New traffic regulations affecting cyclists

galwaycyclist

galwaycyclist wrote: »

OK after an uber quick scan they still don't appear to have defined the circumstances in which a driver is expected to stop for pedestrians at a zebra crossing. As I recall it this is unclear in the recent 1997 regs and was not clearly defined in the 1964 Road Traffic and General Bye laws either

The old regs are here
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1964/en/si/0294.html#zzsi294y1964a36

Note: This is all from memory I havent looked at pedestrian issues in years.

My bad they do appear to have fixed this

(c) in article 8, by substituting for sub-articles (5) and (6) the following:


<snip>


(6) A driver of a vehicle approaching a zebra pedestrian crossing where traffic sign number RPC 001 (zebra pedestrian crossing) is provided shall yield the right of way to any pedestrian who has commenced crossing the road at the zebra pedestrian crossing.”,

This brings to an end what some might deem a somewhat offensive period in the history of Irish traffic law.

galwaycyclist

galwaycyclist wrote: »

OK after an uber quick scan they still don't appear to have defined the circumstances in which a driver is expected to stop for pedestrians at a zebra crossing. As I recall it this is unclear in the recent 1997 regs and was not clearly defined in the 1964 Road Traffic and General Bye laws either

The old regs are here
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1964/en/si/0294.html#zzsi294y1964a36

Note: This is all from memory I havent looked at pedestrian issues in years.

I have rescanned the old regs and remember what happened now. The 1964 bye laws included a requirement on drivers to yield at zebra crossings and this was apparently dropped in the 1997 regulations.

Lumen

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

If you put it in the second person, it would say:

"You may overtake on the left where vehicles to your right are stationary or are moving more slowly than you."

Right, but since all overtaking must be done at a greater speed than the vehicle you're overtaking, including where the vehicle is stationary, the qualifiers are not restrictive.

It actually means:

"You may overtake on the left"

But clearly that's unacceptably too few words.

Andy-Pandy

This is fantastic news. I shall never set wheel on the cycle lane in the Phoenix Park or the Stillorgan Dual Carriage Way again

MediaMan

Andy-Pandy wrote: »

This is fantastic news. I shall never set wheel on the cycle lane in the Phoenix Park or the Stillorgan Dual Carriage Way again

Agreed. And likewise for badly designed cycle lanes wherever they exist!

Konkers

"47. (1) A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than 2 pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians."

Sorry just read this thread. Great news re cycle lanes. Does the above mean the end of a sociable club cycle........

Mycroft H

Konkers wrote: »

"47. (1) A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than 2 pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians."

Sorry just read this thread. Great news re cycle lanes. Does the above mean the end of a sociable club cycle........

I'm pretty sure it's always like that

buffalo

Konkers wrote: »

"47. (1) A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than 2 pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians."

Sorry just read this thread. Great news re cycle lanes. Does the above mean the end of a sociable club cycle........

You can cycle two abreast at all times. When overtaking other cyclists, I think the literal interpretation is actually that you can be as many abreast as you want.

monument

Doctor Bob wrote: »

Great minds, dubmess! This is the e-mail I sent to my cycling colleagues yesterday after I spotted this thread:

Vladimir Kurtains is right that there is still a burden on drivers to safely pullover to let people pull out. There's also a burden for drivers to be in control of children and for adults to act responsibly.

opti0nal wrote: »

And, if, as is often the case, the driver does not signal....? .

The same thing happens as it happened before the law change. The only difference is the driver is legally more at fault because the cyclist is now clearly alowed to undertake.

doozerie

buffalo wrote: »

When overtaking other cyclists, I think the literal interpretation is actually that you can be as many abreast as you want.

The limitation being the maximum capacity of a breast, I guess. I wonder if that capacity is legally defined?

RobertFoster

buffalo wrote: »

You can cycle two abreast at all times. When overtaking other cyclists, I think the literal interpretation is actually that you can be as many abreast as you want.

Single file when overtaking:

47 [...]
(2) Pedal cyclists on a roadway shall cycle in single file when overtaking other traffic.

I'd take "other traffic" to mean other cyclists, motorists, etc.

opti0nal

RobertFoster wrote: »

Single file when overtaking:I'd take "other traffic" to mean other cyclists, motorists, etc.

In practical effect it means single file when overtaking parked cars. When overtaking other cyclists, it can be many abreast if this does not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct others.

buffalo

opti0nal wrote: »

In practical effect it means single file when overtaking parked cars. When overtaking other cyclists, it can be many abreast if this does not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct others.

RobertFoster would seem to be correct in this case, I didn't realise there was another statement that applied to cyclists overtaking.

