Request to cyclists who use bus lanes

monument

I've a small request to cyclists who use bus lanes in Dublin or elsewhere.

Anybody who spots any of these signs could they post here, or PM me if you like?



Please say exactly where you spot them, thanks.

The signs may be a bit different in design or size, but they generally look something like the above -- only a bus and no bicycle. This one with a bicycle is not what I'm looking for.

I know these are still in use by some of the councils, but I just want to confirm how widespread their use are. Any help is much appreciated.

Khannie

I'll keep an eye out. Just wondering why you're looking?

I'm surprised though, I thought all bus lanes were good to go for cyclists (unless there's a cycle lane running along side it I suppose).

BostonB

I think the one on the bottom of Lesson Street/Stephen green doesn't have a bike on it. I assumed this is deliberate as the lights halfway up aren't triggered by a bike either. Though cyclists use it.

http://maps.google.ie/?ie=UTF8&layer=c&cbll=53.336264,-6.257192&panoid=AKRMCC0OmPoy0-2q09u_fA&cbp=12,128.96,,0,8.36&hq=&hnear=15+Riverwood+Heath,+Dublin+15&ll=53.336152,-6.25724&spn=0,0.016512&z=17

doopa

Not sure if this one counts, but...

http://maps.google.ie/?ie=UTF8&ll=53.338591,-6.255311&spn=0.001706,0.005083&z=19&layer=c&cbll=53.338666,-6.255598&panoid=A6Sf_7B2YUzE_LimYWZw1w&cbp=12,229.09,,0,2.14

I'm never sure if cyclists are allowed down this route. i.e. along the side of St.Stephens Green.

Cookie_Monster

BostonB wrote: »

I think the one on the bottom of Lesson Street/Stephen green doesn't have a bike on it. I assumed this is deliberate as the lights halfway up aren't triggered by a bike either. Though cyclists use it.

http://maps.google.ie/?ie=UTF8&ll=53.338591,-6.255311&spn=0.001706,0.005083&z=19&layer=c&cbll=53.338666,-6.255598&panoid=A6Sf_7B2YUzE_LimYWZw1w&cbp=12,229.09,,0,2.14

that's cos it's contra flow though isn't it.

I though that cyclists / taxi's etc are not allowed use contra flow bus lanes, just buses.

Iwannahurl

Ah, Ireland. Is feidir linn.

Those would be the Bus/Cycle Lane signs with the Cycle bit erased with blue paint?

An Irish solution to an Irish problem, which of course was caused by the previous Irish solution to the previous Irish problem...

FatSh!te

Hey..
I'd been looking out for these signs myself as they annoyed the hell out of me, there are a few about alright.

Seeing your post I looked up the new Traffic Signs Manual Nov 2010(pg4/39), and they've now changed the requirement to allow the omission of the cycle symbol from the sign:
"The cycle symbol may be omitted if, for instance, there is a suitable alternative cycle facility."

I had not realised this at all.

Can't seem to get a pdf out of the relevant page from the New TSM.

Edit - extract of old TSM section is attached

FatSh!te

New TSM extract attached... managed to pdf it:rolleyes:

BostonB

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

that's cos it's contra flow though isn't it.

I though that cyclists / taxi's etc are not allowed use contra flow bus lanes, just buses.

No idea.

GlennaMaddy

Here's one in Drumcondra, accompanied by a dead end cycle lane with wheelie bin and tree thrown in for good measure.

Iwannahurl

GlennaMaddy wrote: »

Here's one in Drumcondra, accompanied by a dead end cycle lane with wheelie bin and tree thrown in for good measure.

I didn't find the dead-end cycle lane, wheelie bin or tree, but I did spot the inevitable footpath cyclist. Hardly surprising really.

News to me that the TSM had changed. Sorry to be so cynical, but is this another case of policy being changed ad hoc and post hoc to justify practice?

Cookie_Monster

GlennaMaddy wrote: »

Here's one in Drumcondra, accompanied by a dead end cycle lane with wheelie bin and tree thrown in for good measure.

god almighty, that's beyond ridiculous

Cookie_Monster

Caroline_ie wrote: »

Here

where, both signs have bike on them in that shot.

Caroline_ie

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

where, both signs have bike on them in that shot.

