandum states something entirely different, only the legislation counts, not the memo.

    Section 4?

    As per section 4:

    (4) A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where—

    (a) a cycle track is provided on a road, a portion of a road, or an area at the entrance to which traffic sign number RUS 021 (pedestrianised street or area) is provided, or

    (b) a cycle track is a contra-flow cycle track where traffic sign number RUS 059 is provided and pedal cycles shall only be driven in a contra-flow direction on such track.

    ...The a and b as above are when cycle track must be used. Or is there another section covering the use of other cycle tracks?


  • Options
    #176
    schemingbohemia
    Registered Users Posts: 5,606 ✭✭✭schemingbohemia


    Principal Regulations are amended in the regs listed above. This is the new Article 14 of the Principal Regs and this is subsection 4.

    What other cycle tracks are there? Other than on a road, a portion of a road, or where RUS 021 is?


  • Options
    #177
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    schemingbohemia wrote: »
    Principal Regulations are amended in the regs listed above. This is the new Article 14 of the Principal Regs and this is subsection 4.

    What other cycle tracks are there? Other than on a road, a portion of a road, or where RUS 021 is?

    Near where I live, there is a cycle path which is up off the road, and requires you go to ride off the path and across the road at each side street. It's pretty much impossible to do on a racing bike, so I assume I don't have to use it.

    That's just me using common sense, though...I could be wrong :D


  • Options
    #178
    check_six
    Registered Users Posts: 2,245 ✭✭✭check_six


    schemingbohemia wrote: »
    What other cycle tracks are there? Other than on a road, a portion of a road, or where RUS 021 is?

    It's not "or" where the RUS 021 sign is. It's "or an area".

    There are three places where a cycle track can be placed in a RUS021 zone: a road, a portion of a road, or an area.

    Essentially, if a pedestrianised zone (indicated by RUS021) has a cycle track you must use the cycle track there.

    The other part refers to contraflow bus lanes. If there is a cycle track in the contraflow lane, you may only travel in the direction of the lane.


  • Options
    #179
    cython
    Registered Users Posts: 4,758 ✭✭✭cython


    schemingbohemia wrote:
    RUS 021 only applies to the pedestrianized area, the other sections are what they say they are, where a cycle track if provided on a road or portion thereof you shall use it. The word "or" is used to differentiate road from area with RUS 021 in front of it.
    In your opinion. However, it can also be easily interpreted in the way what I have outlined, and RUS 021 can also indicate a pedestrianised street (or road in the context of the law), as opposed to a pedestrianised area (potentially a plaza or square rather than a roadway). You have yet to explain why the explanatory note is an error when there is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the text which aligns with it. Rationally, it seems more likely that your interpretation is in error here rather than the explanatory note, as why would they have rephrased the original wording in this legislation at all if universal mandatory use was the intention?


    Specifically, this passage:
    “Cycle tracks


    14. (1) A cycle track shall be indicated by—


    (a) traffic sign number RUS 009 (with-flow cycle track) provided in association with traffic sign number RRM 022 (continuous white line) or RRM 023 (broken white line) which latter signs may be marked on the right hand edge of the cycle track or on the right hand and left hand edges of the cycle track,


    (b) traffic sign number RUS 059 (contra-flow cycle track) provided in association with traffic sign number RRM 022 (continuous white line) which may be marked on the right hand edge of the cycle track or on the left hand edge of the cycle track or on both sides, or


    (c) traffic sign number RUS 058 (shared track for pedal cycles and pedestrians).


    (2) The periods of operation of a cycle track may be indicated on an information plate which may be provided in association with traffic sign number RUS 009, RUS 059 or RUS 058.


    (3) Where a cycle track, provided by traffic sign number RUS 009 in association with traffic sign number RRM 022 (continuous white line) or RRM 023 (broken white line), is two-way, pedal cycles shall be driven as near as possible to the left hand side of each lane.


    (4) A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where—


    (a) a cycle track is provided on a road, a portion of a road, or an area at the entrance to which traffic sign number RUS 021 (pedestrianised street or area) is provided, or


    (b) a cycle track is a contra-flow cycle track where traffic sign number RUS 059 is provided and pedal cycles shall only be driven in a contra-flow direction on such track.


    (5)(a) A mechanically propelled vehicle, other than a mechanically propelled wheelchair, shall not be driven along or across a cycle track on the right hand edge of which traffic sign number RRM 022 has been provided, save for the purposes of access to or egress from a place adjacent to the cycle track or from a roadway to such a place.


    (b) A reference in paragraph (a) to driving along or across a cycle track shall include a reference to driving wholly or partly along or across a cycle track.


    (6) Where a vehicle is parked on that part of a road in relation to which traffic sign number RUS 009 is provided in association with traffic sign number RRM 022 or RRM 023 or traffic sign number RUS 059 is provided in association with traffic sign number RRM 022 or at a place where traffic sign number RUS 058 is provided, in advance of the commencement of the period indicated on an information plate which may accompany traffic sign number RUS 009, RUS 059 or RUS 058, the parking of the said vehicle shall cease and the vehicle shall be removed from that part of the road prior to the commencement of that period save where article 5(5) applies.


