A victory for common sense

Itsfixed

UK cyclists have won the right to choose whether they use cycle lanes or the road in the new Highway code.

I'd love to see some clarification of the law here in this regard.

From Bikeradar.com today:

Cyclists in the UK have won an important victory in their fight for equal rights to the road.

The increase in the number of dedicated cycle routes in the country has seen the emergence of an attitude that cyclists shouldn't be on main roads at all. After the Government announced plans to revise the Highway Code, which governs road use in the country, campaigners seized the chance to get the issue cleared up once and for all.

The new Highway Code now makes it clear that cyclists do not have to use specially marked routes or advance stop lines and should use their own judgement rather than slavishly sticking to "their" paths.

There are many reasons why many experienced cyclists steer clear of cycle paths. Some routes stop and start erratically, which can put cyclists in danger. They can also force cyclists to share a dedicated section of the road with buses, and taxis, not always natural bedfellows. Cycle routes can also be poorly maintained, and in far worse condition than the highway. Not only does this make for an uncomfortable ride, but it also makes the surface completely unsuitable for high spec road bikes.

The CTC, the UK's largest cycling organisation, which campaigned for the extra wording, announced the victory on its website, saying, "We had to battle the well meaning but flawed perspective that comes from local as well as national government that cycle facilities are essentially safety features.

"The concept that experienced cyclists regard the road as the safest place to be was counter-intuitive to some officials and Ministers. The wording now makes it clear beyond all doubt that cyclists are not obliged to use cycle facilities where it would be unsafe to do so. This is highly significant and very welcome."

The new Highway Code now states: "Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe to do so.

"When using a cycle lane, keep within the lane when practicable. Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer."

The UK is not the only country where cyclists have been bullied off the road in the past. In the United States there have been reports of motorists shouting at cyclists to get off the highway - because they don't know they're allowed on it.

Membrane

Itsfixed wrote:

The new Highway Code now states: "Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe to do so.

"When using a cycle lane, keep within the lane when practicable. Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer."

That wording could give rise to claims of contributory negligence. There was considerable protest against the use of the phrase "unless at the time it is unsafe to do so", and afaik that fight hasn't been abandoned yet. Cyclists should have the right to use the road period.

blorg

Unfortunately while there is a legal right in the UK not to use cycle facilities in Ireland they are compulsory. Ultimately the Highway Code/Rules of the Road are merely a presentation of the underlying legislation.

DirkVoodoo

Twud be great if we had the same over here, not only are a lot of cycle lanes in terrible condition and littered with glass swept off the roads or more recently for me on the N11, debris from building sites, but people continue to use them as parking spaces or "set down points".

rp

blorg wrote:

Unfortunately while there is a legal right in the UK not to use cycle facilities in Ireland they are compulsory. Ultimately the Highway Code/Rules of the Road are merely a presentation of the underlying legislation.

I think this has been covered in detail in another thread, but there is also a rule that, as a road user, you must not do anything to endanger yourself or others, so it boils down to the same thing: if you ride that cycle path with the schoolkids, grannys, pram-pushing parents on it, you are endangering them so you are breaking the law. If you ride on a cycle path with broken glass or potholes, you are in danger of loosing control and falling into traffic - illegal.
Everytime you change lanes or cross a junction you increase your likelyhood of having an accident dramatically, so those cycle paths which require you to give way to side roads, private driveways are lethal.
There are numerous studies that show that accident rates are higher on cycle paths than roads, so I'm surprised more people haven't been prosecuted for riding on cycle paths.

DITTKD

rp wrote:

I think this has been covered in detail in another thread, but there is also a rule that, as a road user, you must not do anything to endanger yourself or others,

I spent the last few minutes looking for that thread but I can't find it.

I need to know the number of the article and the name of the act that says this.
I need to know this so I can quote it to stupid pricks on motorbikes.

rp

DITTKD wrote:

I spent the last few minutes looking for that thread but I can't find it.

I need to know the number of the article and the name of the act that says this.
I need to know this so I can quote it to stupid pricks on motorbikes.

I read it in this very well presented message from Robfitz:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055138568&page=2
Common sense, really.

DITTKD

*bookmarks page.



Cheers

Membrane

rp wrote:

there is also a rule that, as a road user, you must not do anything to endanger yourself or others

Any judge will laugh you out of court if you tried that line of defence.

Use of a cycle path that for example is covered in glass, full of potholes and which at its end feeds you back into traffic at a 90 degree angle does in itself not result in danger. Danger will only result if a cyclist fails to adjust his speed and actions to those conditions.

rp

Membrane wrote:

Any judge will laugh you out of court if you tried that line of defence.

