Cyclist injured in accident on N4 on Lucan bypass heading west

mp31

Was cycling home from town to Maynooth on the N4 and came across huge tailback that extended back down to the Woodies turnoff at Liffey Valley. I continued on and got to the Lucan bypass (at the top of the hill that leads down to the Leixslip turnoff) and saw a Garda in the cycle lane standing next to a red Cannondale CAAD bike which had its back end very badly damaged. Parked in the bus/filter lane was a small white van parked with the hazard lights on.
Stopped to talk to the Garda to find out what happened and he said that the cyclist was in the bus lane (and not in the dedicated cycle lane) but the van driver didn't see him(her) and went straight into the back of the bike.
Very sad to see this sort of thing and also worrying as it's my route home.
The cyclist was well lit from behind, it was dry and the street lighting was good which is even more worrying.:(
Whoever you are, I really hope you are not badly injured and that you recover quickly.

Keep_Her_Lit

Good of you to point this out. I share your concern for the cyclist and hope that their bike took the worst of it.

reidzer

I hope the guy is OK!

Is the cycle and bus lane along here not just separated by a white line? with bollards on one side separating from the main n4? I would have taught that was fairly safe...

mp31 wrote: »

Was cycling home from town to Maynooth on the N4 and came across huge tailback that extended back down to the Woodies turnoff at Liffey Valley. I continued on and got to the Lucan bypass (at the top of the hill that leads down to the Leixslip turnoff) and saw a Garda in the cycle lane standing next to a red Cannondale CAAD bike which had its back end very badly damaged. Parked in the bus/filter lane was a small white van parked with the hazard lights on.
Stopped to talk to the Garda to find out what happened and he said that the cyclist was in the bus lane (and not in the dedicated cycle lane) but the van driver didn't see him(her) and went straight into the back of the bike.
Very sad to see this sort of thing and also worrying as it's my route home.
The cyclist was well lit from behind, it was dry and the street lighting was good which is even more worrying.:(
Whoever you are, I really hope you are not badly injured and that you recover quickly.

Crow92

Saw a cyclist on the ground at the bridge just before fairview park coming from town just after north strand road. (Annesly bridge maybe?) I didn't see the accident happen just him on the ground with a load of people around him, no ambulance or guards had arrived yet.

From what I could see it was evident his bike didn't have any lights. Though I'm unsure if he was a RLJ, still though it was from a car coming from east wall road so there would of been traffic lights.

kenmc

I hope the cyclist is ok. is the bus lane there not signed as a bus and cycle lane? what was the van doing in the bus lane though?

keith16

Unbelievable...

Was cycling home from work this evening, saw a guy go past me, no lights or helmets and a big pair of headphones.

If it can happen to someone well lit up etc, it sure as hell can happen to anyone...:(

seven stars

Hope they're okay.

mp31, that's my commute too, although I wasn't in today. I'm trying to place where exactly it happened. Was it just after the Newcastle Rd junction, with the new(ish) flyover?

mp31

I wish I'd made a better mental note but I think it was just after the R109 junction... around here http://g.co/maps/thcu6 .. see where the 'on ramp' lane from the previous junction narrows and blends into the main dual carriageway. The van was stopped in the bus lane just as the lane ends. Sorry but for some reason the view is looking back along the road against the flow of traffic but I hope you can see where I mean. If you look in the background, you can just see the R109 crossing over the N4.

Here the cycle lane and bus lane are separate (all the way along virtually). The cycle lane is higher up i.e. like a footpath but marked for bikes. The trouble is that the cycle paths along this section of the N4 (on both sides) are tricky to negotiate as there is all sorts of crap in them e.g. broken glass, rubbish, bits of wood and you end up having to weave in and out of bus stands etc. which makes 'rapid progress' difficult. Just before Xmas, heading into town, the cycle lane and bus lane were covered in a huge pile of glass from a broken bus stop glass panel. I managed to avoid it coz I was going so slow (too fat and unfit :eek:)

If you go further and keep going down the hill you eventually join the off ramp into Leixslip. Hope that all makes sense.

Am I allowed to speculate what happened? I'd like to but I'm not sure it will help.

Garda said it could have been avoided had the cyclist been using the cyclepath.

