Rules of the Road Updated! (nearly)

spuddy

Looks like the RotR will finally be updated, complete with references to DTT, NCT, metric speed limits, penalty points...

Rules of the Road - Revised Version - Post Public Consultation

23 October 2006

The Rules of the Road - Revised Version - Post Public Consultation has been sent to the Road Safety Authority for redesign and printing and is placed on the Department website pending completion of the process of publication.

Looks like it's still not quite finished but you can download a copy here:
http://www.transport.ie/upload/general/8342-0.pdf

(Apologies for not putting this in the sticky but I thought it might be missed)

Seth Brundle

There was a thread in Commuting / Transort recently on these
Rules of the Road - Revised Version - Post Public Consultation

Seth Brundle

I can't see anything about braking/stopping distances

colm_mcm

I see they've cleared up the roundabouts

Alun

The section on lighting is a bit wooly, and seems still to be advocating the use of sidelights (or parking lights as they're known in the rest of the world) in lit-up areas. Isn't it about time we got into line with the rest of Europe on this one, and stopped this?

colm_mcm

as in encourage daytime running lights?

Alun

colm_mcm wrote:

as in encourage daytime running lights?

Well, in most of the rest of Europe driving on sidelights / parking lights at night is expressly forbidden. I personally think they're a complete waste of time in any weather conditions and should only be used for what they're intended for, i.e. parking at night. DRL's are a different issue altogether.

Note that proper DRL's are not the same as sidelights or dipped headlights, but are something in between.

colm_mcm

I know that. but you can't just tell people that they're not allowed to leave their parking lights on. that's just silly. What's wrong with having them on?

Alun

colm_mcm wrote:

I know that. but you can't just tell people that they're not allowed to leave their parking lights on. that's just silly. What's wrong with having them on?

Where did I say that? What I said is that IMO parking lights are for putting on when parking i.e. stationary, not for driving with, for which purpose they are next to useless. That section in the ROTR is one of the woolliest pieces of prose I've seen in a long, long time. Not that 95% of Irish drivers seem to take notice of it anyway judging by the almost random combinations of sidelights, headlights and foglights most cars are adorned with when it starts to get dark.

faceman

When it says in the RotR something like this for example:

"Cyclists, in particular, depend on their hearing whilst on the road and should not use personal entertainment systems."

Does this mean its an offence or is it more a recommendation?

TempestSabre

colm_mcm wrote:

I know that. but you can't just tell people that they're not allowed to leave their parking lights on. that's just silly. What's wrong with having them on?

On a dark night I've mistaken a car with parking lights, being a car with dims but far away, and have been about to make a right turn or overtake, but something odd about the lights has always made me wait.

colm_mcm

Alun wrote:

Where did I say that? What I said is that IMO parking lights are for putting on when parking i.e. stationary, not for driving with, for which purpose they are next to useless. That section in the ROTR is one of the woolliest pieces of prose I've seen in a long, long time. Not that 95% of Irish drivers seem to take notice of it anyway judging by the almost random combinations of sidelights, headlights and foglights most cars are adorned with when it starts to get dark.

YOu should they should discourage the use of parking lights, maybe you meant they should encourage the use of headlights?

AndrewMc

Hmm. Was just looking at the roundabouts section. While it's fairly unambigious compared to earlier, it does (in certain circumstances) contradict the previous rules. Specifically, in the case of a roundabout where there are only two exits (other than the road you're on). Taking the second exit in the old rules was "do not signal until you have passed the first exit, then signal a left turn and leave at the next exit". In the new version, the second exit seems to come under the "last exit" heading, in which you indicate right until past the penultimate exit.

Not that it'll make any difference, anyway. To be honest I wouldn't care how people indicated, if they could just reliably indicate left before turning off...

Alun

colm_mcm wrote:

YOu should they should discourage the use of parking lights, maybe you meant they should encourage the use of headlights?

