Cycle lanes and the law

k123456

Cycle lanes and the law

Q1. Just a quick thought, what are the implications in an accident (if any) of not using a cycling lane where one is provided, example the one at Clontarf, if you choose to cycle on road which runs parralell and are involved in a road accident.



Q2...If a cyclist crashes into a pedestrian on cycle lane and either the pedestrian, cyclist or both are injured, can you argue that the pedistrian should not have been on lane

What brought these questions to mind ;

Was on cycle lane Clontarf, the lane which is not shared with pedistrains, near Dublin bus depot. In the cycle lane, a woman walking with pram and toddler walking alongside her, just before I pass , toddler runs out in front of me, slammed on, no one hurt. Imagine the cyclist (me) or toddler had be injuired , who is at fault ?

blorg

If you could reasonably have stopped you would be at fault. If you could NOT have reasonably stopped you would not be at fault. You would probably be expected to be going slower and anticipate danger seeing a woman with a toddler walking beside her ahead.

DirkVoodoo

I don't use most cycle lanes because they are either:

(a) Covered in smashed bottles (really bad recently and they don't seem to be spending money on street sweeping).

(b) pedestrians walk in them and don't move out of them, despite the giant bike road markings.

(c) They are used as loading bays and taxi stops.

The roads are a much safer place to be.

levitronix

The road is by far the safer place to be, two weeks ago on the N4 on my way to work i had to slam on the breaks with one hand on someones bonnet, thought i was dead ! She pulled out onto the cycle lane for a better look at the traffic before trying to turn left onto the road not seeing me , i ranted and roared at her for a bit and she repeated "i said sorry what do you want me to do "

I think the more important thing to worry about is not getting hurt wheither or not its your fault or someone elses, last year i got knocked off in blessington the week before a key race ! The more you cycle the more at risk you become.

k123456

I agree is getting more dangerous.

Havent cycled in a few years returning to it now

seems drivers more aggressive and roads in worse nick, have bought a helmet and will be servicing my brakes !!

The best example of a waste of taxpayers money is

cycle lane approx 300-400 long between Portmarnock and Malahide, hardly worth joining, wonder how much it cost to make

Raam

k123456 wrote: »

The best example of a waste of taxpayers money is
cycle lane approx 300-400 long between Portmarnock and Malahide, hardly worth joining, wonder how much it cost to make

My mum once asked me why some cyclist she saw wouldn't even use that perfectly good cycle lane. I reckon she won't ask that question ever again.

In other news, I may have had my inheritance cut.

cdaly_

k123456 wrote: »

Cycle lanes and the law

Q1. Just a quick thought, what are the implications in an accident (if any) of not using a cycling lane where one is provided, example the one at Clontarf, if you choose to cycle on road which runs parralell and are involved in a road accident.

Cycle lanes/tracks are now optional so no problem there.

Was on cycle lane Clontarf, the lane which is not shared with pedistrains, near Dublin bus depot. In the cycle lane, a woman walking with pram and toddler walking alongside her, just before I pass , toddler runs out in front of me, slammed on, no one hurt. Imagine the cyclist (me) or toddler had be injuired , who is at fault ?

Pretty much no question there. You have a duty of care to them even though they are not supposed to be in the cycle lane.

OTOH, you're quite within your rights to yell a warning (in whatever form of language you choose)...

Had a fun one the other day where a jogger on the cycle track became increasingly angry at being yelled at by a succession of cyclists who had to dodge him...

coolbeans

cdaly_ wrote: »

Cycle lanes/tracks are now optional so no problem there.

Are you sure that's true? I don't think it's been implemented yet. Please say it is though...please:o

Doctor Bob

I was just going to say the same thing...

Pretty sure the legislation is being examined, but no change has yet been implemented.

coolbeans

bollox! ****itty bollocks! I'm sick to death of the Aircoach drivers trying to teach me a lesson on the N11 and can't wait for the day they repeal the ridiculous mandatory use requirement so I can inform a driver that they are in actual fact dead wrong.

blorg

coolbeans wrote: »

bollox! ****itty bollocks! I'm sick to death of the Aircoach drivers trying to teach me a lesson on the N11 and can't wait for the day they repeal the ridiculous mandatory use requirement so I can inform a driver that they are in actual fact dead wrong.