I know I paste the wrong link :P I'll try again

there Stillorgan road

Cookie_Monster

Caroline_ie wrote: »

I know I paste the wrong link :P I'll try again

Need to be quicker on the Ninja edit :cool:

:P

Kintarō Hattori

What do those signs in the OP's post mean though? I have to admit that I don't know.

GlennaMaddy

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I didn't find the dead-end cycle lane, wheelie bin or tree...

Here you go...

tomasrojo

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

What do those signs in the OP's post mean though? I have to admit that I don't know.

The Bus Lane sign with the bike obscured was not a legally compliant sign. I thought it still wasn't but see one of the posts on page one of this thread.

Thanks to monument, if I understand correctly, many of these signs had been replaced with the correct sign (i.e. the sign that included the bike symbol).

EDIT: I think I might have missed the point of your question. The amended and legally questionable sign was being used by local councils to exclude cyclists from certain bus lanes. They were starting to use it a lot. The one on St. John's Road West leading down to Heuston is a particularly amusing one, since the muddy, broken up and pedestrian-frequented 30cm wide footpath beside the bus lane is designated as a cycle track in compensation, just showing how important it is to have standards for something before making it compulsory.

FURTHER EDIT: I should point out that the footpath is more like one-metre wide. You can see from the picture how it's too narrow and basically not a cycle facility in any recognisable sense.

Kintarō Hattori

tomasrojo wrote: »

Thanks to monument, if I understand correctly, many of these signs had been replaced with the correct sign (i.e. the sign that included the bike symbol).

And what does the one with the bike mean- that you can use the bike lane? Is there any variations on it? Such as one which indicates that you can't?

tomasrojo

The one with the bike symbol means that you *can* use the bus lane. The problem was (or is) that the only bus lane sign that's legally compliant has a bike on it. The other, bike-less one is an improvisation by the councils.

trellheim

Therefore if you drive in the lane during rush hour in a car you aren't breaking the law because it's not validly signed ?

tomasrojo

This is the Cycle Track on St. John's Road West that "allowed" the councils to designate the bus lane bus-only.



It's behind the tree, in case you're wondering.

That's still designated a cycle track, but the bus lane, at least until recently, had its signs changed to include the bike symbol.

tomasrojo

Actually, now I check it, it's not a cycle track. They didn't even use the right signage.

Here's the sign at the top of the hill.



So, they were using a combination of legally incompliant signs to dupe cyclists into cycling on a footpath that is even less suitable than the average footpath in Dublin. Or else they sincerely believed they could make up any signage they liked so they could redesignate roads any way they liked.

tomasrojo

trellheim wrote: »

Therefore if you drive in the lane during rush hour in a car you aren't breaking the law because it's not validly signed ?

Good point. I couldn't say. What a mess, eh?

Mind you, last time I checked the bus lane had the correct sign. I assume because monument had written to the council about this issue in general.

monument

tomasrojo wrote: »

The other, bike-less one is an improvisation by the councils.

Now with approval from the department, but still with apparently no legal backing.

monument

Also, just to note: After my inquires last year Dublin City Council did fixed some of the ones shown in Google Street View as posted above.

Rodin

Could someone please remind cyclists that a red light does not mean 'go'?
And for those colour blind, it's the one at the top.

Almost ran over a cyclist five minutes ago because of his complete disregard for lights. Had a helmet on too. How about not running red lights ( three of them) if you want to stay safe!?

Whitehawk

monument wrote: »

Now with approval from the department, but still with apparently no legal backing.

this is all very intresting! thanks for bring this to light dont think id have noticed them other wise
cheers

Civilian_Target

lol

You think there's someone in the Department of Transport saying Where can we put the cyclists so that they will just get out of everyone's way?

I'm not sure whether they're backward, ignorant or spineless... if they continue to try and please everyone, in the end they please no-one at all.

-Chris-

Rodin wrote: »

Could someone please remind cyclists that a red light does not mean 'go'?
And for those colour blind, it's the one at the top.

Almost ran over a cyclist five minutes ago because of his complete disregard for lights. Had a helmet on too. How about not running red lights ( three of them) if you want to stay safe!?

What on earth does that have to do with this thread?

