Can you cycle up a one-way street?

Victor · 21-11-2015 11:23pm

GM228 wrote: »

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

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/si/182/made/en/print

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

The cyclist is traffic, so it is the contra-flowing cyclist's left.

Victor · 21-11-2015 11:34pm

GM228 wrote: »

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.

Too much trolling for one thread. Do not post on this thread again.

Moderator

Victor · 22-11-2015 12:21am

GM228 wrote: »

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.

And we all know that quality of work within those organisation varies and that many an engineer can't see the implications of anything that extends beyond their next paycheck.

http://speedlimits.ie/data/documents/Leitrim-Proposed-Speed-Limit-Schedule-Aug-2015.pdf

County Of Leitrim Road Special Speed Limit Housing Estates Bye-Laws 2015
County Of Leitrim Road Special Speed Limit Bye-Laws Housing Estates 2015.
Road Traffic (Special Speed Limits) County Leitrim Bye-Laws Housing Estates 2015

The above all refer to the same document.

Meanwhile, It seems they can't even spell their own names correctly: http://www.dlrcoco.ie/newsevents/latestnews/title,12283,en.html

Comhairle Chontae Dhún Laoghaire - Ráth An Dúin
Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2014/act/1/section/12/enacted/en/html

Comhairle Contae Dhún Laoghaire-Ráth an Dúin
Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council

Wicklow County Council
Comhaile Contae Chill Mhantáin

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2014/act/1/section/12/enacted/en/html

Wicklow County Council
Comhairle Contae Chill Mhantáin

Snickers Man · 23-11-2015 12:35am

GM228 wrote: »

It's not a simple yes or no, it's yes-there are provisions in law to allow cycling in a contra-flow fashion in a contra-flow cycling lane on a one way street when certain conditions are met, otherwise it's not legal on the majority of one way streets in this country

GM228

So by default, the answer is No. Yes?

galwaycyclist · 23-11-2015 6:00am

Snickers Man wrote: »

So by default, the answer is No. Yes?

This was the original question.

Battery Kinzie wrote: »

I've often heard that they're bringing in a law that says cyclists can go the wrong way up a one way street. Has that been brought in yet, or is it something we can expect to come in soon?

The answer to this question is yes Irish traffic law already contains a flexible range of mechanisms that can be used to provide two-way cycling on streets that are otherwise one-way.

Such arrangements are common elsewhere, have a good safety record and are seen as an intervention that reduces risk and improves safety. The provision of such arrangements has also been official state policy for the last two governments.

However, it would seem that someone has also contrived to have a ministerial instruction issued to local authorities that has the effect of making it difficult for them to apply these existing provisions of Irish traffic law.

The laws themselves remain in place. They are just not being applied for reasons which include one state policy that has the effect of sabotaging another state policy.

Not the first time this type of thing has happened in this country.

Roadhawk · 23-11-2015 4:27pm

Typical Ireland.

RainyDay · 23-11-2015 6:04pm

Roadhawk wrote: »

Typical Ireland.

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2014/09/23/typical-ireland-says-man-regardless-of-what-he-is-complaining-about/

galwaycyclist · 23-11-2015 6:34pm

Roadhawk wrote: »

Typical Ireland.

For balance I should point out something else. The Minister's office may have made it more awkward for local authorities to provide two-way cycling but that still does not fully explain the profound lack of such arrangements up and down the country. Seventeen years after the law was changed - two-way cycling on one-way streets is still very rare.

One explanation that has been proposed for this is that some one-way streets are put in as a way of setting aside space for disc parking. That is to say local authority officials may be using one-way streets as a way of maximising income from car parking. Putting in two-way cycling via contraflow cycle lanes would obviously disrupt this income stream.

There is a discussion document here that deals with the matter of one-way streets in an appendix.

http://www.galwaycycling.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/GCC_PreBudget2016_Submission_Discussion_Paper_Parking_Levy.pdf

Roadhawk · 24-11-2015 10:53am

galwaycyclist wrote: »

For balance I should point out something else. The Minister's office may have made it more awkward for local authorities to provide two-way cycling but that still does not fully explain the profound lack of such arrangements up and down the country. Seventeen years after the law was changed - two-way cycling on one-way streets is still very rare.

One explanation that has been proposed for this is that some one-way streets are put in as a way of setting aside space for disc parking. That is to say local authority officials may be using one-way streets as a way of maximising income from car parking. Putting in two-way cycling via contraflow cycle lanes would obviously disrupt this income stream.

There is a discussion document here that deals with the matter of one-way streets in an appendix.

I read the article you posted and I agree with a good 99% percent of it. Roads in Ireland have been designed around the increase of private cars and do not provide sufficient space for cyclists. If i had it my way (as a motorist) I would design separate corridors for cyclists only so there would be no interaction between cyclists and drivers.

