New road traffic regulations

opti0nal

The Traffic and Parking regulations have been updated.

Highlights include:

1: Making cycle tracks non-obligatory for cyclists and remedying a defect in past laws where shared on-path cycle tracks were not lawful.

2: Clarifying when cyclists may pass on the inside of cars.

3: Clarifying the correct use of mini-roundabouts and prohibiting driving over them.

Possibly more if anyone is sharp enough to see the changes?

guttenberg

Whats the point of cycle tracks if cyclists aren't required to use them?

guttenberg

guttenberg wrote: »

Whats the point of cycle tracks if cyclists aren't required to use them?

You know, if you hop on a bike and head out your door you'd probably question what the point of the cycle infrastructure provided is too!

MugMugs

guttenberg wrote: »

Whats the point of cycle tracks if cyclists aren't required to use them?

What's the point in mini roundabouts if you can't drive over them!!

Bloodwing

(4) 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

(b) a cycle track is a contra-flow cycle track where traffic sign number RUS 059 is provided and pedal cycles shall only be driven in a contra-flow direction on such track.

To me it sounds like cyclists still have to use cycle tracks? Or maybe I'm missing something obvious?

rebel.ranter

guttenberg wrote: »

Whats the point of cycle tracks if cyclists aren't required to use them?

As a cyclist & even keener motorist I would tend to agree. I got knocked off my bike 2 weeks ago while using one. In future I'll just do whatever makes me feel safest at the time. If it means avoiding the cycle lane & using the road then so be it.

On a side note, the cycle lanes that are in place have the following issues:
- Poor design in many cases
- ending at random & dangerous locations
- haring them with foot paths another rubbish idea (pedestrians rarely observe divide)
- Shocking amount of drains placed with grid in wring direction, lethal
- Layouts at junctions are completely dangerous, no protection offered
- Can be too narrow (e.g. Douglas Rd, it's like they are paid by the metre or something to classify something as a cycle lane)
- Never cleaned
- Never maintained, always full of debris & broken glass due to their location at the side of the road
- Motorists do not observe them, particularly at left hand bends (they cut over them)
- No campaign or publicity to inform public how they are to be sed or how motorists should observe them.
- Surfaces always seem to be very rough, even when they are new. It's like those designing, building & signing them off have never ridden a bike. If they can build a smooth road why not a smooth cycle lane

I hope this thread doesn't derail to be about poor cyclist behaviour but I thought it worth mentioning the problems with cycling lanes to put the importance of the law change from a cycling perspective. As I said I'm a motor enthusiast first but I fully understand cycling lane issues.

CiniO

So far I love this part the most:

(6) Nothing in this article shall so operate as to prevent a driver from driving along a roadway, where traffic sign number RRM 001 (continuous white line) has been provided, where due to the width or length or both of the vehicle in relation to the road lane width, and where the vehicle is not engaged in an overtaking manoeuvre, it is necessary to straddle or marginally cross that sign.”,

Finally I won't be forced to break the law by crossing the continous white line with the vehicle which just doesn't fit into it's lane.

Merrion

Yes - you are missing the qualifiers "...traffic sign number RUS 021..." and "....sign number RUS 059..." although without pictures it is pretty difficult to apply the new rules.

Cycle tracks are for parking off road vehicles on - that's what "off road" means :-)

Bloodwing

Bloodwing wrote: »

(4) 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

(b) a cycle track is a contra-flow cycle track where traffic sign number RUS 059 is provided and pedal cycles shall only be driven in a contra-flow direction on such track.

To me it sounds like cyclists still have to use cycle tracks? Or maybe I'm missing something obvious?

There's a good thread in the cycling forum on the cycling parts of the SI, which included mention of this in the Explanatory Note at the bottom of the SI:

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)

Bloodwing

Merrion wrote: »

Yes - you are missing the qualifiers "...traffic sign number RUS 021..." and "....sign number RUS 059..." although without pictures it is pretty difficult to apply the new rules.

Cycle tracks are for parking off road vehicles on - that's what "off road" means :-)

You could be right but it says "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". The presence of the word "Or" separates the requirement for a sign RUS 021 (which refers to a pedestrianised area).

corktina

MugMugs wrote: »

What's the point in mini roundabouts if you can't drive over them!!

surely the point of a mini-roundabout is to determine priority without obstructing the passage of large vehicles, which haven't a hope of getting AROUND them.

Yet more regulations that won't be enforced..what's the point?

Bloodwing

Dónal wrote: »

There's a good thread in the cycling forum on the cycling parts of the SI, which included mention of this in the Explanatory Note at the bottom of the SI:

Thanks for that. I was obviously reading it wrong! It could have been worded better!!

CiniO

I quickly went through it and as far as I can see, they are introducing some stuff which is in operation for long time on the Continent.

f.e. Plenty of traffic signs which can be all seen here: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2012/en/si/0331.html

"No entry to vehicle" sign is probably the big one which was missing here.

