New traffic regulations affecting cyclists

Qualitymark

rp wrote: »

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

That's right.

buffalo

rp wrote: »

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

That's how I read it.

BostonB

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.

Lesson ST heading out of town, south from the Green is bus only.

doozerie

rp wrote:

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

Taxis are categorised as public service vehicles, I believe, so whether they are allowed on such roads perhaps depends on the definition of "large" in the text. If that is the case, then it'll come down to interpretation, which is never good given peoples' tendency to choose an interpretation that suits themselves at any particular moment.

Doctor Bob

doozerie wrote: »

Taxis are categorised as public service vehicles, I believe, so whether they are allowed on such roads perhaps depends on the definition of "large" in the text. If that is the case, then it'll come down to interpretation, which is never good given peoples' tendency to choose an interpretation that suits themselves at any particular moment.

Taxis, no matter what size, are defined legally as SPSVs- the first S stands for Small.

Doctor Bob

BostonB wrote: »

Lesson ST heading out of town, south from the Green is bus only.

It may be bus only, but is it Bus Only?

Mycroft H

Doctor Bob wrote: »

It may be bus only, but is it Bus Only?

It is!

Spook_ie

rp wrote: »

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

Qualitymark wrote: »

That's right.

buffalo wrote: »

That's how I read it.

BostonB wrote: »

Lesson ST heading out of town, south from the Green is bus only.

Doctor Bob wrote: »

Taxis, no matter what size, are defined legally as SPSVs- the first S stands for Small.

So the next time you use a taxi and he goes off up Merrion Row and Pembroke St instead of around the Green to get to Earlsfort Terrace and the Conrad or where ever don't automatically assume he's taking you the long way, he may actually be obeying the traffic rules

buffalo

Spook_ie wrote: »

So the next time you use a taxi and he goes off up Merrion Row and Pembroke St instead of around the Green to get to Earlsfort Terrace and the Conrad or where ever don't automatically assume he's taking you the long way, he may actually be obeying the traffic rules

I can't say I've ever thought anything else...

tomasrojo

Cyclists welcome changes to Traffic Regulations

http://www.cyclist.ie/2012/10/cyclists-welcome-changes-to-traffic-regulations/

galwaycyclist

Heres the whole lot

http://www.cyclist.ie/2012/10/cyclists-welcome-changes-to-traffic-regulations/



MOD VOICE: people can click on the link and giver the site some traffic, thanks

jinkypolly

So do these new regs take the pressure off the govt. with regard to actually improving cycling facilities, particularly cycle lanes?

bambergbike

jinkypolly wrote: »

So do these new regs take the pressure off the govt. with regard to actually improving cycling facilities, particularly cycle lanes?

I don't think so. Now that cyclists have a choice, anybody who hopes to persuade cyclists to use new cycling facilities knows that something more attractive than the alternative will be required if the facility is to attract any usage.

And questions will be asked about particularly poor existing facilities once it becomes obvious that they are so poor that hardly any cyclists are willing to use them. People will start to think about freeing up wasted space and using it more intelligently.

What I'm not clear on at all is what the legal position will now be in collisions involving cyclists trying to go straight on at junctions from cycle lanes that are placed to the left of left-turn lanes. Now that cyclists aren't required to stay in the lane, could a cyclist who does be told that any resulting accident is essentially his or her own fault? Or are we going to move to a more continental-style model where turning drivers are required/expected/taught/forced to yield to straight-on cyclists, and possibly also to pedestrians?

BostonB

Don't give them the chance, stay in line with the traffic if in doubt.

BostonB

Spook_ie wrote: »

So the next time you use a taxi and he goes off up Merrion Row and Pembroke St instead of around the Green to get to Earlsfort Terrace and the Conrad or where ever don't automatically assume he's taking you the long way, he may actually be obeying the traffic rules

Sorry you lost me at taxi obeying rules...

doozerie

bambergbike wrote: »

What I'm not clear on at all is what the legal position will now be in collisions involving cyclists trying to go straight on at junctions from cycle lanes that are placed to the left of left-turn lanes. Now that cyclists aren't required to stay in the lane, could a cyclist who does be told that any resulting accident is essentially his or her own fault?

