Lights and sirens treatment for not using a cycle track

monument

This I think is worth it's own thread, from here...

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Got pulled over by a Garda in unmarked car (with lights and sirens :rolleyes:)in Lusk this evening for not using the cycle lane on the Rathmore Road. When I protested that to use it would be dangerous and pointed out that it was full of walkers, joggers, dogs, buggies etc. (all going merrily by as we spoke) he said he wasn't interested in my opinions on safety!

...

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Yes. I'm a reasonable person. As we spoke several walkers passed on the cycle lane. I pointed out to the Garda that I need to take my safety and their safety into account and, as I often average 40kph there, it would be unsafe to use it. He said that he wasn't interested in my opinions on safety and that I was legally obliged to use the cycle lane. (It's one of those segregated ones above road height and it's too short to be practical anyway).

It gets better - He said that if I encounter pedestrians or other obstructions on the cycle lane I should telephone the Gardai instead of breaking the law.

He asked for ID. I didn't have picture ID on me but said that I cpould produce a driving licence/passport later. He then stated that I was lucky that I didn't have my driving licence with me as he could have got points added to it for this cycling incident. Unbeliveable!

What station is it? I must ring them every time I pass in a car and see a walker on the cycle path (which happens every time I've passed bar maybe late at night).

Anyway, how do you legally enter this great safe cycle lane?

From the Skerries side there seems to be no legal way! Crossing the solid while line and doing a U-turn is illegal, isn't it? And also note the sign, it's not a mandatory one, you're only faced with a mandatory coming out of Lusk and it's still problematic getting over to the track.

Somebody also has mentioned before case law that you don't have to follow mandatory use if it bring you out of your way, surely this counts here too?



And the road is nice and wide, so I can't see much of an issue with slowing cars down much:



And entering at the next roundabout -- where's the mandatory use sign?

And how do you enter? Stop at the exit of a roundabout (that's safe!) and cross like somebody on foot?



At each roundabout you're forced to come to a stop and cross at 90 degrees (note: mantroy sign again only visible coming out of Lusk -- not when cycling along the road or entering from the other side) and there's only a pedestrian crossing point between the cycle tracks on each side, are you supposed to dismount to cross? And if so does the case law mentioned above kick in again?:



And then we have a crossing like this where the stop line is on top on the crossing and the speed table is behind the crossing rather then being part of the crossing!!! All to link a ring road with 20-30 houses which should never of had its own exit on to such a road...

monument

And more of these poor crossing were planned!:



And coming from the Dublin side, as such, no sign unless you're coming out of Lusk and again no easy way up to the cycle track:



Even coming from out of Lusk, is it really safe or legal at a roundabout entrance point to come to a dead stop and make a 90 degrees turn, onto what is pedestrian crossing point, just to get to the cycle track?



Note how small the "footpath" section of this shared path is and how this father on a phone is edging the pram out onto the cycle lane:

Inquitus

You have done an excellent job of highlighting why this is so ridiculous. This is not an isolated case, there are all number of cycle lanes which are badly designed, and cannot be cycled safely at any speed. Large parts of the cycle lane from Swords to Town or Town to Swords are poorly laid out, cross sides of the road on multiple occassions and are shared with pedestrians.

Presumably cycle lanes are intended to be ridden as if one were on the road, in which case speeds up to 60kph can be expected, and any coming together between cyclist and pedestrian could be fatal.

It amazes me that an officer in the Gardai would think this a worthwhile activity.

WIZE

I live in Celbridge and we have loads on cycle paths which cyclists never use . They are also never blocked be people walking .

monument

WIZE wrote: »

I live in Celbridge and we have loads on cycle paths which cyclists never use . They are also never blocked be people walking .

Never blocked by people or caravans I suppose too?





And the off road ones have crap junctions where cyclists legally have to dismount!:



And then even on-road motorists can't seem to keep out of the cycle tracks:

buffalo

monument wrote: »

And then even on-road motorists can't seem to keep out of the cycle tracks:

To be fair, I don't think it's an offence (or an issue) for cars that are moving to enter cycle lanes with broken white lines, as long as there is no cyclist in them.

