Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Cycle lane & Pedestrian crossing
-
23-05-2012 7:38pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
I'm surprised there aren't any yield signs on the cycle lane. You normally see them at these junctions so that its clear that cyclists have to give way to pedestrians. There's one a little further up at a gate into the park.
0 -
0
-
To be fair, that's not exactly a "clear" example as it says yield but it doesn't give indication of where one is to yield or to whom.
I suspect in the example in the OP, yield markings existed at one point but have since been lost under continual re-layings of the concerete and slabs at that point.0 -
-
-
deadlyspot.com wrote: »Does this video help with your discussion.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCSIY4nYAyQ
Frankly along that stretch it would be better if the cyclists were on the road in the Bus Lane in the flow of traffic. The cycle lane that is there is dreadful.
And yes, yield to pedestrians at this point is a common marking, but there doesn't appear to be one here.
Hmm there are very definitely traffic lights controlling the road and associated cycle tracks however. Which is as it should be, putting yield markings on a through route is a perversion of normal practice. Best not to remark on the colour of the lights at the start
0 -
galwaycyclist wrote: »Hmm there are very definitely traffic lights controlling the road and associated cycle tracks however. Which is as it should be, putting yield markings on a through route is a perversion of normal practice. Best not to remark on the colour of the lights at the start
I know what you are saying, but I see those lights as controlling the road and not applicable to the cycle track. Otherwise, yes, I would have been breaking the law.
An interesting question nonetheless. Are they for the road and cycle track, or just the road?0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
galwaycyclist wrote: »There is nothing in the traffic regulations that says the lights don't have to be obeyed if they are to the right of your lane. There is nothing in the traffic regulations that says cycle tracks are exempt from traffic signals. You face a red light, you stop, end of. The last thing the people who are trying to improve conditions for cyclists need, is for other cyclists to be acting as if they have some kind of right to cycle through pedestrian crossings. It is something that would be viewed as wholly indefensible. People putting up videos of such behaviour would normally be doing so for the purpose of illustrating the "rampant lawlessness" and "reckless disregard" for public safety among the cycling "community".
I'm also not a lawyer, but here's a few points:- The pedestrian light in the video is RED (see screen shot below).
- The pedestrian crossing is between one dropped kerb and the other (ie on the "roadway").
- The "cycle track" in this case is on part of the "footway" sectioned off for cyclists. The track is not the "roadway".
- Pedestrians crossing from the left of the track, as pictured below, have to cross the cycle track to trigger the ped crossing, so how can the light apply to cyclists?
- The design of this cycle track in question is deeply flawed for pedestrians as well as cyclists. But the design here and else where alone this section is that generally (and taking into account the normal rules for yielding) pedestrians yield when crossing the cycle track and cyclist yield where there is no cycle track.
- Not only is there no stop line, but there is also no pedestrian crossing line in the path of cyclists who are using the off-road cycle track. Indeed, bar on the tactical paving slabs where the paint would not have stuck for too long, the crossing pedestrians are faced with solid while lines of the cycle track.
- There's a presumption or expectation that primary traffic signs and signals should be placed to the left of vehicles (this isn't just my view, see RAIU reports etc). And this traffic light also seems to be angled towards the roadway.
- Looking at a few other off-road cycle tracks in Dublin (Clontarf, City Quay, Finglas Road, at least parts of the N11, and the recent canals route), it's fairly apparent that generally the traffic lights to the right of the cycle tracks do not seem to apply to the cycle track users.
- The expectations of what each road user thinks they should do (ie how readable a road design is and what people perceiver the design to be) matters in law.
0 - The pedestrian light in the video is RED (see screen shot below).
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
galwaycyclist wrote: »Because strictly speaking traffic lights also apply to the footway users eg pedestrians walking along the road. Traffic and Parking regulations 1997 - I have highlighted the relevant sub-article (46.2) in bold. (I should have pointed this out before but haven't been in this "space" for a while.)
Where this mainly comes into play is at traffic light controlled junctions without pedestrian lights - something that is probably rarely encountered in Dublin nowadays. All traffic and pedestrians are supposed to work off the same traffic signal - see also sub article 46.5. In such cases, as far as I know, the duty of turning drivers to yield to crossing pedestrians kicks in.
That not mainly but only applies where a pedestrian is crossing a junction, I said:I can't think of a single example where traffic lights apply to footways without junctions, can you?
The cyclist on the track is not crossing a junction here.galwaycyclist wrote: »Lets look at this from the perspective of someone crossing the road with the "green man": Strictly speaking they are entitled to expect to be able to do so without interference or hindrance from other pedestrians using the footway they are crossing over to. ie without interfence from people walking through the red light. In reality this kind "pedestrian on pedestrian" interaction is considered a "soft conflict" and rarely if ever results in injury and so rarely if ever becomes a matter for the courts or the Garda.
The pedestrian crossing only applies from the edge of one footpath to the central medium and then from the medium to the edge of the other, the lights do not give any special right of way across the rest of the footpath once somebody can safety get onto the footpath.
