Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Cyclist injured in accident on N4 on Lucan bypass heading west

124»

Comments

  • #92
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,443 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Any word on the cyclist in question?


  • #93
    seven stars
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 492 ✭✭seven stars


    mp31 wrote: »
    Also as there aren't any RUS 009 or RUS 009A signs present, can we assume that cyclists do not have to use the footpath with the white painted cycle signs?
    rp wrote: »
    I'd go further: cyclist must not use the footpath with white painted bicycles on it, as they would be cycling on the pavement, an offence.

    If it's illegal to use the cycle track and they don't want us to use the bus lane, then that only leaves the main carriageways. Which is a pretty bizarre outcome given that the accident in the op appears to have occurred in the main (left-hand) carriageway.


  • #94
    rp
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 1,227 ✭✭✭rp


    BX 19 wrote: »
    Is there any case law on the matter?
    From Road Traffic Law, Robert Pierse (p.837):
    Legality
    The mere erection of an authorised sign and its disobedience is not sufficient to create an offence. An erection of a sign must have a legal base. Thus in DPP v.Clancy...
    Conformance
    Signs must normally be strictly of the type provided for by ministerial regulation under section 95(2)...


Advertisement