Its a great shame that there has been an apparent focus on providing on-street disk parking on one way streets instead of a dedicated lane for cyclists. The change proposal for Dublin City will be a massive success to cyclist campaigners if it goes ahead and it is the only way to physically increase the size of the city (which is currently limited to 2 shopping streets). On the other had if the project goes ahead less people will go to town as the only way to access will be by cycling or public transport. Both of these options are not desirable when doing Christmas shopping for example.

My proposal is the follow:
in the same way that there is a rail network is some parts of the world that is above road level there should be a cycle-lane above road level. Call is crazy but the only problem i see with it is the finance? Any other ideas?

Roadhawk · 24-11-2015 1:32pm

Added benefit to my idea is to build the cycle corridor over pedestrian paths to provide shelter from the rain.

Victor · 24-11-2015 9:58pm

Roadhawk wrote: »

On the other had if the project goes ahead less people will go to town as the only way to access will be by cycling or public transport. Both of these options are not desirable when doing Christmas shopping for example.

How many times per year do you go Christmas shopping? The exact same number of cars will end up in the city centre. It's just that you will have less long distance traffic at O'Connell Bridge. The chokepoint for traffic entering the city is the canal cordon, not elsewhere.

I suspect I've gone Christmas shopping with a car all of once in 25 years, although sometimes if I have too much shopping I'll just get a taxi home.

ceannair06 · 25-11-2015 4:27pm

galwaycyclist wrote: »

two-way cycling on one-way streets is still very rare.

Try walking to work via Fade St and Stephen Street Lower - the "NO ENTRY" attracts cyclists like a magnet.

Breaking the law obvs.

Snickers Man · 25-11-2015 5:26pm

Originally Posted by Battery Kinzie
I've often heard that they're bringing in a law that says cyclists can go the wrong way up a one way street. Has that been brought in yet, or is it something we can expect to come in soon?

galwaycyclist wrote: »

This was the original question.

The answer to this question is yes Irish traffic law already contains a flexible range of mechanisms that can be used to provide two-way cycling on streets that are otherwise one-way.

Such arrangements are common elsewhere, have a good safety record and are seen as an intervention that reduces risk and improves safety. The provision of such arrangements has also been official state policy for the last two governments.

Let me translate this into plain speaking.

If you see a sign saying a street is one way, and there are no OTHER signs modifying that restriction, can you cycle legally against the traffic?

Answer: NO.

(How hard was that?)

Now what Galway cyclist seems to be saying is that there are laws available that would permit local authorities to make arrangements to allow cyclists to cycle legally in the opposite direction to vehicular traffic on otherwise one-way streets. Presumably these arrangements would include clear contra-flow signs and/or cones clearly marking that bicycles, but not motor vehicles, may travel in this direction. He seems to be frustrated that such arrangements are not widely available.

I can sympathise. I would welcome such arrangements and I think they should be made available more widely. But it is ABSOLUTELY NOT THE SAME as saying "hey it's a one-way street but that doesn't apply to me and my bike"

Are we clear?

galwaycyclist · 25-11-2015 8:52pm

Snickers Man wrote: »

Now what Galway cyclist seems to be saying is that there are laws available that would permit local authorities to make arrangements to allow cyclists to cycle legally in the opposite direction to vehicular traffic on otherwise one-way streets. Presumably these arrangements would include clear contra-flow signs and/or cones clearly marking that bicycles, but not motor vehicles, may travel in this direction. He seems to be frustrated that such arrangements are not widely available.

Correct

I can sympathise. I would welcome such arrangements and I think they should be made available more widely. But it is ABSOLUTELY NOT THE SAME as saying "hey it's a one-way street but that doesn't apply to me and my bike"

Are we clear?

As has being asked before, who has suggested such a thing?

Edit: So anyway rather than "SHOUTING" under some anonymous user name if you have some allegation to make would you care to do so under your own name in some other public forum?

galwaycyclist · 25-11-2015 9:01pm

Roadhawk wrote: »

My proposal is the follow:
in the same way that there is a rail network is some parts of the world that is above road level there should be a cycle-lane above road level. Call is crazy but the only problem i see with it is the finance? Any other ideas?

This idea has some merit. But successful rail networks often tie into some system that means that the people on the trains do not need to have cars at one or both ends of their journey.

In the same way, strategic arterial cycle routes can only deliver if the potential users can actually reach them by bicycle from where they live or from where they go to work (or school).

It seems to me that the solutions for both the successful rail network and a successful cycle network must both start with the same assumption. We can no longer manage our local roads from a perspective of prioritising "flow" for cars above all other considerations.*** This includes considering whether other road users might have needs that can be met in ways that will not be available to those in cars (or other motorised vehicles)

*** This means we can still have places - such as motorways - where we do prioritise flow for motor vehicles.

Carawaystick · 26-11-2015 10:45am

If the no entry sign and road markings are the only way to show a street is one way, how is a cyclist entering a road along the middle of the road to know the direction of the street?

monument · 26-11-2015 1:08pm

Carawaystick wrote: »

If the no entry sign and road markings are the only way to show a street is one way, how is a cyclist entering a road along the middle of the road to know the direction of the street?