In a recent, similar case in the UK the judge did in fact laugh Daniel Cadden out of court, as you say. The judge ruled that he should have used a cyclepath rather than 'forcing' motorists to illegally overtake him. Daniel Cadden had the last laugh, as he won on appeal.

Ghost Rider

That must have been one of the few times anyone laughed themselves back into court.

rp wrote:

In a recent, similar case in the UK the judge did in fact laugh Daniel Cadden out of court, as you say. The judge ruled that he should have used a cyclepath rather than 'forcing' motorists to illegally overtake him. Daniel Cadden had the last laugh, as he won on appeal.

blorg

rp wrote:

In a recent, similar case in the UK the judge did in fact laugh Daniel Cadden out of court, as you say. The judge ruled that he should have used a cyclepath rather than 'forcing' motorists to illegally overtake him. Daniel Cadden had the last laugh, as he won on appeal.

The key difference there, though, and why he won on appeal, is there is no legal obligation on cyclists to use cyclepaths in the UK. There _is_ such a legal obligation in Ireland, cyclists have no legal right to be on the road if there is a cycle path (irrespective of its condition.)

DITTKD

Ghost Rider wrote:

That must have been one of the few times anyone laughed themselves back into court.

zorkmundsson

blorg wrote:

The key difference there, though, and why he won on appeal, is there is no legal obligation on cyclists to use cyclepaths in the UK. There _is_ such a legal obligation in Ireland, cyclists have no legal right to be on the road if there is a cycle path (irrespective of its condition.)

i actually did not know this. very odd.

SerialComplaint

Membrane wrote:

Use of a cycle path that for example is covered in glass, full of potholes and which at its end feeds you back into traffic at a 90 degree angle does in itself not result in danger. Danger will only result if a cyclist fails to adjust his speed and actions to those conditions.

What about 'Road to Nowhere' cycle paths - see attached pictures of the newly marked cycle line on the west side of Wyckham bypass, heading north towards Dundrum centre. The cycle lane ends in the grass verge, with no dropped kerbs to get back onto the road and no signage.

cyclopath2001

SerialComplaint wrote:

What about 'Road to Nowhere' cycle paths - see attached pictures of the newly marked cycle line on the west side of Wyckham bypass, heading north towards Dundrum centre. The cycle lane ends in the grass verge, with no dropped kerbs to get back onto the road and no signage.

The addition of a lamppost at the end is a nice touch, real 'Laurel & Hardy stuff. I've seen that idea at a few locations, including Clare Hall. Its shows that the council have a sense of humour.

But seriously, unless that cycle track is preceded by road sign RUS009 or RUS009a, it's arguable that it's not a cycle track within the meaning of the regulations.

Most of the on-footpath 'cycle tracks' are preceded by a British designed road sign showing a bicycle and two pedestrians on a blue background. That sign has no legal standing here.

Membrane

SerialComplaint wrote:

What about 'Road to Nowhere' cycle paths

They are ludricous, infuriating, uselless etc, but not inherently dangerous. Normal forward observation suffices to warn you of suddenly ending paths, and getting off your bike allows a safe transition. No sane cyclist would do that ofcourse.

A "you must not do anything to endanger yourself or others" rule IMO cannot be used to nullify the rule that the use of certain cycle paths is mandatory here.

niceonetom

[RANT]

does anyone know what the law is as regards pedestrians in cycle-paths? i ask because i regularly commute down the main road of the phoenix park (chesterfield ave. it's actually called) and that can be bloody terrifying after dark (which commuting times will soon be). if you know the park, then you know that the gas lighting is purely ornamental and in no way intended to provide illumination. joggers, dog-walkers and women-with-buggies stride down the middle of the cycle-lanes, sometimes three-abreast, on both sides of the road, dressed in black, and with the ipod on they are both invisible and deaf. i am not invisible, i have lights, so i can be seen coming, but only if they're looking, which they're not. it's like russian roulette.

now after one too many close calls with these eejits i usually start shouting "get out of my cycle lane, for the love of all that is sweet and holy get out!!!!!! aaaaahhhhhhhh!!!!!!! USE.... THE... F**KING... FOOT... PATH..." and threatening that next time i won't take to the grass to get around them i'll plow right through them (buggies and all) and see who comes of worse. this inevitably starts an argument, which goes along the lines of "this isn't a cycle-lane. it's for everybody." or their too scared to run on the footpath because it's too dark ever there (it is very dark in fairness). if i hit one of these feckers (and if i do it will be by accident because i am not a psycho and do fear pain) could i be held to be in the wrong? am i justified in my near nightly shouting-matches with joggers?

i hate to perpetuate the stereotype of the angry cyclist but that's what this makes me. it's a sad situation when i am glad to escape from a lovely park with dedicated cycle-lane segregated from traffic, onto the quays because it's safer.

