Legal obligation to use cycle paths

Snickers Man

I live in the Grand Canal area where recently about half of the road has been taken up by a fine cycle path, separated by a kerb from both the pedestrian footpath and the rest of the roadway.

I warmly approve of this measure and would hope that the Council extends it throughout the city where appropriate. My only frustration is that many cyclists, for reasons I cannot fathom, seem to prefer to mix it with cars in the roadway instead of use the fine facilities the taxpayer has provided for them.

I understand that a pedestrian has, strictly speaking, a legal requirement to use a pedestrian crossing to cross the road if they are within 100m of one. To cross the road otherwise is "jaywalking" punishable, at least in theory, by a fine. I know. It's rarely if ever enforced. But it's there.

Is there a legal requirement on cyclists to use a cycle path if one is provided for them on the road along which they are travelling?

If not, there should be.

And if the police don't want to enforce it, the insurance companies could do us all a favour by refusing to pay out if a cyclist is injured while travelling where they shouldn't have been. That might concentrate minds wonderfully.

paddyandy

There was the pavement and the Cycle Lane but he chose the pavement .We don't care enough about it and as a nation we are dying from apathy about important matters .

seamus

There is a legal requirement, however the vast majority of cycle lanes and cycle tracks are inappropriately constructed for cycle traffic and are usually more dangerous and hazardous to use than the road.
There is a primary obligation on all road users to do their best to avoid injury or damage to property, and it is under this obligation that I refuse to use off-road cycle tracks.

A "fine" cycle path is a matter of opinion. I can't comment on the piece you refer to unless I've cycled on it. Neither for that matter, can you. Unless you've cycled on it yourself you actually don't know if it's of any use.

Mint Sauce

As pointed out, there is a legal requirement, however, most cyclelanes I have seen out totally in approprate. Between pedestirians using them as an extention the to footpath, cars parking in them or undertaking in them, passengers opening their doors without looking, every peice of road debre being swept into them, etc etc.

If theres a painted lane in the road, I'll usally use it, if its seperated by a kerb, or painted on the pavement, I generally wont.

Dravokivich

Overhanging branches from trees usually planted right next to them, make them pointless for me to use.

unless... I want to feel like I'm some sort of super spy while ducking between the trees while pretending I'm dodging bullets from the bad guys.

wench

Snickers Man wrote: »

My only frustration is that many cyclists, for reasons I cannot fathom, seem to prefer to mix it with cars in the roadway instead of use the fine facilities the taxpayer has provided for them.

Well sometimes they're already in use & I think I'd take my chances with the cars over these lads
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056543191

AlekSmart

From The Rules of The Road...

http://www.rotr.ie/rules-for-pedestrians-cyclists-motorcyclists/cyclists/cyclists_cycling-safely.html

A cycle track can also be a reserved part of a footpath or other area off the road. A cyclist must use a cycle track if it is provided.

monument

Snickers Man wrote: »

My only frustration is that many cyclists, for reasons I cannot fathom, seem to prefer to mix it with cars in the roadway instead of use the fine facilities the taxpayer has provided for them.

Maybe you should ask why, rather than get angry/annoyed about it? There's usually a very good reason why somebody does not use a cycle path/track/lane.

On which sections of road and in what direction have you seen cyclists not using the path?

Snickers Man wrote: »

I understand that a pedestrian has, strictly speaking, a legal requirement to use a pedestrian crossing to cross the road if they are within 100m of one. To cross the road otherwise is "jaywalking" punishable, at least in theory, by a fine. I know. It's rarely if ever enforced. But it's there.

That's not true -- it's rightly something like 15m away from a crossing. Having to walk 100m to a ped crossing in a huge amount of case would be madly crazy.

Snickers Man wrote: »

Is there a legal requirement on cyclists to use a cycle path if one is provided for them on the road along which they are travelling?

Only for a limited amount of cycle tracks and only a limited amount of the time, and there are exceptions (for example: outside the operational hours, turning left or right where the path does not go, getting around an obstruction, the cyclists not going the same direction and the same way as the cycle path, etc).

Snickers Man wrote: »

And if the police don't want to enforce it, the insurance companies could do us all a favour by refusing to pay out if a cyclist is injured while travelling where they shouldn't have been. That might concentrate minds wonderfully.