Do you think the legal situation will make any difference whatsoever to your being dead or alive? I will continue to avoid Aircoach drivers for my own safety... some, by no means all, are homicidal.

The bike track leglality thing will change my behaviour not one jot, I will continue to cycle on safe lanes in appropriate situations and will not cycle on unsafe lanes. The only thing that changes is that I magically transform from a lawbreaker to an upstanding member of the public...

coolbeans

blorg wrote: »

Do you think the legal situation will make any difference whatsoever to your being dead or alive? I will continue to avoid Aircoach drivers for my own safety... some, by no means all, are homicidal.

The bike track leglality thing will change my behaviour not one jot, I will continue to cycle on safe lanes in appropriate situations and will not cycle on unsafe lanes. The only thing that changes is that I magically transform from a lawbreaker to an upstanding member of the public...

No of course not. I take the same approach to cycle lanes as you do. I just want to be able to pontificate from on high to these drivers and if necessary report them to their bosses. Being legally in the right will change their behaviour if their bosses give them a warning. They won't get a warning though until the law is changed and we as cyclists can prove that what we are doing is all above board.

sideshowbob23

i find a good holler brings most pedzombies to there senses, (but then again i look relatively scary tearin around town on a mountain bike) at the same time takin a dominant position on the road ( which is not hard lets be honest, we're way more mavueverable than a car) and a determined eye contact when possible can also wake up some of the metal coffin zombies. Always remember they dont own the road and ride like you do. This is not an angry rant I don't mean to offend here. just stand up for cyclists.

k123456

coolbeans wrote: »

can't wait for the day they repeal the ridiculous mandatory use requirement so I can inform a driver that they are in actual fact dead wrong.

is there a mandatory use requirement for cyclists to use the lanes, can anyone confirm, please

If that is the case I could see an insurance company refusing to pay out, where for example a cyclist is knocked off bike and injuired by a car, when NOT using a lane, where one is provided

SerialComplaint

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

(b) pedestrians walk in them and don't move out of them, despite the giant bike road markings.

How did you recognise Giant from that simple outline?

I had fun with a blonde female jogger (hint: runners HATE being called joggers) in the cycle path along Grange Road, beside Marley Park. She was all iPodded up, so she didn't hear me until I got right beside and let a roar. This very respectable twenty-something local South Dublin girl then turned into a potty-mouthed fishwife swearing at me for cycling on the path, and didn't seem to quite understand what the bike logos meant.

SleepDoc

Cycling though the Phoenix Park at the weekend I asked a group (mother, father, pram) why when there were hundreds of acres they chose to walk with their backs to oncoming cyclists in the cycle lane. Their reply leaves me with a sinking feeling as to what their child's first words will be.

scholesy

The vast majority of cycle lanes are full of debris,smashed glass etc.I live in D.15 and when i cycle to work the amount of people..(school teenagers) etc. who just walk in the cycle lane would turn you off using them completelely.The lanes themselves are generally far too short and you end up coming back onto the main roads.. I think the roads themselves are far safer.. However,sometimes irritated motorists stuck in traffic would do their best to 'corner you in' so narrow that you cant pass..I'd say the vast majority of these losers have never put their sedentary arses on a saddle in their lives. Car roofs and bonnets have been known to be slapped on the Ongar road.. Beware!

Lumen

SleepDoc wrote: »

Cycling though the Phoenix Park at the weekend I asked a group (mother, father, pram) why when there were hundreds of acres they chose to walk with their backs to oncoming cyclists in the cycle lane. Their reply leaves me with a sinking feeling as to what their child's first words will be.

The problem is the segregation. There is a foot-high metal bar between the parking/cycle lane and the footpath, so you have to lift the buggy over if you want to get to it, so people tend to walk on the cycle lane.

I'm not sure what they were thinking when they designed that.

I don't think there's any need for arguments. Just cycle around them using the grass if necessary (it's good for the bike handling skills when wet).

Doctor Bob

k123456 wrote: »

is there a mandatory use requirement for cyclists to use the lanes, can anyone confirm, please

I can confirm.