From the RotR (my emphasis):

No vehicle (other than a motorised wheelchair) may cross into or over a mandatory cycle track unless the driver is entering or leaving a place or a side road

monument

buffalo wrote: »

To be fair, I don't think it's an offence (or an issue) for cars that are moving to enter cycle lanes with broken white lines, as long as there is no cyclist in them.

Nor is there any good reason for them to be there.

IF there is good reason, such as the lanes not being wide enough, then the cycle lanes should not be there.

2 Wheels Good

Didn't think it was the law but looks like it is mandatory (as long as signs are provided)(link)

Wishbone Ash

2 Wheels Good wrote: »

Didn't think it was the law but looks like it is mandatory (as long as signs are provided)(link)

It can only be mandatory if the correct signage( RUS 009 and RUS 009A) are used. They are not in use on the one in question. It has "makey-up" signage presumable bought 'off the shelf' by the road contractor. I pointed this out to the Garda but could not recall the relevant SI or signage codes. He therefore he wasn't interested and kept saying "says who" even though I stated that it was in a SI.

Beasty

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

It can only be mandatory if the correct signage( RUS 009 and RUS 009A) are used. They are not in use on the one in question. It has "makey-up" signage presumable bought 'off the shelf' by the road contractor. I pointed this out to the Garda but could not recall the relevant SI or signage codes. He therefore he wasn't interested and kept saying "says who" even though I stated that it was in a SI.

I thought the correct signs is a cycle alone - the ones there are cycle with an adult holding a child's hand beneath (albeit with the "correct" blue background)

Anyway, I'm continuing to cycle that road - maybe one day he'll "catch" me - could be quite entertaining

Dermot Illogical

Beasty wrote: »

Anyway, I'm continuing to cycle that road - maybe one day he'll "catch" me - could be quite entertaining

I cycled it four times yesterday, to no avail.

Lumen

Does anyone have a cut-out-and-keep analysis of the mandatory-ness or otherwise of the cycle lanes in the Phoenix Park?

I dimly remember stuff about inadequate signage and it being an OPW road, but it would be handy to have something coherent. I am unable to summon my inner "monument" in the middle of an interval session when my blood is filled with lactate and hatred.

Also, what legal authority do Park rangers have? They were stopping cyclists this morning at Castleknock Gate and reminding us of our obligations to (a) not cycle like dicks and (b) use the provided cycle track (and not the road, presumably).

They also said they'd be trying to move peds on to the footpath. Good luck with that :pac:

Chips Lovell

The lanes in the Phoenix Park have no basis in law. So people can walk all they want in them. The only law on the books is obeying instructions from rangers.

Squidgy Black

Lumen wrote: »

Does anyone have a cut-out-and-keep analysis of the mandatory-ness or otherwise of the cycle lanes in the Phoenix Park?

I dimly remember stuff about inadequate signage and it being an OPW road, but it would be handy to have something coherent. I am unable to summon my inner "monument" in the middle of an interval session when my blood is filled with lactate and hatred.

Also, what legal authority do Park rangers have? They were stopping cyclists this morning at Castleknock Gate and reminding us of our obligations to (a) not cycle like dicks and (b) use the provided cycle track (and not the road, presumably).

They also said they'd be trying to move peds on to the footpath. Good luck with that :pac:

I took a spin down to the Phoenix park earlier in the week, and not one ped used the footpath but rather the cycle lane. When I did use the cycle lane, I was roared at by peds who didn't even realise it was a cycle lane. There's nowhere near enough signposts or warnings to tell peds to keep off it.

Lumen

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

The lanes in the Phoenix Park have no basis in law. So people can walk all they want in them. The only law on the books is obeying instructions from rangers.

What sort of instructions?

I'm completely happy with pedestrians on the track, as it's a recreational space and the footpath is badly positioned. It's the "don't use the road" bit I have the problem with/question about.

buffalo

stetyrrell wrote: »

I took a spin down to the Phoenix park earlier in the week, and not one ped used the footpath but rather the cycle lane. When I did use the cycle lane, I was roared at by peds who didn't even realise it was a cycle lane. There's nowhere near enough signposts or warnings to tell peds to keep off it.