Undercover Elephant

Lumen wrote: »

But clearly that's unacceptably too few words.

Yes, some of the excessive words are uselessly and unnecessarily redundant, and aren't needed.

cdaly_

Konkers wrote: »

"47. (1) A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than 2 pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians."

Sorry just read this thread. Great news re cycle lanes. Does the above mean the end of a sociable club cycle........

No, no problem. The phrase "and then only" links the "will not endanger..." subclause to the "save when overtaking" clause. The club spin interpretation of this works out something like:

"Cycle 2 abreast. Single out for overtaking. Only overtake when it is safe to do so."

RobertFoster wrote: »

Single file when overtaking:

I'd take "other traffic" to mean other cyclists, motorists, etc.

opti0nal wrote: »

In practical effect it means single file when overtaking parked cars. When overtaking other cyclists, it can be many abreast if this does not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct others.

You're not 'overtaking' parked cars. You're just passing street furniture so you're entitled to be 2 abreast in that case.

When overtaking cars / cyclists it should be single file.

flatface

Is there any clarification of 'BUS' lights issue raised here and here?
It would be my sense that a green 'BUS' light applies to all traffic in the bus lane.

enas

Very good news altogether. On the subject of interpretation on mandatory use, while I agree the wording is a bit vague, I still find it obvious that the mandatory use only applies to pedestrianised areas.

A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where—

(a) a cycle track is provided on a road, a portion of a road, or an area at the entrance to which traffic sign number RUS 021 (pedestrianised street or area) is provided, or

The two conflicting interpretations are (1) (a road), (a portion of a road), or (an area at the entrance to which traffic sign number RUS 021 is provided), and (2) (a road, a portion of a road, or an area) at the entrance to which traffic sign number RUS 021 is provided,. The correct apparently is (2), i.e. that the restriction that the pedestrianised area sign is provided applies to all three members of the "or" statement.

In those kind of long sentences, I often use the trick of decomposing the sentence into a smaller one and see how it sounds.

A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where a cycle track is provided on a road. That doesn't sound quite grammatical to my ears (the caveat being that I'm not a native English speaker): on a road? which road? Shouldn't that be on any road instead? Whereas A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where a cycle track is provided on a road at the entrance to which traffic sign number RUS 021 is provided sounds perfectly valid. Now I'm not making a legal demonstration, I'm just explaining why I find interpretation (2) more likely.

enas

I have a question regarding that part:

(4) A person shall not enter a bus-only street with a vehicle other than a large public service vehicle or a pedal cycle except for the purpose of access.

I don't see any definition of what a bus-only street is (they only define contra-flow bus lanes as far as I can see). Does this make cycling in streets like this or this legal, even without any specific mention to cycles? You have to know that in both cases, there is now a message that says "except buses" under the no entry sign. And in the first case, the street is not even one-way.

Doctor Bob

'bus-only street' means a street or portion of a street at each entrance to which traffic sign 216 authorised by the Road Traffic (Signs) Regulations, 1962 ( S.I. No. 171 of 1962 ), as amended, together with an information plate or plates so authorised and specifying the class of vehicles to which the prohibition indicated by the traffic sign does not apply, are provided;

From 1981. I'm not sure if it has been re-defined since then.

AFAIK, the 'bus gate' in Tallaght village is a Bus Only Street.

galwaycyclist

One possible anomaly that does not appear to have been tackled is the definition of traffic lanes

In the new signs regs its given as follows.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2012/en/si/0331.html

12. Traffic sign number RRM 003 shall indicate—

(a) the boundary of a traffic lane, and

(b) consist of a broken white line consisting of segments having the following dimensions and spacing:

(i) segments approximately 100 millimetres or 150 millimetres wide, approximately 2 metres long and approximately 2 metres apart;

(ii) segments approximately 100 millimetres or 150 millimetres wide, approximately 4 metres long and approximately 8 metres apart;

(iii) segments approximately 100 millimetres or 150 millimetres wide, approximately one metre long and approximately one metre apart, where traffic sign number RRM 003 is provided as traffic lane guidance markings in a traffic lane crossover situation.”,

The 1998 signs regs define a cycle track as follows
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/si/0273.html

(3) Traffic sign number RRM 023 shall consist of a broken white line consisting of segments not less than 100 millimetres and not more than 150 millimetres wide, approximately 750 millimetres long and spaced approximately 750 millimetres apart.".

And in the 1997 Traffic regs the rules on Yielding state
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html#zzsi182y1997a8

Yielding Right of Way

8.

(8) A driver shall not drive from one traffic lane to another without yielding the right of way to traffic in that other lane.

