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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Can you cycle up a one-way street?

1356789

Comments

  • #62
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    GM228 wrote: »
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html#zzsi182y1997a28

    S.I. No. 182/1997 - Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997-Section 28

    "28. Where traffic sign number RRM 019 [No Entry Line] is provided across the entrance to a road, a driver shall not proceed beyond such sign so as to enter that road."

    There are no exceptions to Section 28.

    GM228

    Yes, there are. See attached.

    Same on dual carriageway and car parks etc with separate entry / exit points.


  • #63
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    monument wrote: »
    Yes, there are. See attached.

    Same on dual carriageway and car parks etc with separate entry / exit points.

    They are contra-flow cycle lanes which are allowed for in legislation, however in relation to cycling against traffic up a one way street which is what we are talking about it is not legal, and that is was DCC have done and tried to expand on (i.e. NO contra-flow lanes.).

    A contra-flow cycle lane is indeed regarded as seperate to a one way street and so Section 28 does not apply in that case.

    GM228


  • #64
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    GM228 wrote: »
    They are contra-flow cycle lanes which are allowed for in legislation, however in relation to cycling against traffic up a one way street which is what we are talking about it is not legal, and that is was DCC have done and tried to expand on (i.e. NO contra-flow lanes.).

    A contra-flow cycle lane is indeed regarded as seperate to a one way street and so Section 28 does not apply in that case.

    GM228

    No cycle lane in the attached example.

    But nearly all of the streets in the 20/20 vote you referenced would require cycle paths or lanes, more likely fully segregated paths.


  • #65
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    GM228 wrote: »
    They are contra-flow cycle lanes which are allowed for in legislation, however in relation to cycling against traffic up a one way street which is what we are talking about it is not legal, and that is was DCC have done and tried to expand on (i.e. NO contra-flow lanes.).

    A contra-flow cycle lane is indeed regarded as seperate to a one way street and so Section 28 does not apply in that case.

    GM228

    No cycle lane in the attached example.

    But nearly all of the streets in the 20/20 vote you referenced would require cycle paths or lanes, more likely fully segregated paths.


  • #66
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    monument wrote: »
    No cycle lane in the attached example.

    But nearly all of the streets in the 20/20 vote you referenced would require cycle paths or lanes, more likely fully segregated paths.

    Having looked at it more closely I agree, which makes it not legal! I suspect that it was meant to be a contra-flow, but the continuous white lines were obviously never done.

    You can currebtly only cycle against taffic legally in a contra-flow cycle lane which clearly that isn't, weather that's intentional or accidental I don't know-either way it is not legal.

    The 20/20 vote included some streets without a contra-flow lane. They already provided some, DCC have already created some illegally!

    GM228


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    GM228 wrote: »
    Having looked at it more closely I agree, which makes it illegal! I suspect that it was meant to be a contra-flow, but the continuous white lines were obviously never done.

    You can currebtly only cycle against taffic legally in a contra-flow cycle lane which clearly that isn't, weather that's intentional or accidental I don't know-either way it is not legal.

    The 20/20 vote included some streets without a contra-flow lane. They already provided some, DCC have already created some illegally!

    GM228

    Uh no unless you can produce some legal.source for this then to my knowledge this is not correct. Legally, in situations where the entrance to a street is blocked by "no-entry" markings then a cycle track marking is required to cross the "no-entry" markings. There is nothing in law that says the cycle track has to continue up the street.

    Also 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).


  • #68
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    GM228 wrote: »
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html#zzsi182y1997a28

    S.I. No. 182/1997 - Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997-Section 28

    "28. Where traffic sign number RRM 019 [No Entry Line] is provided across the entrance to a road, a driver shall not proceed beyond such sign so as to enter that road."

    There are no exceptions to Section 28.

    GM228

    You are looking at the wrong regulations - this was amended under the 1998 statutory instrument.


  • #69
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    GM228 wrote: »
    Having looked at it more closely I agree, which makes it illegal! I suspect that it was meant to be a contra-flow, but the continuous white lines were obviously never done.

    What exactly makes it illegal or even not legal?

    There's a legal difference between illegal and not legal, but I think something can be fully legal if you can work around the law (even if guidelines don't provide for it).
    GM228 wrote: »
    You can currebtly only cycle against taffic legally in a contra-flow cycle lane which clearly that isn't, weather that's intentional or accidental I don't know-either way it is not legal.