    (7)(a) A shared track shall be indicated by the provision of traffic sign number RUS 058 (shared track for pedal cycles and pedestrians) and the design displayed on the particular traffic sign number RUS 058 that is provided will indicate if the shared track is a non-segregated track where there is no visual or physical segregation of use between pedestrians and persons driving pedal cycles or if the shared track is a segregated track with a continuous white line on the track or a barrier provided along the length of the track signifying a separate area for use by persons driving pedal cycles and an adjoining separate area for use by pedestrians.


    (b) At a location where traffic sign number RUS 058 indicates that a shared track is non-segregated, as described in paragraph (a), pedestrians and persons driving pedal cycles may use that track.


    (c) At a location where traffic sign number RUS 058 indicates that a shared track is segregated, as described in paragraph (a), persons driving pedal cycles shall only use the area of the track that is designated on the sign for use by them and pedestrians shall only use the area of the track that is designated on the sign for use by them.


    (d) A mechanically propelled vehicle, other than a mechanically propelled wheelchair, shall not be driven along or across a shared track where traffic sign number RUS 058 is provided, save for the purposes of access to or egress from a place adjacent to the shared track or from a roadway to such a place.


    (e) A reference in paragraph (d) to driving along or across a shared track shall include a reference to driving wholly or partly along or across a shared track.


    (f) The end of a prohibition or of a restriction under this sub-article shall be indicated by the provision of traffic sign number RUS 058 accompanied by an information plate specifying the word ‘Críoch/END’.


    (g) In this sub-article, ‘pedestrians’ includes any person using a wheelchair, mechanically propelled, or otherwise.”,
    Replaced this one:
    14. (1) A cycle track shall be indicated by traffic sign number RUS 009 or RUS 009A provided in association with traffic sign number RRM 022 (continuous white line) or RRM023 (broken white line) which latter signs may be marked on the right-hand edge of the cycle track or on the right-hand and left-hand edges of the cycle track.


    (2) The periods of operation of a cycle track may be indicated on an information plate which may be provided in association with traffic sign number RUS 009 or RUS 009A.


    (3) (a) Subject to paragraph (b), a pedal cycle must be driven on a cycle track where one is provided.


    (b) Paragraph (a) shall not apply in the case of a cycle track on the right-hand edge of which traffic sign number RRM 023 has been provided,


    (i) where a person driving a pedal cycle intends to change direction and has indicated that intention, or


    (ii) where a bus is stopped in the cycle track at a point where traffic sign RUS 031 (bus stop) is provided, or


    (iii) where a vehicle is parked in the cycle track for the purpose of loading or unloading.


    (4) Where a cycle track is two-way, pedal cycles shall be driven as near as possible to the left-hand side of each lane.


    (5) (a) A mechanically propelled vehicle, other than a mechanically propelled wheelchair, shall not be driven along or across a cycle track on the right hand edge of which traffic sign number RRM 022 has been provided, save for the purpose of access to or egress from a place adjacent to the cycle track or from a roadway to such a place.


    (b) A reference in paragraph (a) to driving along or across a cycle track shall include a reference to driving wholly or partly along or across a cycle track.


    (6) Where a vehicle is parked on that part of a road in relation to which traffic sign number RUS 009 or RUS 009A is provided in association with traffic sign number RRM 022 or RRM 023 (cycle track), in advance of the commencement of the period indicated on an information plate which may accompany traffic sign number RUS 009 or RUS 009A, the parking of the said vehicle must cease and the vehicle must be removed from that part of the road prior to the commencement of that period save where article 5 (5) applies.".

    I have bolded the two sections relating to the prescribed mandatory use of cycle paths, and will ask you yet again, why do you suppose the legislation was rephrased from a clear requirement to utilise cycle paths, to its current form (which when interpreted as I have outlined aligns with the explanatory note), if the intention was still to be for universal mandatory use?
    schemingbohemia wrote: »
    Principal Regulations are amended in the regs listed above. This is the new Article 14 of the Principal Regs and this is subsection 4.

    What other cycle tracks are there? Other than on a road, a portion of a road, or where RUS 021 is?

    As stated, if you apply the RUS 021 clause to the entire sentence (and to do otherwise begs the question of why it was ever changed, as noted), then the question as you ask it is irrelevant.


  • Options
    #180
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,745 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Leo Varadkar was quite clear when discussing the change of the law that it was to make most cycle tracks not obligatory to use. It was a commitment made in 2009 in the National Cycle Policy.
    15.4
    Mandatory Use Regulation
    We will revoke the Statutory Instrument that requires cyclists to use cycle tracks where they are provided - Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Amendment Regulations, S.I. No. 274 (1998).
    This regulation is unsatisfactory for a number of reasons:
    (i) it is clear that the cycling infrastructure that has been constructed to date is often of a poor standard and is poorly maintained, and cyclists are required to use it;
    (ii) it can force cyclists to be on cycle tracks and (when they are planning on continuing straight ahead) to be on the inside of left-turning vehicles, including Heavy Goods Vehicles;
    (iii) if a group of cyclists (on a weekend cycle for example) is using a road with an off-road cycle-track alongside it, then they are required to use it – which is not practicable.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Are there any media reports relating to this incident? I can't find any.

    Until there are there is a certain amount of 'two people bumped into each other and one fell over' about this story.

    That NOT to say that as a cyclist (and motorist, and pedestrian) I don't have a particular dislike of the small minority of cyclists who barrel through pedestrian greens when people are crossing. Height of ignorance imho. Have to say as someone who uses the junction as a pedestrian every day, I have never considered the Dame St / Georges St junction to be bad for this, but maybe I've been lucky.


Advertisement