I never understand why anyone would want to walk in the cycle path - it's right next to the road, and noisy smelly car traffic, and the footpath goes under the trees in an idyllic setting.

Likewise Clontarf (though not as frequent) - why on earth would you want to walk beside the road instead by the sea? I'd love to have the cycle path alongside the water.

CamperMan

do what they do in Germany.. if someone is walking on a cycle lane, sound your bell then if they don't move run into them....

I really can't see what the complaint is about, if the law says you have to cycle on a cycle lane and not the road if a cycle lane is there.. then that's the law.. abide by it..

the photos are trivial, I mean, moaning about the guy pushing the pram whilst on the phone.. there is plenty of space to get past him.

The pic with the caravan, the caravan is in a lay-by, it isn't on a cycle lane and the 4 girls walking along.. again, plenty of space to pass by on a bike..

Inquitus

CamperMan wrote: »

do what they do in Germany.. if someone is walking on a cycle lane, sound your bell then if they don't move run into them....

I really can't see what the complaint is about, if the law says you have to cycle on a cycle lane and not the road if a cycle lane is there.. then that's the law.. abide by it..

the photos are trivial, I mean, moaning about the guy pushing the pram whilst on the phone.. there is plenty of space to get past him.

The pic with the caravan, the caravan is in a lay-by, it isn't on a cycle lane and the 4 girls walking along.. again, plenty of space to pass by on a bike..

Not if you are pushing 50kph, its simply not safe, fine if you are doing 10 kph out with the kids. The Caravan is on a cycle path, yes they are stupid enough to make them 20ft long.

CamperMan

a 20ft long cycle path??

seamus

Lumen wrote: »

What sort of instructions?

Local bye-laws:

14. All members of the public should comply with any lawful instruction given to them by a Park Ranger;

Clear as mud, right?

I guess if a Ranger instructs a cyclist to cycle on the cycle track, then you are required to do so. But just for that section. Once you reach the road again, I see no reason why you can't return to it.

a 20ft long cycle path??

You sound surprised.

Inquitus

CamperMan wrote: »

a 20ft long cycle path??

The one with the Caravan on is what 20-30ft long?

Lumen

seamus wrote: »

Clear as mud, right?

Great, thanks. It doesn't cover the case where the Ranger is asking me to do something which we disagree as to the legality of. :pac:

I think I'll just use the ME NO SPEEAKY EEENGLISH defence.

CramCycle

CamperMan wrote: »

I really can't see what the complaint is about, if the law says you have to cycle on a cycle lane and not the road if a cycle lane is there.. then that's the law.. abide by it..

the photos are trivial, I mean, moaning about the guy pushing the pram whilst on the phone.. there is plenty of space to get past him.

The pic with the caravan, the caravan is in a lay-by, it isn't on a cycle lane and the 4 girls walking along.. again, plenty of space to pass by on a bike..

It would be reckless to try and go past those people even at a slow pace, if you were to hit them you would be in trouble. They are all having a chat, how do you know one of the won't step sidewards in the middle of telling a story/joke, straight into your path, or swing an arm out to point at something. Having a teenager in my own house, I understand fully there lack of acknowledgement of anything in the world that does not directly relate to them.

Chips Lovell

It says "any lawful instruction". I'm not au fait with what the agents of a property owner can lawful request someone to do. If I had to guess, asking you not to cycle on the road would be covered but asking you to perform a sex act on them wouldn't.

The way I see it is that the Phoenix Park is a bit of a free for all. There's no specific law banning bikes from the road. And there's no specific law banning pedestrians from the cycle lane. Now and then a park ranger will ask people not to do either of the above, but unless this happens, you carry on as before.

monument

CamperMan wrote: »

do what they do in Germany.. if someone is walking on a cycle lane, sound your bell then if they don't move run into them....

I really can't see what the complaint is about, if the law says you have to cycle on a cycle lane and not the road if a cycle lane is there.. then that's the law.. abide by it..

the photos are trivial, I mean, moaning about the guy pushing the pram whilst on the phone.. there is plenty of space to get past him.

