psychle paths general question

morninwood

hi all,

not being from this country i am wondering what these 'mandatory' cycle paths are all about and how can i spot them?
in general i ignore cycle paths and use the road as the paths are just useless, full of pot holes, dirty ....... you know it yourself.
when are cycle paths mandatory? is there a sign that tells me when they are?
plus, i thought bus lanes are always open to cyclists (like in my native germany) hence i use them without fail. how do i spot bus only lanes?

lots of questions i know but i am sure you guys will have all the answers.

cheers,
dan

BeerNut

morninwood wrote: »

when are cycle paths mandatory?

It is manadatory for cyclists to use all cycle paths when they exist. To exist they must have a sign saying they are a cycle path and what hours they exist for. No sign, no cyclepath, regardless of road markings.

A mandatory cycle track has a solid line -- cars may not use these. Non-mandatory have a dotted line and cars may use these, but must give way to cycles in them. Both types are mandatory for cyclists to use. For now.

morninwood wrote: »

i thought bus lanes are always open to cyclists

Only when they follow the direction of traffic. Contra-flow buss lanes are bus-only.

tomasrojo

I think they have to have this sign in order for them to be mandatory for cyclists:



The Department of Transport has said that it'll scrap the mandatory-use regulation this year. Running out of year though.

Chips Lovell

S.I. No. 274/1998: ROAD TRAFFIC (TRAFFIC AND PARKING) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 1998
"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.

RUS009 is this



RUS009A is this:



If a lane doesn't have the signs and road markings, then it isn't a cycle lane as defined by law.

Having said that, it would take some very zealous law enforcement to prosecute someone for contravening a law the government says it is about to repeal.

tomasrojo

BeerNut wrote: »

It is manadatory for cyclists to use all cycle paths when they exist. To exist they must have a sign saying they are a cycle path and what hours they exist for. No sign, no cyclepath, regardless of road markings.

I think the sign has to say it's a "cycle track" rather than cycle path or cycle lane. Bizarre use of that term that's unique to Ireland; I believe that cycle lane is more commonly used for on-road facilities and cycle track for off-road facilities. But not here.

tomasrojo

RUS009A is quite a funny sign, because it's using the convention for "No ..." (a red circle around a prohibited object or practice).



(You can see a cycling prohibited sign in there, and it's the same as RUS009A.)

So it seems to be saying "No bicycles allowed on the cycle track".

Chips Lovell

tomasrojo wrote: »

RUS009A is quite a funny sign, because it's using the convention for "No ..." (a red circle around a prohibited object or practice).

It seems to be very rarely used, at least in Dublin, possibly for that reason.

droidus

tomasrojo wrote: »

RUS009A is quite a funny sign, because it's using the convention for "No ..." (a red circle around a prohibited object or practice).

The red border/black text indicates 'regulatory' signs, which means they must be obeyed, as opposed to warning signs or information signs - they arent simply 'no' or negative signs (speed limits for example).

Confusingly enough the blue cycle track signs are also regulatory signs, so those two signs mean exactly the same things apparently.

http://www.drivingschoolireland.com/regulatory-signs.html#1

BeerNut

tomasrojo wrote: »

I think the sign has to say it's a "cycle track" rather than cycle path or cycle lane.

I'm still right: it has to have a sign that says it's a cycle path. You are correct in your assertion that the legend on the sign saying it's a cycle path must read "cycle track".
/pedants' corner

Chips Lovell

Interestingly, only chapter 8 of the Dept of Transport's Traffic Signs Manual is available online. They don't make things easy.

tomasrojo

True, and a red diagonal stripe usually is added to make sure that the "No ..." context is clear.

What does this sign mean?


It's "No Motor Vehicles Allowed", I think, isn't it?

droidus

tomasrojo wrote: »

True, and a red diagonal stripe usually is added to make sure that the "No ..." context is clear.

What does this sign mean?


It's "No Motor Vehicles Allowed", I think, isn't it?

No motorbike stunts?

tomasrojo

droidus wrote: »

No motorbike stunts?

Someone said something similar to me in school. I half-believed it for a while.

tomasrojo

BeerNut wrote: »

I'm still right: it has to have a sign that says it's a cycle path. You are correct in your assertion that the legend on the sign saying it's a cycle path must read "cycle track".
/pedants' corner

I think I have seen "Cycle Lane" painted on the road though. It has no legal meaning.

monument

As far as I can make out, these following signs are not legal, and the only bus-only sign that should be used is a contra-flow bus lane. So, bus drives are wrong when beeping or taxi drivers etc shouting "use the bus lane".

monument

el tonto wrote: »

It seems to be very rarely used, at least in Dublin, possibly for that reason.

The one with the red circle is the original sign (as used on the first cycle track in Dublin outside the Four Courts), while the blue one is a newer version with Irish.

tomasrojo

monument wrote: »

So, bus drives are wrong when beeping or taxi drivers etc shouting "use the bus lane".