What annoyed me was that this particular driver didn't spot the cyclist who was well lit up (bike had one of those long 7 led rear lights in full mode) whilst driving conditions and visibility were good IMO.

I've spent most of the evening googling for large circular rear led lights and found nothing.

kenmc

mp31 wrote: »

Garda said it could have been avoided had the cyclist been using the cyclepath.

... or if the driver had seen the supposedly well lit cyclist. or million other "ifs and maybes". stupid statement by the cop.

again, I'd like to know what the driver was doing in the bus lane.

Beasty

mp31 wrote: »

Am I allowed to speculate what happened?

No

mp31 wrote: »

What annoyed me was that this particular driver didn't spot the cyclist who was well lit up (bike had one of those long 7 led rear lights in full mode) whilst driving conditions and visibility were good IMO.

You were not a witness and are in no position to state what did or did not happen or who did or did not do what or apportion blame, whatever the Garda said

Thanks

Beasty

seven stars

The gardai stopped me on the way in this morning, very close to that spot but on the other side of the road. One guard got out and gave me a bit of a bollicking for not using the cycle path, and he gave me some of the details of that accident last night. I wasn't a witness to the accident though, so I'll keep them to myself. He said that the lad is in James Connolly hospital with serious head injuries. I really, really hope he's okay. One thing I will share though, is that they're apparently going to have to prosecute the cyclist because there's a dedicated cycle path (converted footpath) at that spot and the cyclist wasn't using it. That's what he told me anyway.

I have to say that, despite giving me a bollicking, the guard who stopped me was sound about it and seemed to have my welfare as his main concern. He asked me why I wasn't using the cycle path, and I explained that I prefer to use the bus lane. He said that I wasn't in the bus lane either - which was true, I was in the hard shoulder of the dual carriageway at the underpass, and he said it was illegal to cycle in the hard shoulder of a dual carriageway. Which I thought was odd. In any case, I went by the cycle path the rest of the way as far as Palmerstown.

I'd love to know exactly what the law is with all this.

seamus

seven stars wrote: »

I'd love to know exactly what the law is with all this.

Despite repeated assurances that it would be repealed, the law is still that cyclists are required to use a cycle lane where one is provided.

In the case of the accident, the cyclist may well be prosecuted for not using the cycle lane, but that doesn't automatically mean that he will be deemed at fault for the incident. The two are considered separate issues.

markpb

seven stars wrote: »

I was in the hard shoulder of the dual carriageway at the underpass, and he said it was illegal to cycle in the hard shoulder of a dual carriageway. Which I thought was odd. In any case, I went by the cycle path the rest of the way as far as Palmerstown. I'd love to know exactly what the law is with all this.

He's right. If it's a cycle lane (with correct signs), you must cycle in it. He's also right about the hard shoulder, it's illegal to drive/cycle in it.

munchkin_utd

seven stars wrote: »

I'd love to know exactly what the law is with all this.

me too!

so I searched and I found the relevant act relating to cyclists

PART IV. CYCLE TRAFFIC.

Cycle tracks
28.—(1) Where a cycle track is provided on a stretch of road—

(a) every pedal cycle being driven on that stretch of road (in the direction in which traffic on the side of the road adjacent to the cycle track is required to travel) shall be driven on the cycle track only, and

(b) a vehicle other than a pedal cycle shall not be driven on the cycle track.

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of this bye-law, an invalid carriage not mechanically propelled may be driven on a cycle track, provided that it is driven in the direction in which pedal cycles are required to be driven.

Driving two abreast
29.—(1) A pedal cyclist shall not, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists (and then only if to do so will not endanger other traffic or pedestrians) drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than two pedal cycles driving abreast.

(2) Pedal cyclists on a roadway shall cycle in single file when overtaking other traffic.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1964/en/si/0294.html#zzsi294y1964a28

and you might note that you are also required to travel on the track in the direction of the traffic

Rew

markpb wrote: »

He's also right about the hard shoulder, it's illegal to drive/cycle in it.