There should be no-entry and road markings at every junction.

galwaycyclist · 26-11-2015 7:24pm

Carawaystick wrote: »

If the no entry sign and road markings are the only way to show a street is one way, how is a cyclist entering a road along the middle of the road to know the direction of the street?

Well normally there would be a no left-turn or no right-turn sign on any side roads entering a one-way street. (It is also possible to have an exemption plate on these).

There can also be arrows marked on the road indicating the correct direction of travel.

Carawaystick · 27-11-2015 3:06pm

But a cyclist might not enter a road at a junction, they might travel through a house.

Also if a cyclist enters in the direction of motor traffic, visits somewhere on the road and wants to go back out the way they came in. How do they know it's one way?

ezra_pound · 27-11-2015 3:54pm

Carawaystick wrote: »

But a cyclist might not enter a road at a junction, they might travel through a house.

Also if a cyclist enters in the direction of motor traffic, visits somewhere on the road and wants to go back out the way they came in. How do they know it's one way?

The same way motorists do!

Do you think that cyclists are goldfish?

Carawaystick · 27-11-2015 4:15pm

I presume you mean cyclists will be able to remember stuff for longer than 7 seconds.

*What* will they remember though?

In France for example, entering a 1-way street has a sign on entry.
Not so here.

ezra_pound · 27-11-2015 4:30pm

Carawaystick wrote: »

I presume you mean cyclists will be able to remember stuff for longer than 7 seconds.

*What* will they remember though?

In France for example, entering a 1-way street has a sign on entry.
Not so here.

Of course 1 way streets have signs on entry. What are you on about?

galwaycyclist · 27-11-2015 4:49pm

ezra_pound wrote: »

Of course 1 way streets have signs on entry. What are you on about?

Hmm no most Irish ones probably don't.

In France I believe that if you have this kind of thing on the entrance to a one-way street then it tells you that you are entering a one-way street.

Whereas this sign tells you that you are entering a one-way street that is open to bikes in both directions.

Sorry for shouting blame wikimedia commons

Carawaystick · 27-11-2015 5:13pm

ezra_pound wrote: »

Of course 1 way streets have signs on entry. What are you on about?

Wheres the signOr here

or here

ezra_pound · 27-11-2015 5:38pm

Carawaystick wrote: »

Wheres the signOr here

or here

Fair enough.

Roadhawk · 27-11-2015 5:44pm

Rome wasn't built in a day.

Roadhawk · 30-11-2015 1:52pm

Both pics from Irishcycle.com
http://irishcycle.com/2015/08/22/contra-flow-cycling-streets-could-be-rolled-out-across-dublin-city/

I think this example is absurd. just looking at the image you can see that there is not enough room for the cyclist and a car. how is this right?

Triangla · 30-11-2015 1:59pm

Roadhawk wrote: »

Both pics from Irishcycle.com
http://irishcycle.com/2015/08/22/contra-flow-cycling-streets-could-be-rolled-out-across-dublin-city/

I think this example is absurd. just looking at the image you can see that there is not enough room for the cyclist and a car. how is this right?

The likes of the above is why cycling in Ireland can be hazardous for everyone.

Instead of paying for and creating proper infrastructure roads are simply painted on and somehow it's supposed to work.

I lived near a three lane road in Waterford. Two lanes in to town, one lane out. On the lanes in to town a bus lane and cycle lane were painted in the inner lane and the outer lane was for regular traffic.

A bike, a bus and a car would not fit so what was the point in that?

check_six · 30-11-2015 3:44pm

Roadhawk wrote: »

Both pics from Irishcycle.com

I think this example is absurd. just looking at the image you can see that there is not enough room for the cyclist and a car. how is this right?

In those photos I can see a car either side of those cyclists with plenty of room to spare.

monument · 30-11-2015 3:49pm

Roadhawk wrote: »

Both pics from Irishcycle.com
http://irishcycle.com/2015/08/22/contra-flow-cycling-streets-could-be-rolled-out-across-dublin-city/

I think this example is absurd. just looking at the image you can see that there is not enough room for the cyclist and a car. how is this right?

Because there is enough room for both to pass? Because has worked in Irelamd for years and on a wide scale in the Netherlands for longer?

There is a nearby example in Dublin on a narrower roadway which has been in place for years and the only issue is a lack of clarity to motorists that cycling is allowed both ways -- and even with that it's safe and it works.

Triangla wrote: »

The likes of the above is why cycling in Ireland can be hazardous for everyone.

Instead of paying for and creating proper infrastructure roads are simply painted on and somehow it's supposed to work.

Allowing cycling both ways as in the pictured example is not hazardous and common as muck in the Netherlands. It's also used in Brussels, Berlin, Paris, London, etc, etc.

It very much so is proper cycling infrastructure.

Can you cycle up a one-way street?

Comments