Keep in mind you can still be criminally more liable even where one person is a percentage in the wrong.

AlekSmart wrote: »

From The Rules of The Road...

http://www.rotr.ie/rules-for-pedestrians-cyclists-motorcyclists/cyclists/cyclists_cycling-safely.html

The rules of the road is not the law, it's just the RSA's view. And the RSA are wrong about a few things (see this current thread in motors, for example, Why [does the] RSA keep on publishing materials with incorrect information?).

Aka Ishur

Things people should remember when planning a cycle lane-

A cycle lane will not be used if -

• If you have to cross the road to get to it.
• If you have to yield at junctions joining the main rd.
• If there's no kerb/barrier seperating it from the footpath.
• If it requires the cyclist to leave/enter main rd at any sharp angle.
• If they are not cleaned on a very regular basis. (Traffic keeps the roads relatively clean)
• If they have short lengths between interuptions
• If they are easy to park either partially or totally on.
• If it uses the rediculous hi-grip surface stuff that breaks up almost immediately. Just use tarmac.
• If it dips up and down for entrances etc.

My opinion anyways.

OssianSmyth

Mandatory cycle lane use was to be abolished last year...
http://www.kildarestreet.com/debate/?id=2011-04-20.309.3

The canal cycle path is not yet complete so its use is not yet mandatory.

Jay-walking is prohibited only within 15m of a signalised crossing:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html#zzsi182y1997a46

patrickbrophy18

Snickers Man wrote: »

My only frustration is that many cyclists, for reasons I cannot fathom, seem to prefer to mix it with cars in the roadway instead of use the fine facilities the taxpayer has provided for them.

Completely agree. This facility along the Grand Canal is (or at least should be) a cyclists dream come true. The reason why conflicts between motorists and cyclists is so high at the moment is because most of the roads in County Dublin are shared between both types of road users. The very purpose of facilities such as the Grand Canal Cycle Way is to separate cyclists and motorists traveling along it. In theory, this should result in a conflict free environment were neither type of road user has to worry about each other. As such any cyclist failing to use such facilities becomes a nuisance to motorists and commuters traveling by bus. This type of system should be rolled out to the rest of County Dublin and nationwide.

monument

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

This facility along the Grand Canal is (or at least should be) a cyclists dream come true.

It should be, but it isn't anywhere close to being so.

OssianSmyth wrote: »

The canal cycle path is not yet complete so its use is not yet mandatory.

Signs are up so it is open (bar the bit they are finishing, which half isn't parallel to a road anyway).

However, it seems to be marked at as a cycleway which does not seem to be covered under mandatory use, and, even if it was covered there are the written and case law exceptions.

patrickbrophy18

monument wrote: »

It should be, but it isn't anywhere close to being so.

Why do you say that?

I have walked the entire length of the canal and I don't see anything wrong with it. While I do acknowledge that a small stretch of it remains incomplete, the finished stretches have ample space. Where stretches remain unfinished, I am perfectly fine with cyclists sharing the nearest road with motorists as long as caution is taken by BOTH types of road users. The only criticism I would have towards it is the lack of fencing, barriers or other measures which may safe-guard pedestrians and cyclists from accidentally falling into the canal.

monument

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Why do you say that?

To be fair to the council I'll wait until after it's officially opened to go into detail...

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I have walked the entire length of the canal and I don't see anything wrong with it. While I do acknowledge that a small stretch of it remains incomplete, the finished stretches have ample space.

Where I think you are referring to (along the canal from Leeson Street to Grand Canal Street?), is mostly better than the rest.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Where stretches remain unfinished, I am perfectly fine with cyclists sharing the nearest road with motorists as long as caution is taken by BOTH types of road users.

The unfinished section is only a dead end to a few houses, businesses and a hotel. Anybody not able to share such a road needs a kick up the...

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

The only criticism I would have towards it is the lack of fencing, barriers or other measures which may safe-guard pedestrians and cyclists from accidentally falling into the canal.

I don't think that's a problem.

Cookie_Monster

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Completely agree. This facility along the Grand Canal is (or at least should be) a cyclists dream come true.

why? Free unhindered use of the roads would be a cyclist dream come true rather than constantly been directed into stupid dangerous cycle lanes that don't have priority and don't go where you want.