I would imagine that a cyclist would be held at least partly (and possibly entirely) responsible if they are hit while on the inside of a left-turning vehicle. But I'd imagine this was the case before the change in legislation too. I'm not a lawyer though, so my imaginings mightn't amount to much.

BostonB

That doesn't make much sense, cars often leave it too late, overtake late then cut across cyclists. How can that be the cyclist fault.

The only way to avoid this is to move out into the lane to block cars from overtaking you. Then move back in after you cross the junction.

Basically cars should treat a cycle lane as another vehicular lane, indicate, move in line with the cyclists or stay behind them, then turn left.

Of course cyclists undertaking a left indicating vehicle is entirely the cyclist fault.

doozerie

BostonB wrote: »

Of course cyclists undertaking a left indicating vehicle is entirely the cyclist fault.

There's the difficulty though, proving that the car cut across the cyclist as opposed to the cyclist undertaking a left-turning car. I'm not sure whether the starting position is to assume the cyclist is in the wrong, the driver is in the wrong, or shared responsibility.

In a collision between cars the car behind is supposedly assumed at fault - I'm not sure whether there is a comparable assumption applied to cyclists being hit by left-turning vehicles, and if there is I don't know whether the presence of a cycle lane changes anything.

BostonB

The car isn't in front. The car is essentially changing lane.

In the case between two cars, where a car changes lane then brakes heavily, (or simply brakes heavily for no reason) the car in at the back will have a hard time proving the car in front cut them off. But its a common insurance scam. They disable the brake light, then brake hard in front of someone on a roundabout or somewhere similarly unexpected. Generally you need witnesses.

http://vladtepesblog.com/?p=14656

That said if someone is in a car, forcing right of way across cyclists, when they are very likely to kill or main the cyclist, they shouldn't be driving. Likewise if you can't wait 10~20 secs to pull inline with cyclists to make the turn in turn, someone that impatient shouldn't be driving either.

I assume the priority here is not to kill someone, not simply to be in the right.

doozerie

@BostonB, The question was whether a cyclist would be held responsible if hit by a left-turning car while the cyclist is in a cycle lane. In the context of risk it's entirely an academic question, of course it is, but it is a relevant question nonetheless. I don't know the answer but I suspect that some, and perhaps a lot, of the responsibility would be placed on the cyclist in such an incident. If there are witnesses to provide evidence that the car driver was entirely in the wrong then it should be a clear-cut case of cyclist not being in the wrong, but in the absence of witnesses I wouldn't be confident of the cyclist being automatically assumed to be in the right (though I'd happily be proved wrong).

Back to the specific risk issue though, the solution to that is to not use the cycle lane in the first place where it places you inside left-turning traffic.

BostonB

A driver would be expected not to turn unless his inside was clear.

Rules of the Road.

always give way to pedestrians and cyclists crossing the junction before you start any turn.

http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-for-driving/junctions-roundabouts/junctions.html

I would say theres a stronger case for the driver having to prove the cyclist didn't undertake as he was turning, and that the driver couldn't see a cyclist approaching in their mirrors approaching the turn.

Qualitymark

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2012/en/si/0332.html

(b) A pedal cyclist may overtake on the left where vehicles to the pedal cyclist’s right are stationary or are moving more slowly than the overtaking pedal cycle, except where the vehicle to be overtaken—

(i) has signalled an intention to turn to the left and there is a reasonable expectation that the vehicle in which the driver has signalled an intention to turn to the left will execute a movement to the left before the cycle overtakes the vehicle,

(ii) is stationary for the purposes of permitting a passenger or passengers to alight or board the vehicle, or

(iii) is stationary for the purposes of loading or unloading.”