    There's no law that actually says this. You were asked for such already and you quoted the no-entry line markings law with no exceptions but the no-entry markings can be adjusted with use of an entry treatment and there's nothing that says it can be.
    GM228 wrote: »
    The 20/20 vote included some streets without a contra-flow lane.

    "The motion was promoted at a recent draft development plan meeting by Cllr Clare Byrne (Green Party). It named Parnell Square South, Nassau Street, Merrion Row, Pearse Street, Granby Row, Pembroke Road (Dublin 2), and St Stephen’s Green where contra-flow would be introduced."

    http://irishcycle.com/2015/10/05/push-to-secure-contra-flow-cycling-on-key-dublin-streets-fails-by-one-vote/

    Which one of those would you do without a lane or path?


    GM228 wrote: »
    They already provided some, DCC have already created some illegally!

    There's a bit of a stretch between messed up on no-entry markings / bypass treatment and any illegality -- it's not clear that it's a civil or criminal offense, and I would not say it is. So, while it may not be 100% legal, that does not make it illegal.


  • #70
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    Uh no unless you can produce some legal.source for this then to my knowledge this is not correct. Legally, in situations where the entrance to a street is blocked by "no-entry" markings then a cycle track marking is required to cross the "no-entry" markings. There is nothing in law that says the cycle track has to continue up the street.

    Also 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).

    Indeed there is technically no legal requirement to provide the signs, however when they are provided there can be an exception for a cyclist, however the law is very clear that contra-flow cycling is only permitted in a contra-flow cycle lane, and a contra-flow cycle lane must be seperated by a continuous white line.

    The wording for No Entry reverted back to the 1997 version in 2012.

    GM228


  • #71
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    I edited my last post above, it was incorrectly posted before it was finished.
    GM228 wrote: »
    ...the law is very clear that contra-flow cycling is only permitted in a contra-flow cycle lane, and a contra-flow cycle lane must be seperated by a continuous white line.

    Is that written down somewhere? In legislation or a court judgement. If not, what makes it very clear?


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    GM228 wrote: »
    Indeed there is technically no legal requirement to provide the signs, however when they are provided there can be an exception for a cyclist, however the law is very clear that contra-flow cycling is only permitted in a contra-flow cycle lane, and a contra-flow cycle lane must be seperated by a continuous white line.

    The wording for No Entry reverted back to the 1997 version in 2012.

    GM228

    What I recall happened in 2012 was that the regulations introduced a new EU style variant on the no-entry sign - red disc with a white bar. This version does not have the exemption plate.

    However the old version, the crossed arrow in a red circle with or without the exemption plate, remains lawful.


  • #73
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    monument wrote: »
    I edited my last post above, it was incorrectly posted before it was finished.



    Is that written down somewhere? In legislation or a court judgement. If not, what makes it very clear?

    In legislation.

    The various RTAs apply to cyclists in the exact same manner as a motorist, infact the term "driver" actually also refers to a person in charge of a bicycle and a bicyle is also a vehicle, and that is the legally implied term which can not be disputed or questioned, there is no exception to a cyclist unless specifically allowed for in legislation, so to say a cyclist can drive the wrong way up a one way street is wrong, no road user can (except emergency services), there are no exceptions in the law otherwise except that a cyclist can cycle contra-flow to traffic, but only in a contra-flow lane. Driving contra-flow or against traffic up a one way street is different to driviing contra-flow in a contra-flow lane.

    I have a consolidated version of the RTA 1961 including all amendments/revisions etc which is up to date as of August 2015 so bear with me whilst I find the specific act which included it, but it is there as follows:-

    "pedal cycles shall only be driven in a contra-flow direction on such track".

    That is pretty clear!

    GM228


  • #74
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    What I recall happened in 2012 was that the regulations introduced a new EU style variant on the no-entry sign - red disc with a white bar. This version does not have the exemption plate.

    However the old version, the crossed arrow in a red circle with or without the exemption plate, remains lawful.

    That is correct, the new sign (known as RUS 050) can't have an exempt plate, the old sign (known as the RUS 011) can have an exemption plate, but in the case of a cyclist only if there is a contra-flow cycle lane.

    The difference between the two signs is the new one is a no entry sign, the second is a no straigh ahead sign!

