one-way sign

enas

I have a question for those of you who are more informed about the legalities behind road signs. So there's a no entry sign here in Cork. There are a few inconsistencies with it. First of all, the street is not a one way one, as there is a no entry sign on the other direction too. Fair enough, then that means that essentially there is an invisible wall there (or at least an invisible kerb, and this street is effectively a cul-de-sac). But buses (the 111 P&R shuttle) regularly break this sign, as they enter their terminus (right after the sign). Now I don't imagine they would be stopped for breaking the no entry sign, but technically speaking, they are breaking it. There could have been a sign like this (does this sign have a legal basis?) to make it consistent. With all these inconsistencies, is my guess correct that the only legal behaviour is that no one, including the buses should be allowed to enter that street? Or could there possibly be a bylaw that covers this exemption? And if that's the case (and this is where I'm getting at), could it possibly cover cyclists, because of some other strange law?

I would really like to legally be able to take this shortcut

nomdeboardie

Weird, all right! I don't have any legal insight, but I'll make the obvious suggestion that you could dismount, walk the bike across the "junction" and then cycle off, with impunity

el Bastardo

enas wrote: »

I have a question for those of you who are more informed about the legalities behind road signs. So there's a no entry sign here in Cork. There are a few inconsistencies with it. First of all, the street is not a one way one, as there is a no entry sign on the other direction too. Fair enough, then that means that essentially there is an invisible wall there (or at least an invisible kerb, and this street is effectively a cul-de-sac). But buses (the 111 P&R shuttle) regularly break this sign, as they enter their terminus (right after the sign). Now I don't imagine they would be stopped for breaking the no entry sign, but technically speaking, they are breaking it. There could have been a sign like this (does this sign have a legal basis?) to make it consistent. With all these inconsistencies, is my guess correct that the only legal behaviour is that no one, including the buses should be allowed to enter that street? Or could there possibly be a bylaw that covers this exemption? And if that's the case (and this is where I'm getting at), could it possibly cover cyclists, because of some other strange law?

I would really like to legally be able to take this shortcut

Probably only as weird as having yield signs on both junctions of a crossroads (which you only find out when you travel on different routes!).

Anyway, who cares: If you fit,what's the problem?...? Up da Rebels!

Stepping Stone

enas wrote: »

I have a question for those of you who are more informed about the legalities behind road signs. So there's a no entry sign here in Cork. There are a few inconsistencies with it. First of all, the street is not a one way one, as there is a no entry sign on the other direction too. Fair enough, then that means that essentially there is an invisible wall there (or at least an invisible kerb, and this street is effectively a cul-de-sac). But buses (the 111 P&R shuttle) regularly break this sign, as they enter their terminus (right after the sign). Now I don't imagine they would be stopped for breaking the no entry sign, but technically speaking, they are breaking it. There could have been a sign like this (does this sign have a legal basis?) to make it consistent. With all these inconsistencies, is my guess correct that the only legal behaviour is that no one, including the buses should be allowed to enter that street? Or could there possibly be a bylaw that covers this exemption? And if that's the case (and this is where I'm getting at), could it possibly cover cyclists, because of some other strange law?

I would really like to legally be able to take this shortcut

That no entry sign is for traffic coming from the South Mall. There is a no right turn, except for buses sign on the bridge, hence why you see buses there. Cars access that area from Lower Oliver Plunkett St only, hence the no entry sign on the other end.

It was changed when they started the park and ride service, so any particular rules or regulations relating to that area would be applicable to buses only I would guess.

monument

enas wrote: »

I have a question for those of you who are more informed about the legalities behind road signs. So there's a no entry sign here in Cork. There are a few inconsistencies with it. First of all, the street is not a one way one, as there is a no entry sign on the other direction too. Fair enough, then that means that essentially there is an invisible wall there (or at least an invisible kerb, and this street is effectively a cul-de-sac). But buses (the 111 P&R shuttle) regularly break this sign, as they enter their terminus (right after the sign). Now I don't imagine they would be stopped for breaking the no entry sign, but technically speaking, they are breaking it. There could have been a sign like this (does this sign have a legal basis?) to make it consistent. With all these inconsistencies, is my guess correct that the only legal behaviour is that no one, including the buses should be allowed to enter that street? Or could there possibly be a bylaw that covers this exemption? And if that's the case (and this is where I'm getting at), could it possibly cover cyclists, because of some other strange law?

I would really like to legally be able to take this shortcut

A council can put a no entry sign anywhere. It can even be used on both sides of the one street or a small bit of a street to stop traffic using the street / that bit. A street does not have to be one-way to have no entry signs.

But if they want to allow buses to enter the sign should have a plate under it saying "no entry expect buses...".

In Dublin they use a few versions of this sign, mostly they say "no entry expect buses, taxi, cycles, motorcycles". There's also different versions and one with just "no entry expect cyclists" to allow cyclists to go two-way on otherwise one-way street.

You could ask the council / councillors to change the signs you linked to and/or the turning signs to say "no entry expect buses... cycles etc" -- Put it down to an inexpensive way to make the city more cycling friendly.

DUBintheSTICKS

Your best bet is to look up the local by laws that are in place for it, they might have put the sign post up but not enacted any bye law therefore you can't be prosecuted for it. Happened in Dublin a few years back in relation to a speed limit sign as you join the M1

Stepping Stone

You should email the transport or roads dept in the City Council. They are very pro-cycling.

When they put up the signs, the probably never thought about cyclists cos they were focused on the buses. There is no harm in asking them what the laws are and if cyclists can be accommodated.

The area is pretty dodgy so the Gardai are around there a good bit, so it would be easier if you had the law on your side.

enas

Stepping Stone wrote: »

That no entry sign is for traffic coming from the South Mall. There is a no right turn, except for buses sign on the bridge, hence why you see buses there.