Seweryn

Hi Guys,

Just found this interesting article, where it says:

"The requirement for cyclists to use cycle tracks is now restricted only to situations where they run through pedestrian zones or contra-flow lanes on one-way streets."

Am I obliged to use a cycle lane by law on this road as an example (there are now cycle lanes built along the ring road that are off-road, i.e. on the path). I am sure some people here are familiar with this road.

Thank you.

monument

Seweryn wrote: »

Hi Guys,

Just found this interesting article, where it says:

"The requirement for cyclists to use cycle tracks is now restricted only to situations where they run through pedestrian zones or contra-flow lanes on one-way streets."

Am I obliged to use a cycle lane by law on this road as an example (there are now cycle lanes built along the ring road that are off-road, i.e. on the path). I am sure some people here are familiar with this road.

Thank you.

It would seem not, this is the note at the end of the law change, as quoted on the first page of this thread:

"new and amended requirements for use of cycle tracks (only use of contraflow cycle track and of any cycle track in pedestrianised area is mandatory)"

nomdeboardie

Seweryn wrote: »

Hi Guys,

Just found this interesting article, where it says:

"The requirement for cyclists to use cycle tracks is now restricted only to situations where they run through pedestrian zones or contra-flow lanes on one-way streets."

Am I obliged to use a cycle lane by law on this road as an example (there are now cycle lanes built along the ring road that are off-road, i.e. on the path). I am sure some people here are familiar with this road.

Thank you.

No
(Only have to confine yourself to them in the 2 situations mentioned, where bicycles have basically been given an advantage over private motorised vehicles in being allowed to travel at all or in the contra-flow direction)

enas

Seweryn wrote: »

Am I obliged to use a cycle lane by law on this road as an example (there are now cycle lanes built along the ring road that are off-road, i.e. on the path). I am sure some people here are familiar with this road.

Thank you.

Without knowing the road in question, I can say that you're not obliged to do so. Basically, bar a few exceptions (motorways and some tunnels basically), you can ride wherever a car can go.

A pedestrian zone is be a zone where motorised traffic is simply banned. In those cases, they could still allow cyclists, but they could decide to restrict cyclists to a designated lane. I'm not aware of any place in Ireland where this is put in practice though.

Seweryn

enas wrote: »

Without knowing the road in question, I can say that you're not obliged to do so. Basically, bar a few exceptions (motorways and some tunnels basically), you can ride wherever a car can go.

A pedestrian zone is be a zone where motorised traffic is simply banned. In those cases, they could still allow cyclists, but they could decide to restrict cyclists to a designated lane. I'm not aware of any place in Ireland where this is put in practice though.

Thank you Guys for your responses. The road in question is being constantly upgraded:

http://goo.gl/maps/5cqhh

You can see the road works on the left shoulder - that's where the cycle lanes are built. However they are inconvenient for me to use and I decline to use them and just would like to make sure that the law is not against me here.

nomdeboardie

Seweryn wrote: »

Thank you Guys for your responses. The road in question is being constantly upgraded:

http://goo.gl/maps/5cqhh

You can see the road works on the left shoulder - that's where the cycle lanes are built. However they are inconvenient for me to use and I decline to use them and just would like to make sure that the law is not against me here.

For what it's worth (as I posted elsewhere), I take a folded up print with this on one side and this on the other, in case I'm challenged :cool:

Seweryn

nomdeboardie wrote: »

For what it's worth (as I posted elsewhere), I take a folded up print with this on one side and this on the other, in case I'm challenged :cool:

That is very helpful, thank you.

Yeah, I was challenged by an unmarked Garda officer (in his private car). I gently ignored his order, but I had a slight doubt afterwards .

nomdeboardie

Seweryn wrote: »

That is very helpful, thank you.

Yeah, I was challenged by an unmarked Garda officer (in his private car). I gently ignored his order, but I had a slight doubt afterwards .

:mad: Not the first report of Gardai not knowing about or ignoring the new law
I knew this would happen
If it happens to me I'll be contacting Garda headquarters, Varadkar and the RSA to ask for the update to be publicised