    GM228


  • #75
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    GM228 wrote: »
    That is correct, the new sign (known as RUS 050) can't have an exempt plate, the old sign (known as the RUS 011) can have an exemption plate, but in the case of a cyclist only if there is a contra-flow cycle lane.

    The difference between the two signs is the new one is a no entry sign, the second is a no straigh ahead sign!

    GM228

    So if the no-entry road marking is not required, what is your source for your claim that a cycle track is needed to pass a "no straight ahead" sign?


  • #76
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    /
    GM228 wrote: »
    In legislation.

    The various RTAs apply to cyclists in the exact same manner as a motorist, infact the term "driver" actually also refers to a cyclist and that is the legally implied term which can not be disputed or questioned, there is no exception to a cyclist unless specifically allowed for in legislation, so to say a cyclist can drive the wrong way up a one way street is wrong, no road user can (except emergency services), there are no exceptions in the law otherwise except that a cyclist can cycle contra-flow to traffic, but only in a contra-flow lane. Driving contra-flow or against traffic up a one way street is different to driviing contra-flow in a contra-flow lane.

    Yes there is an exception, in design: Provide a way around the no-entry markings and put an "except bicycles/cyclists" plate onto the old-style no-entry sign.

    GM228 wrote: »
    I have a consolidated version of the RTA 1961 including all amendments/revisions etc which is up to date as of August 2015 so bear with me whilst I find the specific act which included it, but it is there as follows:-

    "pedal cycles shall only be driven in a contra-flow direction on such track".

    That is pretty clear!

    GM228

    You're quoting S.I. No. 332/2012 out of context there. The line you quote "pedal cycles shall only be driven in a contra-flow direction on such track" relates to the mandatory use of cycle tracks where such tracks are provided -- it does not make the provision of such tracks mandatory and if such tracks are not provided, in any type of setting, people cycling can't be expected to use them.

    Nor does it or anything else require that that continuous lined cycle tracks are the only option for contra-flow streets.


  • #77
    trellheim
    Registered Users Posts: 5,855 ✭✭✭trellheim


    SI 332 of 2012 is the bad boy you are looking for

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


  • #78
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    So if the no-entry road marking is not required, what is your source for your claim that a cycle track is needed to pass a "no straight ahead" sign?
    monument wrote: »
    /
    You're quoting S.I. No. 332/2012 out of context there. The line you quote "pedal cycles shall only be driven in a contra-flow direction on such track" relates to the mandatory use of cycle tracks where such tracks are provided -- it does not make the provision of such tracks mandatory and if such tracks are not provided, in any type of setting, people cycling can't be expected to use them.

    Nor does it or anything else require that that continuous lined cycle tracks are the only option for contra-flow streets.

    I put away my consolidated act and will answer this based on the specific statutory instruments!

    They are mandatory and they do require a white line!

    In order for an except bicycles sign to be valid the bicycle must be passing the sign to enter a cycle track, it's there in black and white in legislation!

    As per SI 273/1998 (which made contra-flow cycling legal) Article 23 of the RTA 1961 is amended to read:-

    "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."

    Also a contra-flow cycle track does require a continuous white line as per SI 332/2012:-

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

    As I have stated a contra-flow cycle lane MUST be provided to make contra-flow cycling legal!

    GM228


  • #79
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    GM228 wrote: »
    They are mandatory and they do require a white line!

    In order for an except bicycles sign to be valid the bicycle must be passing the sign to enter a cycle track, it's there in black and white in legislation!

    As per SI 273/1998 (which made contra-flow cycling legal) Article 23 of the RTA 1961 is amended to read:-

    "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."

    Also a contra-flow cycle track does require a continuous white line as per SI 332/2012:-

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

    As I have stated a contra-flow cycle lane MUST be provided to make contra-flow cycling legal!

    GM228

    No you have only shown that a cycle track (of unspecified length) is required to enter a street where the no-entry road marking has been used. There is nothing that states that a cycle track is needed to proceed any further.

    So now, given that a no-entry road marking is not needed to close a road to entering traffic. please show us where it says that a cycle track is needed for a cyclist to pass a "no straight ahead" sign fitted with an exemption plate.


  • #80
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    No you have only shown that a cycle track (of unspecified length) is required to enter a street where the no-entry road marking has been used. There is nothing that states that a cycle track is needed to proceed any further.