That's a a balls I do it every day for about 2km of my comute. Interestingly there is a sign along the way at one of the exits that say "Suggested Cycle Route" which is an odd thing to put up somewhere where your are cycling illegally.

galwaycyclist

seven stars wrote: »

I was in the hard shoulder of the dual carriageway at the underpass, and he said it was illegal to cycle in the hard shoulder of a dual carriageway. Which I thought was odd. In any case, I went by the cycle path the rest of the way as far as Palmerstown.

I'd love to know exactly what the law is with all this.

The law regarding Hard Shoulders is a matter of dispute every so often someone shows up on an internet bulletin board and claims it is illegal.

In the 1970s, the use of Hard Shoulders was associated with a 50% reduction in cyclist injuries.

If a guard is going around threatening to prosecute people for cycling in the Hard Shoulder then he wants his number taken and reported to his superintendent.

rp

I think this is the section:

I haven't seen a legal cycle lane sign on that section, although I think there may be a UK-style 'shared use' sign later on (no legal basis in Ireland), so the Bike&Bus sign means cyclist should use the bus lane.

rich.d.berry

Is it just me that finds the law around cycle paths confusing?

This sign here would indicate to me that cyclists are permitted to use the bus lane:

seven stars

This is exactly the question. That's the sign that appears all along the N4 where there's a bus lane and a (converted footpath) cycle lane. But it's also the sign that appears on the N4 all along the Chapelizod bypass, where there's a bus lane but no cycle path at all:

http://g.co/maps/ap4hv

fatwarren

i always avoid using the cycle lanes on the n4. when i used them before i would be guaranteed a flat tyre. nobody cleans the cyclelanes so why use them if there is a perfectly maintained bus lane?

droidus

Because some motorists seem to think they have the right to 'teach you a lesson' if you stay in the buslane.

Id be very interested to see what kind of signage is used to indicate the off road cycle lane and also if the victim here will be prosecuted for not using it, seeing as that would be (afaik) the first example of such a prosecution in the history of the state.

rp

galwaycyclist wrote: »

The law regarding Hard Shoulders is a matter of dispute every so often someone shows up on an internet bulletin board and claims it is illegal.

Seems pretty straight-forward in the RotR (my highlighting):

Road markings|What they mean
A single broken yellow line along the side of the road|This road contains a hard shoulder, which is normally only for pedestrians and cyclists. If a driver wants to allow a vehicle behind them to overtake, they may pull in to the hard shoulder briefly as long as no pedestrians or cyclists are already using it and no junctions or entrances are nearby. Different rules exist for hard shoulders on motorways. See Motorways section for details.

kenmc

rich.d.berry wrote: »

Is it just me that finds the law around cycle paths confusing?

This sign here would indicate to me that cyclists are permitted to use the bus lane:

Well if that sign is present where the incident occurred, that certainly looks to be a bus and bike lane, so the cyclist presumably and hopefully cannot be prosecuted for using the bus lane, whereas if the driver was in the bus lane, then presumably he can and will be prosecuted.

rich.d.berry

fatwarren wrote: »

i always avoid using the cycle lanes on the n4. when i used them before i would be guaranteed a flat tyre. nobody cleans the cyclelanes so why use them if there is a perfectly maintained bus lane?

It seems you're wrong and that Google managed to capture one of these rare events. Whether any cleaning actually took place with that brush is debatable though.

kenmc wrote: »

Well if that sign is present where the incident occurred, that certainly looks to be a bus and bike lane, so the cyclist presumably and hopefully cannot be prosecuted for using the bus lane, whereas if the driver was in the bus lane, then presumably he can and will be prosecuted.

Yes, that is a screen capture that I took off the Google location http://g.co/maps/thcu6 that mp31 posted on post number 8.

reidzer

converted footpath cycle lanes do not work in practice!

kenmc

rich.d.berry wrote: »

It seems you're wrong and that Google managed to capture one of these rare events. Whether any cleaning actually took place with that brush is debatable though.



Yes, that is a screen capture that I took off the Google location http://g.co/maps/thcu6 that mp31 posted on post number 8.

I know it's not a definitive source, but I can't see any signs indicating that the "cycle track" in that area is legally signed as such, using streetview. It's possible that the signage has been put in place since the street-view car mapped the area, but unless it has, then the cyclist actually had no choice but to use the bus lane, as otherwise he would have been cycling on a footpath.