Also they are introducing all the "no entry" for difference kind of vehicles (depending on weight, length, width, axle weight) or for bicycles, animal drawn vehicles, vehicles carying danegrous goods, etc..

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime

"pedal cycle" lol

mini roundabout ? I think even a smart for two would struggle to get around that !

mackerski

opti0nal wrote: »

1: Making cycle tracks non-obligatory for cyclists and remedying a defect in past laws where shared on-path cycle tracks were not lawful.

Not happy about this - now that I've read it. So now it is legal for non-segregated paths for use of both cyclists and pedestrians, but the SI seems to give no indication of issues of right of way between the two modes or how either mode is expected to conduct itself. This seems... scary.

opti0nal

guttenberg wrote: »

Whats the point of cycle tracks if cyclists aren't required to use them?

It means that if the cycle track is blocked by parked or queuing cars, they won't be done for not using it.

opti0nal

corktina wrote: »

surely the point of a mini-roundabout is to determine priority without obstructing the passage of large vehicles, which haven't a hope of getting AROUND them.

The point of a mini-roundabout is to get people to slow down. by making them go around them. They're used in residential areas where there are children or elderly, at risk from urban speeders.

BostonB

guttenberg wrote: »

Whats the point of cycle tracks if cyclists aren't required to use them?

Its not always safer to stay in the cycle track, going right at a roundabout or simply turning right where theres more than one lane it make sense to get into the line of car traffic early.

Or to stop cars cutting you off turning left. Which is a bit like people on the M50 overtaking then cutting across you to make an exit on the M50 from the overtaking lane and leaving it too late.

Or simply when the person who created the cycle track hadn't a clue what they were doing. More often than not.

Seasoft

I see this section:

(b) When traffic lights contain green lamps which indicate a directional arrow, a driver of a vehicle wishing to proceed in accordance with paragraph (a) in the direction indicated by the arrow may only do so when such lamp is illuminated.

Now here are two traffic lights often seen in Ireland.


With Type B if the main green is illuminated but the filter to right is not, it is obvious that a vehicle may not turn right until the filter is illuminated.

However, with Type A if the main green is illuminated and the filter is off, the multi-directional nature of the green appears to allow all traffic to proceed even if turning right (if safe to do so). There is no red prohibiting this. When the filter light illuminates, obviously, traffic may turn right safely usually because oncoming traffic is stopped.

However, it seems that this will be prohibited to proceed right with Type A by the new regulations.

Hal1

5 points for driving over mini roundabouts :pac:.

coylemj

opti0nal wrote: »

The point of a mini-roundabout is to get people to slow down. by making them go around them. They're used in residential areas where there are children or elderly, at risk from urban speeders.

No it's not because motor bikes can go through those roundabouts as fast as they like. The purpose of mini-roundabouts is to save the council money because a mini-roundabout is a lot cheaper than a set of traffic lights.

If there are pedestrians at risk from urban speedsters there is a simple solution, install a set of pedestrian-controlled lights

There's a heap of those roundabouts along the strand road in Sandymount and its clear that they're there as an alternative to traffic lights, nothing to do with protecting pedestrians.

opti0nal

coylemj wrote: »

No it's not because motor bikes can go through those roundabouts as fast as they like. The purpose of mini-roundabouts is to save the council money because a mini-roundabout is a lot cheaper than a set of traffic lights.

Not according to the NRA design manual.

101sean

Used to design mini roundabouts many years ago in the UK, they can be effective in slowing traffic through junctions and help flows from side roads where traffic levels wouldn't justify traffic lights and are cheap to install.

Many here are very poorly designed, installed and signposted. I often drive straight over them and there's one outside Tipp town that's so bad I'll go the wrong side of it if there's no one else around, especially if I have a trailer on.

coylemj

Seasoft wrote: »

I see this section:


Now here are two traffic lights often seen in Ireland.


With Type B if the main green is illuminated but the filter to right is not, it is obvious that a vehicle may not turn right until the filter is illuminated.

However, with Type A if the main green is illuminated and the filter is off, the multi-directional nature of the green appears to allow all traffic to proceed even if turning right (if safe to do so). There is no red prohibiting this. When the filter light illuminates, obviously, traffic may turn right safely usually because oncoming traffic is stopped.

However, it seems that this will be prohibited to proceed right with Type A by the new regulations.

I agree with your interpretation. It's clearly a mistake and I don't expect it to be enforced the way it's worded, otherwise people at certain junctions where the main green light is solid (as in your Type A) would have to wait for the filter in order to turn right even with no oncoming traffic and that would make no sense, especially at busy junctions like Donnybrook Church.

Cedrus

coylemj wrote: »

No it's not because motor bikes can go through those roundabouts as fast as they like.

Oh no they can't! On a motorbike you have to go around them especially in the wet because they are lethally slippy, and then on the other side you meet the boy racer/thick old git who's just shot across it regardless.