Stop being pedantic, you know what I mean.

zilog_jones

They need to discuss what the different light symbols inside a car mean - I have come to the conculsion most people don't know what is what, especially regarding fog lights. I have spoken to people who think parking lights are fog lights, and even people who think full beams are fog lights! Madness.

AFAIK the symbols are standardised.

Bunnyhopper

faceman wrote:

When it says in the RotR something like this for example:

"Cyclists, in particular, depend on their hearing whilst on the road and should not use personal entertainment systems."

Does this mean its an offence or is it more a recommendation?

Sounds like a recommendation to me.

I haven't had a chance to look over this revised version, but I do hope they've made clearer the distinction between recommendations and requirements. The Highway Code in the UK (where I learnt to drive) explicitly distinguishes legal requirements by using the words MUST or MUST NOT (in capitals and in red), and gives a reference to the relevant legislation.

I also hope the whole thing has been strengthened with respect to cyclists. I cycle a lot and the behaviour of cyclists themselves, and of other road users towards cyclists, is often pretty poor. The last draft of this was quite weak on cycling and needed a lot of improvement.

EDIT: This is a quotation from page 40: "When a cyclist is using a cycle track that has a broken white line on the right-hand side he or she is not required to stay in the cycle track if they intend to change direction and has indicated that intention..." I think they need help with their grammar, never mind anything else.

blorg

Bunnyhopper wrote:

Sounds like a recommendation to me.

I haven't had a chance to look over this revised version, but I do hope they've made clearer the distinction between recommendations and requirements. The Highway Code in the UK (where I learnt to drive) explicitly distinguishes legal requirements by using the words MUST or MUST NOT (in capitals and in red), and gives a reference to the relevant legislation.

Should is "best practice advice on road user behaviour where no specific legal requirement is in place." Must is "detailing the prohibitions and demands of road traffic law." (From the Introduction.) Most notably from a cycling perspective "should use cycle lane" has now become "must use cycle lane" where one is provided (irrespective of safety.) Of course this has been law for many years it is just that the RoR was massively outdated.

cyclopath2001

blorg wrote:

[Most notably from a cycling perspective "should use cycle lane" has now become "must use cycle lane" where one is provided (irrespective of safety.) Of course this has been law for many years it is just that the RoR was massively outdated.

It would be nice if the people who wrote the new rules were actually familiar with the law.

Under the present law, cyclists cannot be compelled to use footpaths unless a separate area for them has been marked on it, the correct surface markings (RUS023) are present and the cycle track is preceded by road sign RUS009

The current draft of ROTR shows a sign that is not legally specified prescribed (showing a bicycle and pedestrians). The ROTR itself does not distinguish between these legally-specified cycle tracks and other kinds of cycle 'facility' constructed on an informal basis by the various councils.

blorg

I see that it shows a sign for what it calls "Shared Cycle/Pedestrian Track" but right beside that it has the legal sign for "Start of Cycle Track." And it does actually only say "a pedal cyclist must use a cycle track where one is provided", not "a pedal cyclist must use a shared cycle/pedestrian track where one is provided."

There are several bus lanes that continue to have the combined bus and cycle sign while there is also a shared cycle/pedestrian track, so I presume the cyclist has an option in these cases (although bus drivers may disagree.)

Anyway the rules of the road are NOT an interpretation of the legislation as they state in bold in the introduction, they are merely "detailing the prohibitions and demands of road traffic law." (Previous sentence!!?!?)

cyclopath2001

blorg wrote:

Anyway the rules of the road are NOT an interpretation of the legislation as they state in bold in the introduction, they are merely "detailing the prohibitions and demands of road traffic law." (Previous sentence!!?!?)

The sign illustrated beside the illustration of RUS009 is not part of road-traffic law, so why include it at all?

There is no such entity under law as a 'shared cycle/pedestrian track', only 'cycle tracks' which may be located on a part of a footway, intended primarily for the use of cyclists.

I think that the section on cycle tracks is not a good explanation of the law and may confuse cyclists into thinking that they're obliged to cycle on an informal, 'shared' path.