There's space between the edge of the road and the cycle track (the space is equal to the space given in many central mediums), anything that happens on the footpath beyond this does not affect anybody crossing the junction.
Also, came across this since last posting on this thread, an on-road example of where the light to the right of the lane does not apply to the inside bus junction bypass (the bus lane bypass only has its own lights for a ped crossings):
0 -
-
That not mainly but only applies where a pedestrian is crossing a junction, I said:I can't think of a single example where traffic lights apply to footways without junctions, can you?
The cyclist on the track is not crossing a junction here.
The pedestrian crossing only applies from the edge of one footpath to the central medium and then from the medium to the edge of the other, the lights do not give any special right of way across the rest of the footpath once somebody can safety get onto the footpath.
There's space between the edge of the road and the cycle track (the space is equal to the space given in many central mediums), anything that happens on the footpath beyond this does not affect anybody crossing the junction.
Also, came across this since last posting on this thread, an on-road example of where the light to the right of the lane does not apply to the inside bus junction bypass (the bus lane bypass only has its own lights for a ped crossings):
They're are plenty of those type of junctions round Dublin.
Here is another example again with their own pedestrian crossing further down the road
0 -
galwaycyclist wrote: »Sorry Monument but my reading of it is that in law it applies at all locations where a pedestrian encounters a red light facing their direction of travel. It is simply likely that it is not something that comes up very often because the type of conflict created is not viewed as serious.
Cyclists are not pedestrians
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
galwaycyclist wrote: »So if I understand your thesis the bus driver is entitled to drive through the red light at the crossing? I am not getting your argument here?
The driver in the bus lane bypass is allowed to pass the traffic light on his or her right (the ones marked in red below) regardless how the light is lit. The traffic light to their right simply does not apply to them, just as it does not apply to the cyclist on the cycle track.
The lights at the ped crossings are separate and further down.0 -
can anyone tell me what is the story with this junction? its where the finglas road meets the old finglas road. is there an onus on cyclists to stop when the light shown is red - given that traffic coming off the old finglas road may be continuing straight i.e. across the path of the cyclist.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
galwaycyclist wrote: »Yes if the red light is controlling a pedestrian crossing then the onus is on the pedestrians using the footway to stop for people crossing their path.
What are you talking about?
I've yet to see one single pedestrian crossing which crosses a footway (opposed to crossing a junction).galwaycyclist wrote: »And do you accept that the bus driver or any other person using the road must stop at the pedestrian crossings if the lights facing them are red?
Yes, sure. But the pedestrian crossings in these examples are separate and further down from the lights we're mainly talking about. The examples where used to show that there are cases where drivers and cyclists can pass a traffic lights on their right.
Maybe an aerial view will make it clearer?:
KEY
Red circular markings = Traffic light on the right of the bus lane bypass of the junction (which does not apply to the bus lane bypass)
Red arrow = bus bypass showing flow
Blue markings = Ped lights (which are not really part of the point)
And you can also look at it on street view here.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
galwaycyclist wrote: »That you can have a bypass arrangement is not disputed. The point here is that the crossing requirement has not been ignored - it has been taken into account and provided for in the design of the bypass arrangement. If you want to have a cycle track bypass arrangement do you not also have to take the same things into account?
No, you don't. There's no requirement for a signalised pedestrian crossing.
The signalised pedestrian crossing is preferred by the councils because otherwise people on foot have (legally at least) very strong rights to cross a road (as long the they don't jump on front of a bus/bike which does not have the space to stop, or blindly walk across etc) -- it's the reason people urged caution regardless of the light and maybe why a lot of our discussion is slightly mute.galwaycyclist wrote: »Forget the pedestrian crossing requirement lets deal with the cyclists. In the original example how are cyclists coming from the road on the right, on green, supposed to join the cycle track? Is it your contention that cyclists on the crossing arm can just plow on through red without regard for cyclists lawfully entering the junction from the right?
Bicycles can manage such mergers without signalised interventions. And I've seen it work in Copenhagen with not much larger tracks but far high volumes of cyclists (edit: in fairness, the transition detail is of a higher design -- longer mainly -- and a wider cycle track makes all the difference too).
They could do so ever easier without the fairly recently planted tree in the way -- but that's one of many things wrong with this cycle track.On that particular junction a cyclist has no way of joining the track there. They take the right turn and there's a dip in the kerb just past the junction to allow them to join. Well...that's how it's supposed to work, but most cyclists around there believe the pedestrian crossing was put there solely for their benefit.
In fairness, there's a lot of (wrong) pressure from bus drivers to get off the road as soon as possible and from what I understand cyclists used to be directly onto the footpath when the bus shelters are and to cross at the ped crossing.
You can see the remains of the old design partly washed away in time on Street View, the cycling ramp on point is clearly different to the ped crossing point:
The ped crossing we're talking about is behind the bus / taxi shelters... now back to work...0 -
-
-
Advertisement
Advertisement