The pic with the caravan, the caravan is in a lay-by, it isn't on a cycle lane and the 4 girls walking along.. again, plenty of space to pass by on a bike..

Sounds like you've spent too much time in Germany needlessly obeying every law there is.

And since you're such a fan of the law: [a] the signs are wrong coming from most directions, [b.] it's likely that all of these tracks are now substandard on widths alone in legally set down guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area, [c] there's case law which involved which could have a bearing, [d] this is Ireland and you can't just knock somebody down because they don't obay your bell, [e] there's no lawfull way to cycle onto the tracks in Lusk at least, so case law again likely applies.

The caravan is on a cycle track and footpath -- if you really want me to I'll post a picture of it which shows this?

The guy on the pram is far from trivial, anybody who mixes "trivial", a pram with a child in it, and cyclists who can get up to 30km/h, at ease, does not know what they are talking about -- hitting a pram at lower speed is bad enough! But then again, you are advocating hitting people just because they won't move at the ring of a bell?

RO 06

Won't get my strava kom back if I have to do it on the cycle track.

ccull123

Inquitus wrote: »

Not if you are pushing 50kph, its simply not safe, fine if you are doing 10 kph out with the kids. The Caravan is on a cycle path, yes they are stupid enough to make them 20ft long.

Totally agree. I went on a training spin last week in the phoenix park and the amount of persons/skateboarders/rollerbladers/buggies in the cycle lane is ridiculous. Going at a handy speed and the amount of times you have to slow down because people just dont see you.

I dont know is it a case of people just being ignorant or it a case of poor signage. I have yet to see a cyclist in the pedestrian walkway!!!

excuse the rant people....now back to the sun!!!

manwithaplan

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

asking you not to cycle on the road would be covered but asking you to perform a sex act on them wouldn't.

If only I had read this one day earlier.

nomdeboardie

Expressed my horror below the original Wishbone Ash entry and sent my message-to-Varadkar

CramCycle wrote: »

... how do you know one of the won't step sidewards in the middle of telling a story/joke, straight into your path, or swing an arm out to point at something ..

Or jovially push each other into the cycle path as you approach from behind, or let their dog lurch at you on a long lead as they talk on their mobile (some of the things I've experienced).

Surveyor11

stetyrrell wrote: »

I took a spin down to the Phoenix park earlier in the week, and not one ped used the footpath but rather the cycle lane. When I did use the cycle lane, I was roared at by peds who didn't even realise it was a cycle lane. There's nowhere near enough signposts or warnings to tell peds to keep off it.

Two rangers at the Castleknock gate this morning, stopped each bike and made them aware of the cycle lanes and that they were doing a safety campaign to get pedestrians to stay out of them, also asked me to travel as a safe speed whe using it. I would have through they'd be better stopping pedestrians using the bike lane, but there you go.

Mind you, didn't make a blind of difference coming home - full of pedestrians, roller bladers being towed by bikes, dog walkers, people coming from their car with ipods in and blaring anf not looking left or right before crossing it.......

seamus

One thing that struck me with the Phoenix park was how exceptionally poorly the cycle lanes were laid out. If you park your car on Chesterfield Avenue (as most people do), then the first thing you encounter off the road is the cycle track. So of course you're going to assume that's the path and walk on it.

It would seem to me to make more sense to have the cycle track on the road beside the main road, then a grass verge, then a separate narrower road with parking (where the existing cycle track is). So there's no parking specifically on Chesterfield. In order to park, you go to the roundabout and drive into the "parking lane", then to leave again you have to rejoin the road further down.

Raam

Just ban motorists from using the park as a road through it. A park is meant for the people to enjoy, not for motorists to drive through.

Tonyandthewhale

Or just scrap the bike lanes and leave people to cycle on the road.

Lumen

Tonyandthewhale wrote: »

Or just scrap the bike lanes and leave people to cycle on the road.

Won't someone think of the children!

Dipsomaniac

Raam wrote: »

Just ban motorists from using the park as a road through it. A park is meant for the people to enjoy, not for motorists to drive through.

