Cyclist injured in accident on N4 on Lucan bypass heading west

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.

galwaycyclist

Found it

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

Road users' duty of care.
67.—(1) It shall be the duty of a person using a public road to take reasonable care for his own safety and for that of any other person using the public road.

(2) It shall be the duty of a person using a public road to take all reasonable measures to avoid—

(a) injury to himself or to any other person using the public road,

(b) damage to property owned or used by him or by any other person using the public road.

I am not qualified to say wether this would provide an adequate defence for someone refusing to use a glass-strewn cycle track, or one that takes you up inside turning traffic, you would need to check with your own legal advisor.

seamus

galwaycyclist wrote: »

I am not qualified to say wether this would provide an adequate defence for someone refusing to use a glass-strewn cycle track, or one that takes you up inside turning traffic, you would need to check with your own legal advisor.

It would be a case-by-case basis really, there's no way of saying a general rule for all scenarios.

Balance of safety is probably the key. On one hand a glass-strewn cycle track poses a danger to your property (which you have a duty to avoid), but if the only alternative is the hard shoulder on a 100km/h stretch of dual carriageway, does that pose a lesser risk than the cycle track?

It's an easier argument when you're comparing a shared-use cycle track against a city street - the street is clearly the better option - but less clear cut in this scenario where you have a well surfaced cycle track versus a well surfaced bus lane.

kenmc

seamus wrote: »

Balance of safety is probably the key. On one hand a glass-strewn cycle track poses a danger to your property (which you have a duty to avoid), but if the only alternative is the hard shoulder on a 100km/h stretch of dual carriageway, does that pose a lesser risk than the cycle track?.

Would disagree entirely. If a cyclist were to get a puncture on this off road cycle track, which cause them to fall unexpectedly into the roadway, it has the potential to cause plenty of damage if a car has to swerve to avoid the falling cyclist.

On the other hand if the cyclist is ALREADY on the road, then the motorist must, by law, overtake with sufficient room to account for an eventuality such as this, or the cyclist swerving to avoid a pothole etc. (the fact that they don't though is another matter entirely).

seven stars

rp wrote: »

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.

This puts a different paint job on things. Sounds like it's my duty to keep out of the cycle path on the N4. It'll be interesting to see whether the garda is receptive to this view during our next discussion.

Stark

Pretty sure that's the same guy who passed me out on the Chapelizod bypass before the accident happened.

As for the cycle lane issue, I've used that route and the cycle lane isn't continuous the whole way. Heading up over the flyovers, you do have to come off the cycle lane before the lights into the bus lane, cross at the lights, then rejoin the cycle lane on the other side. (You can see the dashed lines marking this route in rp's photo in post 17). The on-footpath cycle lane that you see in image is for cyclists coming from the Newcastle road, the lowered bit for allowing cyclists from N4 direction to join it is a few metres past the traffic lights. So we don't know that he wasn't using the cycle lane.

seamus

kenmc wrote: »

Would disagree entirely. If a cyclist were to get a puncture on this off road cycle track, which cause them to fall unexpectedly into the roadway, it has the potential to cause plenty of damage if a car has to swerve to avoid the falling cyclist.

My question was an actual one, as opposed to a rhetorical one

The point being that in a court scenario it would be up to you to justify why you're not on the cycle track. I agree that particularly at road bike speeds of 30km/h+, a puncture which instantly deflated the tyre could result in a serious spill into the path of a bus. If it happened in the bus lane, the bus will either be overtaking or will have time/room to avoid you as you fall.
If you're on the cycle track, the bus may be too close or may not even see you falling.

seven stars

Stark wrote: »

So we don't know that he wasn't using the cycle lane.

We can't speculate as to what might have happened of course, but I'd assume it's okay to mention the location of the incident (as jodaw did in an earlier post). Have a look when you're going past tonight - they've marked two spots on the road with yellow paint. There's a 'cycle path' on the footpath at that location. The spots they've marked on the road are not in the bus lane either but are in the left-hand lane of the N4, at the very end of the on-ramp 'merging' dashed line.

monument

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.

And the now many times delayed new regulations are also due to back up the no cycling sign, and the with flow bus lane without a bicycle sign!

nomdeboardie

Best wishes for the injured cyclist

---

Re the proposed revocation of the "mandatory use requirement regulation", I'd been trying again for months to get an update from the Dept of Transport, and received the following, for what it's worth, a coupe of days ago:

"... new regulations to amend the Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations 1997-1998, including a revision of the use of cycle track requirements, are under preparation in the Department at present and it is intended that the amending regulations will be available later in 2012."

I'm not holding my breath (see last page of The Political Action Thread
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055504073 re Varadkar's "hope" to have it out at the end of last year". Nor
do I know what the outcome of the revision will be; if it's not yet finalised, I wonder if this incident could harm the chances of revocation.

I was thinking of trying to extract more info from "The Dept" (blood from a stone) or going through the motions of emailing Varadkar directly (as in above thread), but perhaps now is not the best timing.

Mycroft H

I saw three cyclists on the same stretch of road in the bus lane. All lycra clad on racing bikes. One with no lights whatsoever (reflectors only :rolleyes:) and the other two with only mediocre lights.

With busy late evening traffic its only time before there is another accident like one a few days ago