Chips Lovell

-Chris- wrote: »

What on earth does that have to do with this thread?

Nothing. And now they've been carded

Doctor Bob

monument wrote: »

Now with approval from the department, but still with apparently no legal backing.

The bikeless sign is indeed in the new Traffic Signs Manual, and the law hasn't yet been changed to reflect that. There's a conference on the TSM in Engineers Ireland in a couple of weeks- perhaps the legislative position will be clarified then?

Probably worth mentioning that the Cycleway sign has also been revised - it now has the pedestrian above the bicycle, not the other way around - and the accompanying text says something to the effect that it 'should only be used in exceptional circumstances', i.e. not as the default option for poxy shared use 'facilities' as has so often been the case in the past. It remains to be seen whether the local authorities bother reading and/or applying the TSM, of course...

tomasrojo

Civilian_Target wrote: »

You think there's someone in the Department of Transport saying Where can we put the cyclists so that they will just get out of everyone's way?

Probably not a million miles off the mark. They also have in the past given a directive to the councils to create more kilometres of cycle track, without any preconditions or standards. Since we have no binding standards (a cycle track is legally defined as pretty much anything with a cycle track sign), you can see why we end up with lip service and unusable facilities. The councils also believe they have the power to turn footpaths in "shared space" facilities for cyclists (though as things currently stand they don't).

Civilian_Target wrote: »

I'm not sure whether they're backward, ignorant or spineless... if they continue to try and please everyone, in the end they please no-one at all.

I think one of the main problems is that the group they are least averse to displeasing is pedestrians, which is why we're seeing so many shared-space facilities, with the crowning glory of St. John's Road West.

Pedestrians should be prioritised in cities. In Dublin city centre, for example, pedestrians make up the biggest transport mode. You wouldn't know it from the amount of space and green-light time given to them. So they shouldn't be having space taken from them and "given" to cyclists. Cyclists don't in general like the end result, and neither do pedestrians.

FatSh!te

Doctor Bob wrote: »

The bikeless sign is indeed in the new Traffic Signs Manual, and the law hasn't yet been changed to reflect that. There's a conference on the TSM in Engineers Ireland in a couple of weeks- perhaps the legislative position will be clarified then?

Probably worth mentioning that the Cycleway sign has also been revised - it now has the pedestrian above the bicycle, not the other way around - and the accompanying text says something to the effect that it 'should only be used in exceptional circumstances', i.e. not as the default option for poxy shared use 'facilities' as has so often been the case in the past. It remains to be seen whether the local authorities bother reading and/or applying the TSM, of course...

& the Engineers Ireland TSM seminar is being opened by Leo Vadkar apparently! I doubt they'll go into the legal side of it too much - more the practical aspects of designing sign (& line) layouts and overall national strategies - but the specific question can always be raised.

I'm not clear on how the TSM is legislated for - i.e. people seem to be saying the old sign (bus lane showing cyclist) is covered under current legislation and the new one isn't. Can someone explain where this is done or how - is it in the Road Traffic Act or something similar?

The sign in question is under "Chapter 4 - Other Information Signs" and not under "Regulatory Signs" eg STOP or YIELD signs. My general understanding of this is that only regulatory signs are legislated for, therefore the information signs are not and the bus lane sign falls within this group.

Whitehawk

-Chris- wrote: »

What on earth does that have to do with this thread?

complete spam if you ask me :eek:

stop

monument wrote: »

I've a small request to cyclists who use bus lanes in Dublin or elsewhere.

Anybody who spots any of these signs could they post here, or PM me if you like?



Please say exactly where you spot them, thanks.

The signs may be a bit different in design or size, but they generally look something like the above -- only a bus and no bicycle. This one with a bicycle is not what I'm looking for.

I know these are still in use by some of the councils, but I just want to confirm how widespread their use are. Any help is much appreciated.

Spotted this one last weekend, odd that the bus has middle doors!

Cookie_Monster

stop wrote: »

Spotted this one last weekend, odd that the bus has middle doors!
http://i.imgur.com/LJlYC.jpg

The road on the left becomes a cycle lane further up, so given that there is a cycle lane to the left of the bus lane does that not make it correct?

