Cycling against traffic on a one way street

UDP

Hi,

Just curious as to the law regarding cycling the wrong way down a one way street.

Was cycling down Lombard St. E in Dublin today going with the flow of traffic and there was cyclists (2) cycling the opposite direction.

Is this legal?

Raam

No.

Darkglasses

Absolutely not, cyclists have to follow the same rules as other road users. No footpath cycling, no 'salmon' cycling, obey all traffic lights.

Al Wright

Page 161 of the current version (rev 2, Mar 2010) of Rules of the Road; "Don't ever cycle against the flow of traffic on one-way streets". And another one, "Don't ever cycle in a contra-flow bus lane";

galwaycyclist

UDP wrote: »

Hi,

Just curious as to the law regarding cycling the wrong way down a one way street.

Was cycling down Lombard St. E in Dublin today going with the flow of traffic and there was cyclists (2) cycling the opposite direction.

Is this legal?

Yes it may be. Under the traffic signs regulations SI 273 of 1998 a road authority can attach a plate to a no-entry sign that grants cyclists an exemption from the one-way restriction.

It is very common elsewhere in Europe - Bremen started doing it in 1980. In Belgium all one-way streets in 50km/h zones are two way by default unless there are certain defined conditions that preclude its application. German and Belgian data suggest safety benefits from the two-way use. AFAIK It was first suggested in Ireland in a Foras Forbatha report on cycling in Galway in 1979. In 2004 Galway's elected city council voted to make one-way streets two-way for cyclists where feasible.

miller50841

IT's Illegal so don't do it, no point in pointing out you can do it in another country don't give ones doing it the idea its ok if they do it.

There have been a few deaths due to this and last one I know of was just up from Rotunda parnell square west/north bend.
2 on a push bike and car never had a chance as cars parked legally would have obstucted view of them cycling head on.

Rules of the road have to be used and also some common sense.

Dermot Illogical

It's illegal there, and very very common. There are a lot of numpties on bikes in that area for some reason. I think they salmon down Lombard St so that they can cycle across the pedestrian-only bridge.

MarkR

Salmon cycling. Had to look it up. I see it a lot around UL. Oblivious to the danger.

mcmoustache

I wish AGS would start confiscating the bikes of salmon cyclists, footpath cyclists and red light jumpers. I don't know if they can do that so I'd settle for fines or beatings.

They only do this because they get away with it all the time and there's a belief among a sizeable minority of cyclists that the rules of the road don't apply to them. Typically it's some eejit on a BSO but you still see people doing it who really should know better.

Some cyclists really need to be educated and some shock tactics might have some effect. A few weeks of the Traffic Corp issuing fines (and beatings and confiscations, ideally) would get a lot of people to cop on.

I should point out that Salmon cyclists are a pet peeve of mine and I wish I had a jousting lance every time I encounter them. Unfortunately, I never have one and all I can do is inform them tersely of their stupidity as I whizz by. Some people really need to be told these things.

BostonB

Do traffic cops really exist? Fact is people break the law because there's almost negligible chance of being done for it.

check_six

BostonB wrote: »

Fact is people break the law because there's almost negligible chance of being done for it.

They also follow the 'incorrect' route because it is the most convenient. The one-way systems are in place to corral motor vehicles and push them around various routes through the city to reduce (or maybe increase?!) traffic congestion. They're not logical for a vehicle that can go anywhere without causing a traffic jam. There should be a bit of research into 'desire routes' or whatever they call them. I know half my commute in the morning is following cars around a one way system and I'd benefit from a few contraflow cycle lanes.

Somewhere like Lombard St is wide enough to accommodate a contra flow lane. Anywhere there are loads of salmon cyclists is probably somewhere where a contraflow lane could be squeezed in.

Dawn Rider

mcmoustache wrote: »

I wish AGS would start confiscating the bikes of salmon cyclists, footpath cyclists and red light jumpers. I don't know if they can do that so I'd settle for fines or beatings.

They only do this because they get away with it all the time and there's a belief among a sizeable minority of cyclists that the rules of the road don't apply to them. Typically it's some eejit on a BSO but you still see people doing it who really should know better.

Some cyclists really need to be educated and some shock tactics might have some effect. A few weeks of the Traffic Corp issuing fines (and beatings and confiscations, ideally) would get a lot of people to cop on.

I should point out that Salmon cyclists are a pet peeve of mine and I wish I had a jousting lance every time I encounter them. Unfortunately, I never have one and all I can do is inform them tersely of their stupidity as I whizz by. Some people really need to be told these things.

I suspect these are the same idiots who later buy cars, and tell you that you're mad to cycle in town because it's so dangerous... :rolleyes:

hardCopy

Were they on Dublin bikes by any chance? An awful lot of the stations are located on one-way streets, it's one of the few things I dislike about the scheme.

BostonB

check_six wrote: »

They also follow the 'incorrect' route because it is the most convenient.....

If everyone did that it would be chaos. Kinda double standards expecting everyone else to stick to the rules no matter how inconvenient to them, if we won't do the same ourselves.

buffalo

BostonB wrote: »

If everyone did that it would be chaos. Kinda double standards expecting everyone else to stick to the rules no matter how inconvenient to them, if we won't do the same ourselves.

I don't think check_six is actually condoning the behaviour, but recommending that we should use salmon paths as an indicator for contra-flow lane placement. Makes sense. Likewise, if you find a spot where pedestrians are crossing the road a lot, you put in lights for a crossing, or a bridge. If you've got more traffic on the M50, you stick on an extra lane.