Can anyone else clarify if that section is a legally signed cycle track?

trad

Any word of the injured cyclist?

Max Power1

The cyclist probably cycled through a red light, without looking.

seamus

Max Power1 wrote: »

The cyclist probably cycled through a red light, without looking.

No doubt he wasn't wearing a helmet or hi-vis either, and was listening to his iPod.

Dermot Illogical

seamus wrote: »

No doubt he wasn't wearing a helmet or hi-vis either, and was listening to his iPod.

While plotting to evade paying road tax.

Wheely GR8

Following the rules of the road ,the gaurd at the scene should have been doing his job and prevented the driver from using the bus lane.

Mycroft H

seven stars wrote: »

The gardai stopped me on the way in this morning, very close to that spot but on the other side of the road. One guard got out and gave me a bit of a bollicking for not using the cycle path, and he gave me some of the details of that accident last night. I wasn't a witness to the accident though, so I'll keep them to myself. He said that the lad is in James Connolly hospital with serious head injuries. I really, really hope he's okay. One thing I will share though, is that they're apparently going to have to prosecute the cyclist because there's a dedicated cycle path (converted footpath) at that spot and the cyclist wasn't using it. That's what he told me anyway.

I have to say that, despite giving me a bollicking, the guard who stopped me was sound about it and seemed to have my welfare as his main concern. He asked me why I wasn't using the cycle path, and I explained that I prefer to use the bus lane. He said that I wasn't in the bus lane either - which was true, I was in the hard shoulder of the dual carriageway at the underpass, and he said it was illegal to cycle in the hard shoulder of a dual carriageway. Which I thought was odd. In any case, I went by the cycle path the rest of the way as far as Palmerstown.

I'd love to know exactly what the law is with all this.

Guard was right IMO. The bus lane goes over that flyover and the cycle lane too.

However I don't think that I'll be using the bus lane on the N4 imo anymore. After that accident (I saw the results of it last night between the red bike and the citroen berlingo) I'll be thinking twice about it, both legally and for my own safety. I'll take my chances getting a puncture or I'll avoid the N4 altogether.

Max Power1

seamus wrote: »

No doubt he wasn't wearing a helmet or hi-vis either, and was listening to his iPod.

RT66 wrote: »

While plotting to evade paying road tax.

Dont see what that has to do with anything

tomasrojo

BX 19 wrote: »

I'll be thinking twice about it, both legally and for my own safety. I'll take my chances getting a puncture or I'll avoid the N4 altogether.

I'm not sure it is illegal to use the bus lane, if the signage is the "Shared Use" sign. The relevant statutory instrument defines a cycle track in terms of the signage and the white line that flanks the track. The signage is a white bicycle on a blue background on a round sign, or a black bicycle on a white background on a round sign bordered in red. If the track doesn't have one of these two signs, it isn't a cycle track, and the mandatory provision doesn't apply.

Though I suppose if it were to go to court a judge might interpret the SI differently. Not a lot of interpretative wiggle room in the wording though.

Beasty

Max Power1 wrote: »

Dont see what that has to do with anything

Probably not much more than this:

Max Power1 wrote: »

The cyclist probably cycled through a red light, without looking.

You were not there and are certainly not in a postion to make such a statement

jodaw

I was cycling there last night and came across this scene. At first i thought it was a small pile up since there were about four cars in a line, but then i could see a person being attended to on the ground and i thought this to be strange at the time since the speeds would have been slow.

I would usually cross the bridge from the Newcastle direction and use the cyclepath on the other side of the bridge.

The cyclist was on the ground at the meeting point of two lanes of traffic. Where the drivers from the slip join the N4. I cycle that way a lot and also drive that way a lot.

On numerous occasions i have seen a lone cyclist use the N4 and go under the bridge and back up the other side, after this you would have to skip across a lane of traffic filtering at speed. I remember thinking to myself I would never, ever do that. I would cycle the whole way up to the lights using the path, then cross at the lights and use the path the whole way down.

It is very dangerous here and i am nervous enough using the path since all manner of debris could coming flying at you.

I really hope the the guy is not serious but it is a warning to all of us how fragile we are out there on the road.