All right, I hadn't spotted the no right turn one. That makes a bit more sense, but I believe it add even further inconsistency (the except buses should be repeated on the no entry sign, in my understanding, no right turn and no entry signs are two very different things, each can go without the other). As it is, the way I understand it is that the no right turn doesn't prevent the bus from turning, but the no entry prevent it from entering the street. Yes, the sign is positioned in such a way that it is only visible from South Mall, and not when making the right turn, but that's poor design in my opinion.

Stepping Stone wrote: »

Cars access that area from Lower Oliver Plunkett St only, hence the no entry sign on the other end.

That I know, this one is more anecdotical. I just find it funny to have two no entry signs in opposite directions nearly next to each other.

DUBintheSTICKS wrote: »

Your best bet is to look up the local by laws that are in place for it, they might have put the sign post up but not enacted any bye law therefore you can't be prosecuted for it. Happened in Dublin a few years back in relation to a speed limit sign as you join the M1

monument wrote: »

You could ask the council / councillors to change the signs you linked to and/or the turning signs to say "no entry expect buses... cycles etc" -- Put it down to an inexpensive way to make the city more cycling friendly.

Those are two very good suggestions, and if I had the time and energy, this is what I would do (in this order). Unfortunately, I'm too lazy for that (well I can still try to send an email, it doesn't harm). What I wondered was if there was any law regulating the kind of bylaws the city council can enact, stating for example that exemptions for buses have to apply for cyclists too, or if the council can do whatever pleases them...

In the meantime, I can always walk the meter between the two signs, and continue cycling from there on. (Or I can just break the sign, as all road users, motorists and cyclists alike, already do.)Sorry, I wasn't supposed to think out loud.

Stepping Stone

enas wrote: »

Stepping Stone wrote: »

That no entry sign is for traffic coming from the South Mall. There is a no right turn, except for buses sign on the bridge, hence why you see buses there.

All right, I hadn't spotted the no right turn one. That makes a bit more sense, but I believe it add even further inconsistency (the except buses should be repeated on the no entry sign, in my understanding, no right turn and no entry signs are two very different things, each can go without the other). As it is, the way I understand it is that the no right turn doesn't prevent the bus from turning, but the no entry prevent it from entering the street. Yes, the sign is positioned in such a way that it is only visible from South Mall, and not when making the right turn, but that's poor design in my opinion.

Stepping Stone wrote: »

Cars access that area from Lower Oliver Plunkett St only, hence the no entry sign on the other end.

That I know, this one is more anecdotical. I just find it funny to have two no entry signs in opposite directions nearly next to each other.

DUBintheSTICKS wrote: »

Your best bet is to look up the local by laws that are in place for it, they might have put the sign post up but not enacted any bye law therefore you can't be prosecuted for it. Happened in Dublin a few years back in relation to a speed limit sign as you join the M1

monument wrote: »

You could ask the council / councillors to change the signs you linked to and/or the turning signs to say "no entry expect buses... cycles etc" -- Put it down to an inexpensive way to make the city more cycling friendly.

Those are two very good suggestions, and if I had the time and energy, this is what I would do (in this order). Unfortunately, I'm too lazy for that (well I can still try to send an email, it doesn't harm). What I wondered was if there was any law regulating the kind of bylaws the city council can enact, stating for example that exemptions for buses have to apply for cyclists too, or if the council can do whatever pleases them...

In the meantime, I can always walk the meter between the two signs, and continue cycling from there on. [SIZE="1"](Or I can just break the sign, as all road users, motorists and cyclists alike, already do.)[/SIZE][SIZE="1"]Sorry, I wasn't supposed to think out loud.[/SIZE]

Am email should do. As far as I can work out, apart from changing the timing of the traffic lights and doing reports on encouraging more people to cycle (know someone working there), they aren't up to much. Anyway, it is a short stroll for them to have a look.

You could just head down there anyway, but I have seen cars and cyclists getting caught by the Gardai doing it. You know what that area is like yourself, plenty trouble at the best of times! Just keep it in mind I suppose.

enas

Just noticed today that my wishes have been heard:



Although the inconsistency is still there with the no right turn sign on Parnell bridge:



That's one less worry for me so I wonder what's the reason for the change, and if it's at all related to the recent traffic law changes.

galwaycyclist

enas wrote: »

Just noticed today that my wishes have been heard:


That's one less worry for me so I wonder what's the reason for the change, and if it's at all related to the recent traffic law changes.

No the legislation allowing these signs (si 273/1998) is 14 years old. Likely they had to wait for a particular generation of road engineers to retire before they could get "permission" to use it.

galwaycyclist

galwaycyclist wrote: »

No the legislation allowing these signs (si 273/1998) is 14 years old. Likely they had to wait for a particular generation of road engineers to retire before they could get "permission" to use it.

We are still waiting in Galway. Eight years after our elected council voted to make one-way streets two-way for cyclists where feasible.

enas

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Likely they had to wait for a particular generation of road engineers to retire before they could get "permission" to use it.

(I know you didn't mean to find it funny, but I just chuckled nevertheless.)

galwaycyclist wrote: »

We are still waiting in Galway. Eight years after our elected council voted to make one-way streets two-way for cyclists where feasible.

In fairness, this isn't a one-way street, but rather a bus only street (well, that also an oversimplification) -- hence my question re the new regulations.

enas

[Completely out of topic] Actually, shouldn't the Irish text be bigger according to the latest Irish language regulations? Really, that's barely legible from anywhere further than a metre away!

Doctor Bob

I don't think it has to be bigger, but it can't be any smaller. Although it can be in lower case where the English is upper case only.

But that aside, why is the exception for buses and bicycles only? Won't somebody please think of the tricycles!!