The pilot is still on going with part of Chesterfield Avenue closed from 10pm on Fridays until 10pm on Sundays

Its a start anyway

Lumen

Dipsomaniac wrote: »

The pilot is still on going with part of Chesterfield Avenue closed from 10pm on Fridays until 10pm on Sundays

Its a start anyway

A number of unmarked Garda cars were driving down it on Saturday evening at very high speeds, pretty much as fast as their intergalactic-mileage Mondeos would carry them. To get around the bollards they drove over the grass verge and cycle lane.

I was cycling on the road at the time with my 6 y/o son.

I'm sure it was a donuts-or-death emergency, so that's OK.

sav1980

saw this on youtube this morning and reminded me of this thread, very funny

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bzE-IMaegzQ

Tonyandthewhale

sav1980 wrote: »

saw this on youtube this morning and reminded me of this thread, very funny

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bzE-IMaegzQ

Never seen that posted on here before.

Beasty

I think that video holds the record - 7 separate postings in the forum on the same day (10 June 2011 IIRC);)

rp

I dunno about the rest of the signage, but the UK-style 'mixed use' one below has no legal validity in Ireland, which means it's pavement, and you would be breaking the law to ride on it (relevant case law: DPP vs. Clancy, establishes that signs without legal basis cannot be enforced).

monument wrote: »

I was recently verbally attacked by a Guard for not using a so-marked lane, he threatened to summons me and everything, but I stuck to my understanding of the law and he backed down (I guess he actually knew the law, but was trying it on).

seamus

I'm guessing that these must be isolated individual Gardai with a chip on their shoulder about cyclists, who are trying to enforce this stuff. I've never once had the Gardai say anything to me about cycling outside of a cycle track/lane. And a lot of the time I'm exceptionally blatant about it.

rp

CamperMan wrote: »

do what they do in Germany.. if someone is walking on a cycle lane, sound your bell then if they don't move run into them....

That wouldn't be legal nor a good idea, and you'd also be risking the ire of Ingbert der Igel:

coolbeans

Can someone post for once and for all the cycle lane/track signs that must be used in order for said lane/track to qualify for mandatory use?

BostonB

Dipsomaniac wrote: »

The pilot is still on going with part of Chesterfield Avenue closed from 10pm on Fridays until 10pm on Sundays

Its a start anyway

The logic being is safer to push all the traffic down narrow twisty side roads without cycle lanes. If they want to close it, close it. What they've done here doesn't make a lot of sense.

BostonB

They could at least surface the cycle lane at the city end of the park, if they want to encourage cyclists. Its been without a finished surface for half a year, or more, you get dirty looks if you cycle outside of it, and your teeth rattled if you cycle on it.

ThisRegard

Ah BostonB, just post a link to the thread in the D15 forum instead of going down the same road again.

BostonB

Why are you happy with the surface there?

Beasty

coolbeans wrote: »

Can someone post for once and for all the cycle lane/track signs that must be used in order for said lane/track to qualify for mandatory use?

From the ROTR

Start of cycle track:


End of cycle track:

Ninap

rp wrote: »

I dunno about the rest of the signage, but the UK-style 'mixed use' one below has no legal validity in Ireland, which means it's pavement, and you would be breaking the law to ride on it (relevant case law: DPP vs. Clancy, establishes that signs without legal basis cannot be enforced).

I was recently verbally attacked by a Guard for not using a so-marked lane, he threatened to summons me and everything, but I stuck to my understanding of the law and he backed down (I guess he actually knew the law, but was trying it on).

It's one thing to encourage cyclists to use lanes which may or may not be appropriate, but where do guards get off with their frequently aggressive and rude manner? They are supposed to be servants of the people, not some kind of robocops. In contrast, I find any English coppers I've come across unfailingly polite.

mcmoustache

Surveyor11 wrote: »

Mind you, didn't make a blind of difference coming home - full of pedestrians, roller bladers being towed by bikes, dog walkers, people coming from their car with ipods in and blaring anf not looking left or right before crossing it.......

Let's not forget the humble salmon cyclist.

I hate those guys.

Surveyor11

mcmoustache wrote: »

......the humble salmon cyclist....

Sorry, that's new one. Is it in the Euro Rules?:D