Take care all and use good judgement

rp

jodaw wrote: »

On numerous occasions i have seen a lone cyclist use the N4 and go under the bridge and back up the other side, after this you would have to skip across a lane of traffic filtering at speed. I remember thinking to myself I would never, ever do that. I would cycle the whole way up to the lights using the path, then cross at the lights and use the path the whole way down.

maybe that is safer, maybe it's not: if the cyclist had been rear ended in the bus lane by the van as was suggested, there is little you can do to avoid that. Sure, you can leave the n4 and cross at the lights, but you could be just as easily t-boned by someone crossing the lights early/late.

Also, it looks as if the 'cyclepath' is in fact a pavement, in which case you break the law by riding on it, and endanger the frequent pedestrians (not to mention corpo road sweepers).

The real culprits here are the road engineers. Can they be indicted for 'accidents' like this?

jodaw

RP, If you look at the photo there previously you can see that the bus lane is far left. No cars/vans would ever have any reason to use it. They are filtering onto the N4 in the driving lane allocated.

The cyclist was on the white lines where these two lanes join.

By using the N4 and going under the flyover when you would come up the hill the other side you would have to then jump across a lane of filtering traffic at speed.

On a racing bike and at speed you may be able to manage it without incident 1000 times in a row, but all it takes is one moment and one person to be slightly off their game.

If i were to use my bike in that area i would consider myself at huge unnecessary risk.

galwaycyclist

rp wrote: »

The real culprits here are the road engineers. Can they be indicted for 'accidents' like this?

If when the full facts come to light, a case of incompetent or negligent design is indicated, then you can go after them for professional misconduct but its a long shot and involves potential personal exposure for the person doing it.

On the other hand, and without specific reference to this location, I have often thought that it might be useful to have a website with the names and photographs of engineers who come up with demonstrably unsuitable designs.

Why should it only be cyclists who have to feel the pain associated with incompetent engineering practice?

BostonB

Many of the poor designs you see are bad in a consistent way. Which suggests to me theres a consistent skillset and experience missing from whom ever is doing these.

seven stars

jodaw wrote: »

On numerous occasions i have seen a lone cyclist use the N4 and go under the bridge and back up the other side, after this you would have to skip across a lane of traffic filtering at speed. I remember thinking to myself I would never, ever do that. I would cycle the whole way up to the lights using the path, then cross at the lights and use the path the whole way down.

That might well have been me you've seen. Until now, I've actually found that way to be fine - it's generally very easy to get across at this junction, because there usually isn't very much traffic coming from Newcastle Rd onto the N4. It's certainly much easier than the equivalent merge when you're approaching Liffey Valley after the M50.

Having said that, recent events have caused me to reconsider things. Not sure what to do now.

rp

seven stars wrote: »

That might well have been me you've seen. Until now, I've actually found that way to be fine - it's generally very easy to get across at this junction, because there usually isn't very much traffic coming from Newcastle Rd onto the N4. It's certainly much easier than the equivalent merge when you're approaching Liffey Valley after the M50.

Having said that, recent events have caused me to reconsider things. Not sure what to do now.

It might have been me too: like you say, due to the lights, that merging lane is rarely an issue. If there are cars coming down the ramp, I stay in the main (lh) lane until I can get across into the bus lane.

More of a problem is not getting cut-up across the mouth of the off-ramp - the answer in all these case is good observation and pick your moment (e.g., get out of the bus lane in advance of the off-ramp, when the road is clear).

having said all that, I've been cycling this route for years and this is the first bike accident I have seen there. Unfortunate and regrettable, yes, but inevitable, no.

rp

had a look at the signage along that stretch - no hint of a RUS009 or RUS009a, so the pavement is officially a pavement, nothing more.
Just before the bus lane ends, there is a UK-style 'shared use' sign and a bus lane sign with the bike painted out, no more legally binding than the ad for a wedding fayre at the Spa Hotel.
So clearly cyclists are required by law to use the bus lane.

seven stars

I'm not doubting you for a second, but is there some resource you've consulted here that you could point me towards? I'm keen to find out for sure what the law is with all this. I tried to use the cycle path last night (right past where that accident occurred), and it was a pure balls. Full of pedestrians, fellas walking their dogs with the leash right across the path. I was swerving round pillars and bus shelters - and then the cycle path rejoins the N4 road anyway before the Spa hotel. This morning I tried to use the cycle path on the way in, but it's full of stones crackling under me gatorskins (as well as all the other hazards).