I guess you mean "use the cycle lane" here? Yeah, what a mess of non-standard signage that is.

tomasrojo

monument wrote: »

The one with the red circle is the original sign (as used on the first cycle track in Dublin outside the Four Courts), while the blue one is a newer version with Irish.

Interesting! Didn't know that that's where the first one was.

Golfanatic

there generally red and yes your able to go in the bus lanes but beware of taxis! and generally theres a bike picture on it.

tomasrojo

Golfanatic wrote: »

there generally red and yes your able to go in the bus lanes but beware of taxis! and generally theres a bike picture on it.

Hi @Golfanatic. The impression I got was that the OP wanted to know about cycle lanes he _has_ to use, rather than lanes painted on the road. He'd have been free to use that bit of the road before they painted it red.

Golfanatic

oh yes sorry abouth that i kind of forget the question as i was reading through it thanks.

monument

tomasrojo wrote: »

I guess you mean "use the cycle lane" here?

Yes

concussion

The worst psychle paths are the ones which share space with the footpad.

(Sorry OP, couldn't resist :P )

Thomas_S_Hunterson

monument wrote: »

As far as I can make out, these following signs are not legal, and the only bus-only sign that should be used is a contra-flow bus lane. So, bus drives are wrong when beeping or taxi drivers etc shouting "use the bus lane".

I wonder if it could be argued, given that the signs are not legal, that the cycle-path is technically still a foot-path and thus verboten for cyclists.

tomasrojo

concussion wrote: »

The worst psychle paths are the ones which share space with the footpad.

(Sorry OP, couldn't resist :P )

I thought that was deliberate.

A portmanteau term for "psychotic cycle lanes"

tomasrojo

Sean_K wrote: »

I wonder if it could be argued, given that the signs are not legal, that the cycle-path is technically still a foot-path and thus verboten for cyclists.

I guess we'll never know, unless someone is brought to court for using it or not using it. Since no-one has ever been brought to court for not using a cycle track, and the mandatory use is probably soon to be rescinded, it seems unlikely we're ever going to test this in court.

tomasrojo

It is hard to imagine anyone being prosecuted for using a cycle facility provided by a local authority or council, even with incorrect signage.

Blowfish

Sean_K wrote: »

I wonder if it could be argued, given that the signs are not legal, that the cycle-path is technically still a foot-path and thus verboten for cyclists.

Yep, following the law to it's letter, it'd definitely be the case. The North Quay's heading towards town is exactly the same, the bit thats supposed to be a cycle track is technically illegal to cycle on.

morninwood

tomasrojo wrote: »

I thought that was deliberate.

A portmanteau term for "psychotic cycle lanes"

Hits the nail on the head.

morninwood

Thanks for all the useful information. Makes things a lot clearer now (well as clear as Irish Rules of the Road and their putting into practice can be).

rubadub

BeerNut wrote: »

I'm still right: it has to have a sign that says it's a cycle path. You are correct in your assertion that the legend on the sign saying it's a cycle path must read "cycle track".
/pedants' corner

I think he was being seemingly pedantic to point out there are 2 "cyclepaths", cycletracks and cycleways. Interestingly it seems pedestrians are allowed walk on some cycleways.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1993/en/act/pub/0014/print.html

68.—(1) In this section "cycleway" means a public road or proposed public road reserved for the exclusive use of pedal cyclists or pedal cyclists and pedestrians.

( 2 ) ( a ) A road authority may construct (or otherwise provide) and maintain a cycleway.

( b ) Where a road authority constructs or otherwise provides a cycleway it shall by order declare either—

(i) that the cycleway is for the exclusive use of pedal cyclists, or

(ii) that the cycleway is for the exclusive use of pedal cyclists and pedestrians.

( c ) Any person who uses a cycleway in contravention of an order under paragraph (b) shall be guilty of an offence.

Of course many seem to think they are legally obliged to walk on cycletracks, 2 abreast of course, and walking with the flow of bikes.

tomasrojo

I guess it might seem pedantic, but the point I was making that the law that mandates the use of cycle facilities specifically mentions those signs that el tonto posted. If one of those signs isn't there, then it's not a "cycle track", as described in the statutory instrument (273/1998, I think), and therefore not mandatory.

You can with a clear legal conscience eschew much of the cycle facilities in the city because they have the wrong signage.

blorg

rubadub wrote: »

I think he was being seemingly pedantic to point out there are 2 "cyclepaths", cycletracks and cycleways. Interestingly it seems pedestrians are allowed walk on some cycleways.

That's a shared use path, indeed for use by both cyclists and pedestrians. Generally a bad idea IMHO although I could see the use for the likes of kids if there was relatively low foot and cycle traffic. As tomasrojo says, it is not a "cycle track" and thus not mandatory.