Also, what's this 'we' business? Are we a cycling lobby again?

BostonB

No matter what word "we" , "cyclists" I used someone would take issue with it.

Regardless if there was a fear of prosecution, less people would do it. No matter how convenient.

Most of Dublin road/junction planning is poor and illogical.

Why on earth is parts of Stephens Green and Lesson St bus only for no good reason.

doozerie

I'm not convinced of the merits of basing the need for contra-flow bike paths on the numbers of salmon cyclists that use a particular route. As one example, I frequently encounter salmon cyclists in the cycle track as I head south along Westland Row, despite the fact that it is a two-way street with a bus lane (and possibly a cycle track too) on the other side. Quite a few people on bikes cycle against traffic on Lower Merrion St (a one-way street) and when they get to Westland Row they keep to the wrong side of the road rather than be delayed by having to get to the other side. I'm not sure how far we should go to pander to the laziness and/or stupidity of such people.

hardCopy

BostonB wrote: »

No matter what word "we" , "cyclists" I used someone would take issue with it.

Regardless if there was a fear of prosecution, less people would do it. No matter how convenient.

Most of Dublin road/junction planning is poor and illogical.

Why on earth is parts of Stephens Green and Lesson St bus only for no good reason.

Because somehow those bus lanes are considered to be Contra-Flow, even though they're on the left hand side of the road.

buffalo

BostonB wrote: »

No matter what word "we" , "cyclists" I used someone would take issue with it.

So stop using it? When I'm driving, I don't lose the right to expect cyclists to obey red lights because "we motorists" are always speeding.

BostonB wrote: »

If everyone did that it would be chaos. Kinda double standards expecting everyone else to stick to the rules no matter how inconvenient to them, if we won't do the same ourselves.

You can't talk about double standards unless you're referring to all cyclists as a single entity here. In reality, each individual cyclist has their own standard. I really resent being included under the umbrella of a law-breaking group.

BostonB

You can choose to include yourself in the wee or not. Maybe you're taking the Pis....

buffalo wrote: »

I don't think check_six is actually condoning the behaviour, but recommending that we should use salmon paths as an indicator for contra-flow lane placement. ...

buffalo

BostonB wrote: »

You can choose to include yourself in the wee or not. Maybe you're taking the Pis....

buffalo wrote: »

I don't think check_six is actually condoning the behaviour, but recommending that we should use salmon paths as an indicator for contra-flow lane placement. ...

I would like to think that it's obvious I'm not talking about cyclists, but more about society/government and the general populace. To the best of my knowledge, cyclists don't get to decide where the cycle lanes go, that's the job of DCC, NRA, Dept of Transport, etc. Although perhaps you're on to a good idea there.

BostonB

Theres certainly a case to be made for contra flow cycle lanes. City centre for example.

However in the Phoenix Park people especially tourists get confused and cycle what I assume is the wrong way on the North Road in the cycle lane. (can we not debate the legality of calling them cycle lanes on this occasion).

PersonalJesus

monument

doozerie wrote: »

I'm not convinced of the merits of basing the need for contra-flow bike paths on the numbers of salmon cyclists that use a particular route. As one example, I frequently encounter salmon cyclists in the cycle track as I head south along Westland Row, despite the fact that it is a two-way street with a bus lane (and possibly a cycle track too) on the other side. Quite a few people on bikes cycle against traffic on Lower Merrion St (a one-way street) and when they get to Westland Row they keep to the wrong side of the road rather than be delayed by having to get to the other side. I'm not sure how far we should go to pander to the laziness and/or stupidity of such people.

I view it not as pandering to those breaking the law currently but helping making cycling attractive to more people and rewarding people who already cycle.

The city claims they want to get cycling to 20-25% of all trips by 2020 -- tackling the car-centric one-way system seems to something that needs to be done and reports commissioned by the council back this up.

This map below gives an idea of how much of a problem one-way streets are in Dublin city centre and this only shows those streets with two lanes or more, within this area there's also severance issues with large blocks smaller one-way streets, urban dual carriageways, blocks of pedestrian streets, turning restrictions, and tram lines etc:

hardCopy wrote: »

Because somehow those bus lanes are considered to be Contra-Flow, even though they're on the left hand side of the road.

Lanes are called contra-flow (ie cycle or bus lanes) when they go against the general flow of a street. It's standard / best practice for contra-flow lanes to be on the left.

dave_o_brien

monument wrote: »

I view it not as pandering to those breaking the law currently but helping making cycling attractive to more people and rewarding people who already cycle.

The city claims they want to get cycling to 20-25% of all trips by 2020 -- tackling the car-centric one-way system seems to something that needs to be done and reports commissioned by the council back this up.

The ideal scenario would be that policy was explicit in this scenario: government taking a stance of:

"we actually don't want you to drive through urban areas at all, so there are congestion charges, awkward one way systems, high parking costs, etc. On the other hand, cycling and public transport around town is remarkably cheap and efficient. There's also relatively cheap parking on the edges of our urban areas, where you can get your parking validated if you use the public transport. There are also really quick ways of getting around the urban area, like ring roads and bypasses, so you don't need to drive through."

Unfortunately, George Hook has Gaybo's ear, and Gaybo is basically the King of Irish Policy Blunders.

monument

dave_o_brien wrote: »

awkward one way systems

It's worth noting that the one-way system and turning restrictions etc are for mostly for cars. While motorists give out about them - if it was not for these systems, capacity for cars would be much lower.