    So now, given that a no-entry road marking is not needed to close a road to entering traffic. please show us where it says that a cycle track is needed for a cyclist to pass a "no straight ahead" sign fitted with an exemption plate.

    In the context of passing a "no straight ahead" sign when entering a one way street please re-read what I wrote as it also applies.

    Traffic sign RRM 019 is present on a one way street weather there is a RUS 011 OR RUS 050 sign!

    The RTA dosn't say a contra-flow bus lane has to be the full lenght of the road either, however the Department of Transport, Tourism and Science road signs manual shows both types as going the lenght of the road.

    Lets face it there has to be a provision of a cycle lane to enter a one way street (admittedly it dosn't specify for the entire street), otherwise it ain't legal-I think I've proved that!

    GM228


  • #81
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    GM228 wrote: »
    In the context of passing a "no straight ahead" sign when entering a one way street please re-read what I wrote as it also applies.

    Traffic sign RRM 019 is present on a one way street weather there is a RUS 011 OR RUS 050 sign!

    The RTA dosn't say a contra-flow bus lane has to be the full lenght of the road either, however the Department of Transport, Tourism and Science road signs manual shows both types as going the lenght of the road.

    Lets face it there has to be a provision of a cycle lane to enter a one way street (admittedly it dosn't specify for the entire street), otherwise it ain't legal-I think I've proved that!

    GM228

    Again you appear to be choosing to miss the point. I put it to you that there is nothing in law that prevents using the upright sign by itself along with an exemption plate. There is nothing in law that says that the no-entry road marking must be used to control the direction that certain types of traffic may use a particular street in.

    If you have a legal source for your claim then please produce it. The traffic signs manual is not a source of law.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    Again you appear to be choosing to miss the point. I put it to you that there is nothing in law that prevents using the upright sign by itself along with an exemption plate. There is nothing in law that says that the no-entry road marking must be used to control the direction that certain types of traffic may use a particular street in.

    If you have a legal source for your claim then please produce it. The traffic signs manual is not a source of law.

    I'm not choosing to miss the point, yes I agree there is nothing in law to prevent the use of the sign on its own, but in practice as per the manual roads are not marked that way therefore they are not legal, there is nothing in law requiring many signs but that does not take away from the fact that signage is done as per the manual which is based on the RTAs and are accepted standards/best practice for signage.

    Look at the contra-flow lanes DCC introduced in this:-

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

    They are not legal, contra-flow cycling is only legal when certain conditions are met and those roads don't meet the conditions, you can't disagree with that!

    GM228


  • #83
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    GM228 wrote: »
    "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."

    Yeah, that looks great but again amounts to selective quoting.

    RRM 019 (ie the no-entry road markings) does not and cannot apply where the road designer offers a bypass to the no-entry road markings. So anything in the provision you have quoted which relates to RRM 019 does not apply where there is no RRM 019 marked on the ground.

    So, something like this would work on a one-way street without a cycle lane the whole way along it:

    367872.JPG

    GM228 wrote: »
    Also a contra-flow cycle track does require a continuous white line as per SI 332/2012:-

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

    Ok, fair enough on that. You're right.

    GM228 wrote: »
    however the Department of Transport, Tourism and Science road signs manual shows both types as going the lenght of the road.

    The traffic signs manual does indeed do that. But the traffic signs manual (1) lists these as "examples", (2) only covers contra-flow cycle tracks, and (3) does not exclude the use of contra-flow cycling without lanes.

    GM228 wrote: »
    Lets face it there has to be a provision of a cycle lane to enter a one way street (admittedly it dosn't specify for the entire street), otherwise it ain't legal-I think I've proved that!

    You have not proved it.

    Sure it isn't provided for within the traffic signs manual but it isn't expressly forbidden in the manual or by law, indeed the workarounds seem to allowed. The Department should really catch up with Dublin City Council's positive experimentation and expressly show it in the traffic signs manual and even change an SI to dot the is and cross their Ts... on the other hand, if the Department of Transport thinks that Dublin City Council are breaking the law or a ministerial order, they should take it up with the council.


  • #84
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    GM228 wrote: »
    I'm not choosing to miss the point, yes I agree there is nothing in law to prevent the use of the sign on its own

    GM228

    Therefore to get back to the original question by the original poster, there is nothing in law that makes it inherently illegal to cycle both ways on a one way street.