Mucco

Snickers Man wrote: »

My only frustration is that many cyclists, for reasons I cannot fathom, seem to prefer to mix it with cars in the roadway instead of use the fine facilities the taxpayer has provided for them.

What's wrong with cyclists using the road if they prefer?

Hilly Bill

Because most go against the traffic on the wrong side of the road thinking that they can cycle in any direction they want regardless of the oncoming traffic and thats just on the cycle lane. Saw it today in town, idiots cycling the wrong way along a one way street and across a junction that was controlled by lights .
One of them was close to being side swiped by a car moving across the junction and still had the cheek to give out to the driver as if he was in the wrong.

Cianos

Okay, here is an example of a cycle lane that most non cyclists would consider a 'perfectly good cycle lane', but one that I refuse to cycle in.

Many would look at it and think there's nothing wrong with it. Even better, the road has recently been resurfaced and the lines are much more defined.

However, on a busy afternoon, this stretch is filled with adjacently parked cars, like the blue one in the link. The cycle lane is so close to this line of parked cars, that if a car were to open its doors, the door would swing right out in to the cycle lane. Cycling along, it's either smash in to the door, (potentially being flung off the bike and out under a car) or swerve out in to the road and be crushed by a car coming up fast from behind.

So yeah, Seamus was right. You might get pissed off with cyclists not being in the cycle lane, but you don't really know how safe or dangerous a cycle lane is until you're the one cycling on it.

So instead I cycle out in the cars lane, as I trust drivers behind me to consider my presence much more so than a kid opening the back door of a car, someone chatting away on the phone and not thinking, etc.

Snickers Man

seamus wrote: »

A "fine" cycle path is a matter of opinion. I can't comment on the piece you refer to unless I've cycled on it. Neither for that matter, can you. Unless you've cycled on it yourself you actually don't know if it's of any use.

It's newly paved, it's straight. It's away from trees. It's got a dotted line signifying that it is two way. It's an excellent facility. There is NO good reason for a cyclist not to use it.

There's millions of bad ones. Such as the old line "Cycle paths have pot holes where adjoining roads don't. So I won't use them."

If I were to decide that a pot hole might damage my suspension therefore I'll just drive along the footpath for a little while you'd think I was insane. And rightly so.

Snickers Man

Cianos wrote: »

Okay, here is an example of a cycle lane that most non cyclists would consider a 'perfectly good cycle lane', but one that I refuse to cycle in.
...
on a busy afternoon, this stretch is filled with adjacently parked cars, like the blue one in the link. The cycle lane is so close to this line of parked cars, that if a car were to open its doors, the door would swing right out in to the cycle lane.

I accept that point. And I think that many cycle lanes in Dublin are about as much use as a chocolate teapot. They basically are a line painted in a road beside a lane that is not wide enough to take a normal sized car so effectively cars and bikes share the same space anyway.

But the stretch along the canal is the ideal cycle lane. It is completely separate, ie there is a kerb not just a painted line, between both the car and pedestrian sections. It's the closest I've seen in Ireland to those in Germany or Denmark.

Any cyclist who insists on using the road along that stretch is an idiot.

IMHO

Mongfinder General

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Because most go against the traffic on the wrong side of the road thinking that they can cycle in any direction they want regardless of the oncoming traffic and thats just on the cycle lane. Saw it today in town, idiots cycling the wrong way along a one way street and across a junction that was controlled by lights .
One of them was close to being side swiped by a car moving across the junction and still had the cheek to give out to the driver as if he was in the wrong.

Because they can. There is very little enforcement in this country. I see it every day. No real prospect of detection.

AltAccount

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Because most go against the traffic on the wrong side of the road ...

Most? Really?

AltAccount

Snickers Man wrote: »

It's newly paved, it's straight. It's away from trees. It's got a dotted line signifying that it is two way. It's an excellent facility. There is NO good reason for a cyclist not to use it.

Possible reasons: Losing priority at every junction. Having to use badly timed crossing lights where cars are given very obvious priority. Being treated like a pedestrian rather than a vehicle.

monument

Snickers Man wrote: »

But the stretch along the canal is the ideal cycle lane. It is completely separate, ie there is a kerb not just a painted line, between both the car and pedestrian sections. It's the closest I've seen in Ireland to those in Germany or Denmark.