14. (1) Where traffic sign numbers RUS 009 or RUS 009A and either RRM 022 or RRM 023 [cycle track] are provided, the part of road to which they relate shall be a 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.
(3) All pedal cycles must be driven on a cycle track where one is provided.
(4) Where a cycle track is one-way, pedal cycles shall be driven in the same direction as traffic on the side of the roadway adjacent to the cycle track is required to travel.
(5) When a cycle track is two-way, pedal cycles shall be driven as near as possible to the left hand side of each lane.
(6) ( a ) A mechanically propelled vehicle, other than a mechanically propelled wheelchair, shall not be driven along or across a cycle track.
( b ) A reference in sub-article (a) to driving along or across a cycle track shall include a reference to driving wholly or partly along or across a cycle track.
( c ) This sub-article shall not apply to a vehicle being driven for the purpose of access to or egress from a place adjacent to the cycle track or from a roadway to such a place.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html#zzsi182y1997a14

niceonetom

Lumen wrote: »

I'm not sure what they were thinking when they designed that.

The railing predates the bike path. Or, more accurately, what is now the bike path used to be the footpath, and what is now the foot path used not exist.

The bike lane was, for a time, where the gravelly hard shoulder is now. That would be better for everyone I think.

I would like to see a few "don't walk here" signs in there. I don't for one second think they'd be obeyed, but they'd at least make it clear that when I buzz ipeds with inches to spare they are the ones who have brought it upon themselves.

SerialComplaint

Lumen wrote: »

I don't think there's any need for arguments.

It is worth making the point to people in some way, whether with a laugh or smile or a roar or whatever suits. You can fix the wayward pedestrians, one at a time.

Lumen

SerialComplaint wrote: »

It is worth making the point to people in some way, whether with a laugh or smile or a roar or whatever suits. You can fix the wayward pedestrians, one at a time.

Well possibly, for someone with sufficient time and charm (i.e. not me). You didn't seem to manage too well either if you got back a torrent of abuse.

rottenhat

Chaps, I don't want to come over all TimAllen about this but roaring at, buzzing, deliberately startling and otherwise threatening pedestrians on cycle paths, no matter how oblivious they may be, is exactly the kind of dickhead behaviour we find so obnoxious in drivers. You may think that there is some distinction because cycle paths are designated for use by cyclists while roads are not designated for sole use by motorised vehicles but I think that it's still a pretty uncivilised way to behave.

brayblue24

k123456 wrote: »

The best example of a waste of taxpayers money is

cycle lane approx 300-400 long between Portmarnock and Malahide, hardly worth joining, wonder how much it cost to make

If that's the one that starts in the middle of nowhere and ends at a roundabout I meant to post about that joke a couple of weeks ago. I'm not from the area and was almost past it before I even saw it.

I have a simple rule of thumb when it comes to cycle paths-and I'm not saying it's right (or even legal)-but I will use any cycle path once and if I deem it safe I use it again. If the surface is in sh*t (ie. southbound outside the Montrose Hotel or between White's Cross and Foxrock Church on the N11) then I don't use it anymore and instead take up however much of the road I need to feel safe. I used to try and avoid Dublin Bus drivers till one pulled across me to stop at bus stops at Cabinteely and again at Loughlinstown a couple of minutes later. Now if I'm in their lane I take up as much of it as to force them wide to get past me.

If I see an obstruction agead (vehiclel or pedestrian) then I don't even bother and use the road.

As I say that's just my practise-don't try this at home:)

buffalo

blorg wrote: »

Do you think the legal situation will make any difference whatsoever to your being dead or alive? I will continue to avoid Aircoach drivers for my own safety... some, by no means all, are homicidal.

Dear coach driver on the quays this morning,

The hazard lights you left on while letting out passengers do not count as indicators for when you pull out into traffic without checking your mirrors.

Yours,
The cyclist who turned the air blue alongside you this morning.

72hundred

Lumen wrote: »

The problem is the segregation. There is a foot-high metal bar between the parking/cycle lane and the footpath, so you have to lift the buggy over if you want to get to it, so people tend to walk on the cycle lane.

I'm not sure what they were thinking when they designed that.

I don't think there's any need for arguments. Just cycle around them using the grass if necessary (it's good for the bike handling skills when wet).

Yea, the problem near the zoo end is the iron bar that runs along the cycling path. So in that case you can't have the biggest case for giving out to ppl for walking on it.