[/RANT]

Raam

I wonder if it would be better if they swapped the footpath and cyclepath in the Phoenix Park?

Do more people walk on the cycle track than the path?

DITTKD

Pheonix Park’s come up here before with lot’s of people ranting.
So I went down there one day, and while there I decided to take a look at the cycle track.

IMO, pedestrians can’t be blamed for walking on that track. It’s a silly design. (Well actually it makes perfect sense, but this city isn’t ready for that sort of thinking).
People will walk on that cycle track, almost instinctively. It looks and feels like a footpath. The actual footpath is totally unsuited to walking at night anyway.

If I were to be cycling round that way I’d stick to the road.

Ghost Rider

I've had numerous problems with iPodestrians in the Park before. IMO, the issue is the signage i.e. there is not enough of it. There are only one or two signposts and far too few markings on the lane itself, of which many are faded and need repainting anyway.

I imagine a faded road marking could leave a pedestrian with the impression (rational or not) that "this used to be a bike lane (but now anyone can use it)".

DITTKD wrote:

Pheonix Park’s come up here before with lot’s of people ranting.
So I went down there one day, and while there I decided to take a look at the cycle track.

IMO, pedestrians can’t be blamed for walking on that track. It’s a silly design. (Well actually it makes perfect sense, but this city isn’t ready for that sort of thinking).
People will walk on that cycle track, almost instinctively. It looks and feels like a footpath. The actual footpath is totally unsuited to walking at night anyway.

If I were to be cycling round that way I’d stick to the road.

niceonetom

i'm not surprised this has come up before. i'm new here so forgive me if i'm repeating previous postings.

Ghost Rider wrote:

I've had numerous problems with iPodestrians in the Park before. IMO, the issue is the signage i.e. there is not enough of it. There are only one or two signposts and far too few markings on the lane itself, of which many are faded and need repainting anyway.

I imagine a faded road marking could leave a pedestrian with the impression (rational or not) that "this used to be a bike lane (but now anyone can use it)".

well it seems i'd be breaking the law if i used the road, right? pedestrians may not recognise the cycle lane but i'm guessing a lot of drivers do, and do not expect to see cyclists in the road. plus if i get hit there i am automatically legally in the wrong, no?

signage is an issue, and i don't think it's enough to just have cycle lane signs as most pedestrians don't understand that this means NO WALKING HERE. perhaps what is needed is a sign that says just that. as for swapping the cycle and footpath lanes,well, i think people are confused enough as it is.

i'd rather hit a pedestrian and be in the in the right than be hit by a car and be in the wrong.

cyclopath2001

niceonetom wrote:

does anyone know what the law is as regards pedestrians in cycle-paths?

There is no explicit prohibition on pedestrians walking in cycletracks but these regulations (from SI182/1997) are relevant:

46.
(1)A pedestrian shall exercise care and take all reasonable precautions in order to avoid causing danger or inconvenience to traffic and other pedestrians.

(4)Subject to sub-article (5), save when crossing the roadway, a pedestrian shall use a footway if one is provided, and if one is not provided, shall keep as near as possible to the right edge of the roadway.

So, unless there's nowhere else to walk and unless they're crossing, they're required to stay off cycle tracks. It's not clear if a cycle track qualifies as 'roadway' when there is no footway provided.

BUT: The Phoenix Park has its own bye-laws which may over-ride the general regulations.

AND: Do bear in mind that many on-footway cycle facilities are of dubious legality. The councils are cleverly avoiding using the legally specified signs and markings so as to throw up a convenient smokescreen of ambiguity around these so-called cycling facilities.

I recall some years ago a city council official telling me that cyclists had to give way to pedestrians at all times. That's tosh, pedestrians have to to play 'nice', the regulations say so. It doesn't matter if a footpath and cycle track are not segregated. If a cyclist is allowed to cycle on a footway, pedestrians are required to behave considerately, pay attention and leave room for others (that includes cyclists). Cyclists are only required to give way when a pedestrian is crossing. Even then, a pedestrian is supposed to do this in a considerate manner, i.e. by looking properly and and by taking the shortest reasonable route.

All of this said, be pragmatic. Arguing this stuff in court is unlikely to be fun or profitable.