    The issue is simply that Irish local council roads engineers personally choose to make it illegal even on minor streets or roads with schools (where children could be approaching school from any direction)


  • #85
    trellheim
    Registered Users Posts: 5,855 ✭✭✭trellheim


    Therefore to get back to the original question by the original poster, there is nothing in law that makes it inherently illegal to cycle both ways on a one way street.

    No no no you're not doing that. That is absolute BS. I've followed this and you have a bee in your bonnet about it. Signage and cycle lane contraflows aside for a moment

    a oneway street is one where the traffic all goes in the same direction. No more, no less. Get off your bike and stop acting the maggot. I am a commuting cyclist every day in Dublin and it is thick ideas like this that give cyclists a bad name.


  • #86
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    trellheim wrote: »
    No no no you're not doing that. That is absolute BS. I've followed this and you have a bee in your bonnet about it. Signage and cycle lane contraflows aside for a moment

    a oneway street is one where the traffic all goes in the same direction. No more, no less. Get off your bike and stop acting the maggot. I am a commuting cyclist every day in Dublin and it is thick ideas like this that give cyclists a bad name.

    Nevertheless it is Government policy which is why the law was changed. It was also one of the key recommendations for expanding the public bike schemes to other cities. If you are a cyclist and you disagree with two-way cycling then you are free not to do it.

    However it is widely recommended way of improving cycling conditions.

    Edit: But just to make sure we understand the blame game. It is the local council roads engineers who are "acting the maggot" as you put it. The cyclists are doing something perfectly normal and something that also has a good safety record.


  • #87
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    But just to make sure we understand the blame game. It is the local council roads engineers who are "acting the maggot" as you put it.

    I would certainly agree with that especially when you see roads done this non-legal way:-

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

    The problem with the above is although the signs allow the cyclist go the wrong way the cyclist could technically still be done for breaking the law (although I doubt ANY judge would deliver a conviction under the circumstances), and so your point above is correct, blame the engineers.

    GM228


  • #88
    trellheim
    Registered Users Posts: 5,855 ✭✭✭trellheim


    Let's check the stupid suggestions list here. Signage and contras aside :

    We have a poster suggesting the inane notion that cycling the wrong way up a oneway street is not illegal.

    Let's just look at that for a moment and eye it for the truly stupid notion it is.

    So : if I saw you in the bike lane in the north quays coming against me you'd be on the end of a fair few things, the least of which would be very harsh language. I can just imagine the bus drivers here .

    Don't you dare blame this on signage. This is clearly illegal and you'd be done.


  • #89
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    trellheim wrote: »
    Let's check the stupid suggestions list here. Signage and contras aside :

    We have a poster suggesting the inane notion that cycling the wrong way up a oneway street is not illegal.

    Let's just look at that for a moment and eye it for the truly stupid notion it is.

    So : if I saw you in the bike lane in the north quays coming against me you'd be on the end of a fair few things, the least of which would be very harsh language. I can just imagine the bus drivers here .

    Don't you dare blame this on signage. This is clearly illegal and you'd be done.

    Now you are trying to mix up cycling on the wrong side of the road with cycling in both directions on a road. They are not the same thing - is this an attempt to slip a straw man into the debate?

    Using roads in both directions is the natural state of affairs it is is the one-way street that is breaking with the usual.convention. Cycling from A to B by the shortest route is entirely normal, reasonable and expected behaviour.

    When someone tries to block normal, reasonable and expected behaviours for no good reason then they should not be surprised if compliance is low. If they want to blame someone for the low compliance then take a long hard look in the mirror.


  • #90
    dubscottie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 854 ✭✭✭dubscottie


    Can you cycle up a one way street.. Yes. as long as you are going the way the road markings and signs show.

    They are there. For all traffic including cyclists.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    dubscottie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 854 ✭✭✭dubscottie


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    Cycling from A to B by the shortest route is entirely normal, reasonable and expected behaviour.

    When someone tries to block normal, reasonable and expected behaviours for no good reason then they should not be surprised if compliance is low..

    So How many €40 fines have you got for breaking lights etc..

    Its not normal behavior. Its breaking the law.

    And please don't reply with the usual "but in Holland" thing..

    Aggressive drivers in the winter.. More like lack of lights on bikes..


Advertisement