However, everywhere else there's no excuse; as I come across two walkers/joggers 2 abreast completely covering the cycle lane at least once a day! Made worse by the fact that they regularly walk/jog in the park and know its a cycle lane. (As distinct from a family not in the locality generally who are visiting the zoo and have an iron railing to deal with to access the ped path)

starfish12

Couldnt agree more rottenhat, i walk to and from work, and imo cyclists are almost as bad as motorists - there are cycle lanes almost all of the way to my office, and roads alongside them for those that dont want to use the cycle lane, yet every morning I come across an increasing number of cyclists using the footpath, and then shouting abusive language at people on the path - i'm sorry that is just unacceptable, i walk by a school and every morning i see the same guy with an airhorn on his bike cycling up the path outside the school and roaring at kids who 'get in his way' its just not on. some cyclists just seem think they are a law onto themselves.....

aibhne

cycle lanes are always covered in smashed bottles which is my main turn off. This morning on the way in to collage coming down camden street there was a man sweeping glass off the path into the cycle lane, why are some people so ignorant to cyclists?

72hundred

aibhne wrote: »

why are some people so ignorant to cyclists?

Because people don't complain constructively in general and they usually have an agenda when they do.

brayblue24

aibhne wrote: »

why are some people so ignorant to cyclists?

There's also the fact that most cyclists persistently break the law!

Don't hate me but they do....

Lumen

ignorant
–adjective
1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3. uninformed; unaware.
4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.

stopped_clock

As in ignorance != rudeness?

Lumen wrote: »

ignorant
–adjective
1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3. uninformed; unaware.
4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.

Lumen

stopped_clock wrote: »

As in ignorance != rudeness?

Yes. I've never understood the pejorative use of the term "ignorant". We are all ignorant of many things.

Just sayin'.

buffalo

Some people are ignorant of the precise meaning of the word 'ignorant'.

Raam

buffalo wrote: »

Some people are ignorant of the precise meaning of the word 'ignorant'.

Bunch of ignoramuses.

droidus

Its 'ignorami' you ignoramus.

Lumen

droidus wrote: »

Its 'ignorami' you ignoramus.

"The plural of ignoramus is ignoramuses. ignoramus is not a singular word in Latin. It isn't even a noun. It is a verb, and already in the plural. (It means "we do not know". This is the first person plural.) So one forms its English plural by appending -es."

tomasrojo

Lumen wrote: »

"The plural of ignoramus is ignoramuses. ignoramus is not a singular word in Latin. It isn't even a noun. It is a verb, and already in the plural. (It means "we do not know". This is the first person plural.) So one forms its English plural by appending -es."

Indeed. I salute your pedantry.

Merriam Webster does give "ignorami" as an alternative plural though. Also includes an interesting etymology.

Etymology: Ignoramus, ignorant lawyer in Ignoramus (1615), play by George Ruggle, from Latin, literally, we are ignorant of
Date: circa 1616

droidus

Lumen wrote:

"The plural of ignoramus is ignoramuses. ignoramus is not a singular word in Latin. It isn't even a noun. It is a verb, and already in the plural. (It means "we do not know". This is the first person plural.) So one forms its English plural by appending -es."

tomasrojo wrote: »

Merriam Webster does give "ignorami" as an alternative plural though. Also includes an interesting etymology.

Abso****ingloutely.

If you're going to be humorlessly pedantic at least have the common decency to be correct!


Ignoramus.

Lumen

droidus wrote: »

If you're going to be humorlessly pedantic at least have the common decency to be correct!

Humourlessly.

droidus

The US spelling is a perfectly acceptable colloquialism and a common side effect of spell check. Please see above. :P

SerialComplaint

Lumen wrote: »

You didn't seem to manage too well either if you got back a torrent of abuse.

The responses I get vary hugely, and don't seem to relate directly to my manner/mood/tone. I've got everything from humblest apologies, to smart-ass pedantry (Her: Well, do you have a light on your bike? Me: Yes, two at the front and one at the back. See them flashing there, even in daylight. Now, back to your jaywalking) to foul-mouthed abuse and threats of violence (I'll wrap that f***ing bike round your f***ing neck, I'll get out of this f***ing car and stamp on your f***ing head).

chakattack

coolbeans wrote: »

bollox! ****itty bollocks! I'm sick to death of the Aircoach drivers trying to teach me a lesson on the N11 and can't wait for the day they repeal the ridiculous mandatory use requirement so I can inform a driver that they are in actual fact dead wrong.