So it is stated that a traffic lane is something distinct from a cycle track and that drivers entering traffic lanes must yield to traffic in possession of the lane. However, in my reading, there is no statement of an equivalent duty to yield to traffic in a cycle track e.g. cyclists.

Hair splitting possibly but people pay some barristers lots of money to split hairs.

rp

galwaycyclist wrote: »

So it is stated that a traffic lane is something distinct from a cycle track and that drivers entering traffic lanes must yield to traffic in possession of the lane. However, in my reading, there is no statement of an equivalent duty to yield to traffic in a cycle track e.g. cyclists.

All the more reason to stay out of them, then.

Hair splitting possibly but people pay some barristers lots of money to split hairs.

Thanks, I'll buy you a pint.

enas

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Hair splitting possibly but people pay some barristers lots of money to split hairs.

I always thought that computer scientists should rule the world. Or at least, write those laws. Such anomalies would never occur.

enas

Doctor Bob wrote: »

From 1981. I'm not sure if it has been re-defined since then.

AFAIK, the 'bus gate' in Tallaght village is a Bus Only Street.

Thanks for the answer. That seems to exclude the two examples I was giving (don't use sign 216). Although, I think the definition is kind of contradictory:

together with an information plate or plates so authorised and specifying the class of vehicles to which the prohibition indicated by the traffic sign does not apply, are provided;

Does this say that a street with the said sign and a plate saying that the prohibition doesn't apply to cars is bus-only street, and therefore is allowed to bicycles under the new regulations?

opti0nal

galwaycyclist wrote: »

So it is stated that a traffic lane is something distinct from a cycle track and that drivers entering traffic lanes must yield to traffic in possession of the lane. However, in my reading, there is no statement of an equivalent duty to yield to traffic in a cycle track e.g. cyclists.

If the car driver has overtaken a cyclist in a bike lane and then decides to turn left, the driver could fall foul of the overtaking regulations which prohibits drivers and cyclists form overtaking where this would obstruct or inconvenience other road users.

buffalo

enas wrote: »

I always thought that computer scientists should rule the world. Or at least, write those laws. Such anomalies would never occur.

Because no piece of software ever written has ever had a bug.

enas

buffalo wrote: »

Because no piece of software ever written has ever had a bug.

You're absolutely right. The problem is that the vast majority of software isn't written by computer scientists

mrbike

enas wrote: »

The problem is that the vast majority of software isn't written by computer scientists

"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.'' - Donald E. Knuth, Famous computer scientist

Plasid

Wondering if the shared use bus and cycle lanes are covered anywhere, for example the stretch along the N11 that is signposted as a shared bus and cycle lane (despite there being an off road roller coaster cycle lane available)?

Qualitymark

Plasid wrote: »

Wondering if the shared use bus and cycle lanes are covered anywhere, for example the stretch along the N11 that is signposted as a shared bus and cycle lane (despite there being an off road roller coaster cycle lane available)?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2012/en/si/0332.html
S.I. No. 332/2012 — Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2012.
Bus Lanes


32. (1)(a) A bus lane shall be indicated by means of traffic sign number RUS 028 or traffic sign number RUS 029 used in association with traffic sign number RRM 024.


(b) A contra-flow bus lane shall be indicated by means of traffic sign number RUS 030 used in association with traffic sign number RRM 024.


(2) A person shall not enter a bus lane with a vehicle other than a large public service vehicle or a pedal cycle during the period of operation of the bus lane indicated on an information plate.


(3) A person shall not enter a contra-flow bus lane with a vehicle other than a large public service vehicle or a pedal cycle.


(4) A person shall not enter a bus-only street with a vehicle other than a large public service vehicle or a pedal cycle except for the purpose of access.


(5)(a) Sub-articles (2) and (3) do not apply to a vehicle crossing a with-flow bus lane or a contra-flow bus lane solely for the purpose—


(i) of entering or leaving premises or property adjacent to such a bus lane, or


(ii) of entering or leaving a road inset adjacent to such a bus lane in order to load or unload goods.


(b) Sub-article (2) does not apply to—


(i) a taxi or a wheelchair accessible taxi which is being used in the course of business, or


(ii) a vehicle authorised and identified in accordance with sub-article (6), being driven by a driver authorised under that sub-article, in which is being carried, a member of the Government, a Minister of State who regularly attends meetings of the Government, the Attorney General or the Ceann Comhairle, in the course of his or her duties as such.

rp

Qualitymark wrote: »

(3) A person shall not enter a contra-flow bus lane with a vehicle other than a large public service vehicle or a pedal cycle.

(4) A person shall not enter a bus-only street with a vehicle other than a large public service vehicle or a pedal cycle except for the purpose of access.

So taxis are not allowed in the contra-flow lanes nor bus-only streets, and bicycles are?