It's stupid cycle lane the uses the pedestrian lights rather than the road, but a lane none the less.

galwaycyclist

FatSh!te wrote: »

The sign in question is under "Chapter 4 - Other Information Signs" and not under "Regulatory Signs" eg STOP or YIELD signs. My general understanding of this is that only regulatory signs are legislated for, therefore the information signs are not and the bus lane sign falls within this group.

Well the bus lane signs are very clearly specified in the regulations see here

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0181.html

My understanding is that with both Bus lanes and cycle tracks the regulations requires both the upright signs and the relevant road markings to be present. In the case of bus lanes and cycle tracks the road markings are white lines of specified widths that are other than those specified for general traffic lanes.

Is not one or the other that creates the bus lane/cycle track but the association of the two.

I think the advice in the TSM also diverges from the regulations in the matter of cycle tracks but I don't have my own copy.

FatSh!te

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Well the bus lane signs are very clearly specified in the regulations see here

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0181.html

My understanding is that with both Bus lanes and cycle tracks the regulations requires both the upright signs and the relevant road markings to be present. In the case of bus lanes and cycle tracks the road markings are white lines of specified widths that are other than those specified for general traffic lanes.

Is not one or the other that creates the bus lane/cycle track but the association of the two.

I think the advice in the TSM also diverges from the regulations in the matter of cycle tracks but I don't have my own copy.

Thanks for that.

TSM available for download from here, for what it's worth: http://www.transport.ie/viewitem.asp?id=12971&lang=ENG&loc=2635

I think you're right about the differences between the TSM and the Regs.

Iwannahurl

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

The road on the left becomes a cycle lane further up, so given that there is a cycle lane to the left of the bus lane does that not make it correct?

It's stupid cycle lane the uses the pedestrian lights rather than the road, but a lane none the less.

This is a bit OT, but still relates to Irish road signage versus the reality on Irish roads.

Does the blue sign here say Shared Surface Ahead? I see that it's located just in front of a stretch featuring the usual footpath abuse by motorists in Ireland, so I'm wondering what the situation is for pedestrians around here.





.

tomasrojo

The sign does say "SHARED SURFACE AHEAD". I presume it's another improvised sign.

Iwannahurl

So what is a Shared Surface, I wonder?

A road where there are no footpaths for motorists to park on?

buffalo

Saw this on Sunday:

http://goo.gl/maps/AF4b

That's not the clearest, but further down the road is http://goo.gl/maps/U0GS

The reason it stood out is because it's accompanied by such quality facilities as http://goo.gl/maps/ndqs At this stage, it's so overgrown, I didn't notice the inside bike when I passed it myself. I thought that bikes weren't allowed in the bus lane, but only a contra-flow path was provided!

seamus

OK, so nothing to do with bus lanes, but the comment about "improvised signs" made me remember this. I'm glad Google maps still has it. It was there for most of 2010.



I was always tempted to go out and cover it with a "Motorists get out and push" sign.
For me, it sums up everything that every county council and roads authority thinks about cyclists.

rp

FatSh!te wrote: »

I think you're right about the differences between the TSM and the Regs.

"Road Traffic Law" by Robert Pearse is the standard reference for traffic case law, and it clearly states that signage not back-up by SI/acts of the oireachtas have no legal meaning (that is, it's been challenged in court and a ruling handed down). I'll look up chapter and verse tonight if anyone is interested.

I discussed these signs with a Barrister, who expressed concern that if you were cycling on a pavement marked as shared cycle/pedestrian by a non-compliant sign, and were in collision with a pedestrian, the law would have to take the view you were cycling on a pavement, therefore fully at fault.

Lumen

rp wrote: »

I discussed these signs with a Barrister, who expressed concern that if you were cycling on a pavement marked as shared cycle/pedestrian by a non-compliant sign, and were in collision with a pedestrian, the law would have to take the view you were cycling on a pavement, therefore fully at fault.

I have a feeling that the next piece of advice would be to sue whoever put up the non-compliant sign. :pac:

rp

seamus wrote: »

For me, it sums up everything that every county council and roads authority thinks about cyclists.

I can't remember where I saw it, but I think it was in relation to using a pedestrian crossing with a bike: it wasn't good enough to push the bike, you had to actually carry it.