Report them....perhaps technically you should use the cyclelane but what they're doing is malicious and counts as dangerous driving.

chakattack

Anyone know what the story is with Raheny running club running in the cycle lane?

It's no big deal I'm well used to lane obstructions but I nearly creamed some guy who was all in black one night.

SubLuminal

rottenhat wrote: »

Chaps, I don't want to come over all TimAllen about this but roaring at, buzzing, deliberately startling and otherwise threatening pedestrians on cycle paths, no matter how oblivious they may be, is exactly the kind of dickhead behaviour we find so obnoxious in drivers. You may think that there is some distinction because cycle paths are designated for use by cyclists while roads are not designated for sole use by motorised vehicles but I think that it's still a pretty uncivilised way to behave.

I both agree with you completely and simultaniously deeply desire to bellow "CYCLE LANE" at the top of my voice at anyone in the cycle lane who isn't on a bike while cutting as close as humanly possible past them, the aim being to inflict as much nightmare inducing terror as possible

So far I've met a happy medium by saying "cycle lane, cycle lane" angrily with increasing volume as I get closer to people who can see me and who look like chavs / scummers. I would have to move around if they had not seen me. It is a cycle lane. They can move.

IM0

blorg wrote: »

If you could reasonably have stopped you would be at fault. If you could NOT have reasonably stopped you would not be at fault. You would probably be expected to be going slower and anticipate danger seeing a woman with a toddler walking beside her ahead.

completely disagree with that. By your logic every car is responsible for any pedestrian running into the road and if they cant stop on time its their fault!
WHAT!! - any pedestrian who walks in a cycle lane is asking for it really. Its a cycle lane the same way a road is a road. If I walked down the middle of the road Im fairly sure their would be murder about it sooner or later. :pac:

For the record I usually dont use cycle lanes unless it happens to fall under the wheels when Im cycling along.

blorg

You can disagree with it all you like but that is how the court would see it.

If a pedestrian runs suddenly out into the road then sure a driver is not at fault. If a pedestrian runs suddenly into a cycle lane the same would apply.

If the pedestrian is however already there and the driver can clearly see them but hits them anyway because "they shouldn't be there" then the driver would very much be at fault.

By your logic it is appropriate behaviour for bus drivers to drive into cyclists because they are not using a cycle lane (as legally you must at present.)

k123456

It is frankly amazing that under law "you must use a cycle lane" was cycling towards town on N11 today Sth of Stillorgan, amazed how bad the lane was, glass and grit and v bumpy. I would consider it dangerous

However if you use the bus lane and your hit by an irate aircoach driver, what rights do you have, given that there is a (dangerous) cycle lane available.


It is a step forward that we have cycle lanes, but it's an awful pity that they are not maintained and that some are badly designed.

Lumen

k123456 wrote: »

However if you use the bus lane and your hit by an irate aircoach driver, what rights do you have, given that there is a (dangerous) cycle lane available.

Prosecute for attempted murder?

It makes absolutely no difference whether you as a pedestrian/cyclist/whatever have a right to be on the road/track/whatever.

If you are operating a vehicle and unreasonably fail to take due care, resulting in an accident, you are very liable, regardless of how dozy the victim is.

IM0

chakattack wrote: »

Anyone know what the story is with Raheny running club running in the cycle lane?

It's no big deal I'm well used to lane obstructions but I nearly creamed some guy who was all in black one night.

ahh good to see the ninja arts spreading to other sports :P

tomasrojo

k123456 wrote: »

It is a step forward that we have cycle lanes, but it's an awful pity that they are not maintained and that some are badly designed.

Respectfully, I disagree. I think that the advent of cycling lanes in Ireland was a very negative development, all things considered. It actually was easier travelling on most roads before them, because the kerbside lane, and sometimes all lanes, had to be wider. Now all the lanes on new suburban roads are narrow, and they add off-road cycle lanes, with the end result that junctions are much harder to negotiate and you have to cycle very slowly whenever there are pedestrians and have to give way at every driveway.

I'm not saying cycle lanes per se are negative, but there are virtually no usable ones here. The on-road ones also encourage close passing by cars. I really would prefer them all to be removed, unless they allow you to go contraflow down a one-way street, cut across parkland, or do something else that the road doesn't allow.