The thing is, if I get stopped by the same gardai I want to know the law for sure (and not have to tell them that I read it on boards!).

galwaycyclist

seven stars wrote: »

The thing is, if I get stopped by the same gardai I want to know the law for sure (and not have to tell them that I read it on boards!).

I don't have time to pull the links now but if you go onto statutebook.ie you want the 1998 traffic signs and traffic and parking regulations(273/1998 and 274/1998). These are the statutory instruments that define the signs and regulations regarding "cycle tracks".

From memory the 1993 roads act also contains a clause requiring road users to avoid injury and damage to property including their own property. I am not a lawyer but I reckon that not cycling on broken glass counts as avoiding damage to property.

kenmc

look up the definition of a cycle track and the signage on Irish statute website

droidus

And just to confuse the issue even more, I had a run in with a bus on the N2, where the signage is similar to the situation described above. After a discussion with dublin bus who claimed that I should have been on the path (for common sense rather than legal reasons). I spoke to the Gardai in Finglas who were unequivocal that I had every right to be on in the bus lane, didnt seem impressed with the design of the off road 'cycle path' and that I should take what I thought was the safest option.

seven stars

I've had a look on the Irish Statute Book website, and it would appear that bus lanes are fine for pedal cyclists. Those blue signs with the bus and bicycle symbols are called 'RUS 028' and 'RUS 029':

Bus Lanes

32. (1) A bus lane shall be indicated by means of traffic sign number RUS 028 or traffic sign number RUS 029 used in association with traffic sign number RRM 024, and a contra flow bus lane shall be indicated by means of traffic sign number RUS 030 used in association with traffic sign number RRM 024.

(2) A person shall not enter a bus lane with a vehicle other than an omnibus or a pedal cycle during the period of operation of the bus lane which shall be indicated on an information plate.

However, there's a requirement for cyclists to cycle on a 'cycle track' where one is provided. What rp was saying seems to be correct here: the definition of a 'cycle track' is quite clear...

"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.

(3) (a) Subject to paragraph (b), a pedal cycle must be driven on a cycle track where one is provided.

So, technically, if you don't see either of these signs, it's not a legally binding 'cycle track'. I'd still prefer to not have any further run-ins with the gardai and have to rely on what could be viewed as a mere technicality (the absence of the correct signage). So I dunno. I'd rather get the bus than use the cycle path!

Lumen

The law on mandatory cycle lane usage is marked for death anyway.

I can't see a prosecution being made on the basis of a law which the government has committed itself to getting rid of.

galwaycyclist

Lumen wrote: »

The law on mandatory cycle lane usage is marked for death anyway.

I can't see a prosecution being made on the basis of a law which the government has committed itself to getting rid of.

It was marked for death by the last government. Simon Coveney as Shadow Transport spokesman stated to Cyclist.ie that he supported the revised cycling policy of the last government. Unfortunately deputy Coveney did not retain that appointment when the government changed. The new ministerial team have so far failed to acknowledge, or respond to, repeated requests for a meeting with cycling interests. Their activities to date have suggested that they are hostile to the principles of the National Cycle Policy Framework.

rp

seven stars wrote: »

So, technically, if you don't see either of these signs, it's not a legally binding 'cycle track'. I'd still prefer to not have any further run-ins with the gardai and have to rely on what could be viewed as a mere technicality (the absence of the correct signage). So I dunno. I'd rather get the bus than use the cycle path!

The absence of correct signage is more than a mere technicality , it is well documented in case law that a road sign that has no legal basis cannot be enforced (there is a case in Robert Pierces's Road Traffic Law that emphasises this). I discussed this with a BL friend and she pointed out that if, as a cyclist, you hit a pedestrian on non-legally marked 'cyclepath', you are immediately in the wrong, and any claim that 'sure, I thought that sign meant I could cycle there' isn't likely to get you off the hook.