Any cyclist who insists on using the road along that stretch is an idiot.

IMHO

Putting IMHO at the end does not mean much when you clearly don't know what you're talking about and are unwilling to be open to the idea that it is far from ideal.

Most of the canal route design would never be used in Denmark and Germany is a mixed bag on standards.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Because most go against the traffic on the wrong side of the road thinking that they can cycle in any direction they want regardless of the oncoming traffic and thats just on the cycle lane. Saw it today in town, idiots cycling the wrong way along a one way street and across a junction that was controlled by lights .
One of them was close to being side swiped by a car moving across the junction and still had the cheek to give out to the driver as if he was in the wrong.

A driver broke a red light last week while I was crossing with a green bike light on the canal route and he had the cheek to beep at me!

Does that say anything about all or most drivers?

Snickers Man wrote: »

It's newly paved, it's straight. It's away from trees. It's got a dotted line signifying that it is two way. It's an excellent facility. There is NO good reason for a cyclist not to use it.

If you say so! You're the expert authorty here on cycle lanes. Forget what the people who have to use them think!

Snickers Man wrote: »

There's millions of bad ones. Such as the old line "Cycle paths have pot holes where adjoining roads don't. So I won't use them."

If I were to decide that a pot hole might damage my suspension therefore I'll just drive along the footpath for a little while you'd think I was insane. And rightly so.

Why don't drivers feck off and drive on the motorway?

nomdeboardie

This video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0_G6Zrz4PU, from last week, was mentioned in a thread from the cycling forum a couple of days ago (can't find it now). Haven't been that way myself yet, but things don't look particularly straightforward...

kate.m

There's still a cycle lane marked on the road though, so you're technically not doing anything wrong by using that? (with the traffic) or will they get rid of it when the other side is properly finished?

Hilly Bill

AltAccount wrote: »

Most? Really?

Yep.

Hilly Bill

monument wrote: »

Putting IMHO at the end does not mean much when you clearly don't know what you're talking about and are unwilling to be open to the idea that it is far from ideal.

Most of the canal route design would never be used in Denmark and Germany is a mixed bag on standards.




A driver broke a red light last week while I was crossing with a green bike light on the canal route and he had the cheek to beep at me!

Does that say anything about all or most drivers?




If you say so! You're the expert authorty here on cycle lanes. Forget what the people who have to use them think!




Why don't drivers feck off and drive on the motorway?

Typical cyclist attitude. All cyclists should be kept off the road for their own good.

Capt'n Midnight

Motorists are required to keep as near to the left as it is safe to do so.

Motorists are allowed to drive in cycle lanes with dashed lines.


Does this mean that motorists are legally obliged to use such cycle lanes when there are no cyclists in them ?



Also as regards forcing cyclists to use cycle lanes, most collisions occur at junctions where a cycle lane won't separate the traffic anyway.

patrickbrophy18

Cianos wrote: »

Okay, here is an example of a cycle lane that most non cyclists would consider a 'perfectly good cycle lane', but one that I refuse to cycle in.

Okay, I will agree that this is a terrible way to plan cycle lanes by placing parking spaces to the left of them as this is hazardous to cyclists. If cycle lanes are to be placed parallel to parking spaces, they should be placed to the left with plenty of clearance between them and the car so that opening doors won't become an issue.

nomdeboardie wrote: »

This video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0_G6Zrz4PU, from last week, was mentioned in a thread from the cycling forum a couple of days ago (can't find it now). Haven't been that way myself yet, but things don't look particularly straightforward...

Going by the footage of the video, it appears as though the traffic lights at each junction are trying the patience of pedestrians and cyclists. From this, I can understand how the superfluously long intervals between pedestrian and cycle lights would drive them nuts. As such, they need to be reconfigured to give more prioritization to cyclists and pedestrians. Furthermore, the obvious glitches in their synchronization is extremely dangerous and hazardous to cyclists and pedestrians.

foggy_lad

nomdeboardie wrote: »

This video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0_G6Zrz4PU, from last week, was mentioned in a thread from the cycling forum a couple of days ago (can't find it now). Haven't been that way myself yet, but things don't look particularly straightforward...

That video clearly shows that a very high number of cyclists will ignore the rules and laws and cycle through red lights putting pedestrians and other road users at risk.