Is it mandatory to cycle in a cycle lane?

Qualitymark

Is it mandatory to cycle in the cycle lane where one is provided? Used to be, but rumour has it that the law has changed. Has it, and what's now the situation?

(Sorry if this has been covered before; I couldn't find a thread on it - if it has, maybe mod could kindly merge this with any previous thread.)

Idleater

Only contra flow ones since the rta ammendment October 2012.

adamski8

only in explanatary note form though right? which isnt legally binding

buffalo

adamski8 wrote: »

only in explanatary note form though right? which isnt legally binding

The explanatory note is accompanied by a ream of legislation, which is legally binding, but a lot more complex.

The explanatory note offers a quick interpretation for us lay people, but not a legal one, no.

Qualitymark

So there's no handy little document like there is with the contraflow lanes?

buffalo

Qualitymark wrote: »

So there's no handy little document like there is with the contraflow lanes?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2012/en/si/0332.html is as handy as it comes! Skip to the end for the explanatory note, which is compact enough.

opti0nal

Idleater wrote: »

Only contra flow ones since the rta ammendment October 2012.

While mandatory use has been abolished, there is still a general requirement to keep to the left.

The main improvement is that you're not obliged to use off-road lanes.

But what was given with one hand was taken away with another...they snook in a bit about giving way in a cycle lane, to motorists who pass you and then indicate left. Before that, motorists had to give way when crossing cycle lanes.

Skrynesaver

opti0nal wrote: »

While mandatory use has been abolished, there is still a general requirement to keep to the left.

The main improvement is that you're not obliged to use off-road lanes.

But what was given with one hand was taken away with another...they snook in a bit about giving way in a cycle lane, to motorists who pass you and then indicate left. Before that, motorists had to give way when crossing cycle lanes.

So if someone comes up behind me and then cuts across me they're in the right! bit mad that

rp

opti0nal wrote: »

While mandatory use has been abolished, there is still a general requirement to keep to the left.

As are all road users. (but if you regularly drive on the motorways and dual carriageways in Ireland you could be forgiven for thinking otherwise)

Qualitymark

opti0nal wrote: »

While mandatory use has been abolished, there is still a general requirement to keep to the left.

Bloody hell, you can't escape politics in this country, can you?

JayRoc

opti0nal wrote: »

While mandatory use has been abolished, there is still a general requirement to keep to the left.

The main improvement is that you're not obliged to use off-road lanes.

But what was given with one hand was taken away with another...they snook in a bit about giving way in a cycle lane, to motorists who pass you and then indicate left. Before that, motorists had to give way when crossing cycle lanes.

Don't suppose you could point me to a link on that last bit? If that's the case, it's concerning

ezra_pound

(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.”,

JayRoc wrote: »

Don't suppose you could point me to a link on that last bit? If that's the case, it's concerning

Somewhere in s.16

enas

ezra_pound wrote: »

(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.”,


Somewhere in s.16

I don't see where applies to a cyclist in a cycle lane? It seems that all this saying is that cyclists are allowed to overtake on the left, except left turning vehicles (which is fair enough). As far as I recall, this was meant to give more rights/clarity when it comes to being able to overtaking on the left. I don't see why this applies to vehicles in different lanes, and if I remember correctly, cycle lanes are considered normal lanes in the law? But it might be a grey zone too.

buffalo

It does seem to legitimise the practice of a vehicle overtaking a cyclist and immediately turning left across them, if the vehicle is indicating. Going by the letter of the law, if you were travelling at speed and didn't immediately haul on the brakes, then your undertake on the left would be an illegal one, as the vehicle to be overtaken "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"

rp

buffalo wrote: »

It does seem to legitimise the practice of a vehicle overtaking a cyclist and immediately turning left across them, if the vehicle is indicating. Going by the letter of the law, if you were travelling at speed and didn't immediately haul on the brakes, then your undertake on the left would be an illegal one, as the vehicle to be overtaken "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"

I don't think it does, as the exception clauses are clarifying when a pedal cyclist may overtake on the left of a vehicle, it doesn't cover where a vehicle is overtaking a cyclist, as I think that is regulated elsewhere, and would be no different to cutting across a lane on the motorway, to reach an exit, say.

buffalo

rp wrote: »

I don't think it does, as the exception clauses are clarifying when a pedal cyclist may overtake on the left of a vehicle, it doesn't cover where a vehicle is overtaking a cyclist, as I think that is regulated elsewhere, and would be no different to cutting across a lane on the motorway, to reach an exit, say.

So if there's car a few feet ahead of a cyclist, indicating left, this law implies that the cyclist would be performing an illegal manoeuvre if they overtook on the left, correct?

It doesn't specify how much the vehicle has to be ahead of the cyclist, in terms of distance of time. So a car could've overtaken a cyclist seconds before, and be ahead of the cyclist by only a few feet, and as long as they're indicating the left, the overtake on the left by the cyclist would be illegal.

Qualitymark

buffalo wrote: »

So if there's car a few feet ahead of a cyclist, indicating left, this law implies that the cyclist would be performing an illegal manoeuvre if they overtook on the left, correct?

It doesn't specify how much the vehicle has to be ahead of the cyclist, in terms of distance of time. So a car could've overtaken a cyclist seconds before, and be ahead of the cyclist by only a few feet, and as long as they're indicating the left, the overtake on the left by the cyclist would be illegal.

Perhaps all laws covering road use should have a "Use the sense God gave you" clause?

buffalo

Qualitymark wrote: »

Perhaps all laws covering road use should have a "Use the sense God gave you" clause?

Constitution of Ireland:
Article 1:
Section 1:
Use common sense FFS.

End.


I do think it's a ridiculous scenario, but it seems to me that that's what the law is saying.

Beasty

buffalo wrote: »

It doesn't specify how much the vehicle has to be ahead of the cyclist, in terms of distance of time. So a car could've overtaken a cyclist seconds before, and be ahead of the cyclist by only a few feet, and as long as they're indicating the left, the overtake on the left by the cyclist would be illegal.

I disagree - it could be caught under general dangerous driving rules, but you are also prohibited from overtaking when approaching a junction. Clearly there is a judgement issue here, but if anyone is forced to brake (whether on a bike or in another motor vehicle) by someone else's manouver on the road I would consider that inappropriate and possibly dangerous driving

galwaycyclist

enas wrote: »

I don't see why this applies to vehicles in different lanes, and if I remember correctly, cycle lanes are considered normal lanes in the law? But it might be a grey zone too.

No unfortunately cycle lanes or cycle tracks are not actually defined as traffic lanes in law and there is no specific duty to yield if crossing a cycle track.

Its one of the things they didn't fix in the latest changes.

I don't know if this has been tested in the courts either way.

enas

rp wrote: »

I don't think it does, as the exception clauses are clarifying when a pedal cyclist may overtake on the left of a vehicle, it doesn't cover where a vehicle is overtaking a cyclist, as I think that is regulated elsewhere, and would be no different to cutting across a lane on the motorway, to reach an exit, say.

Yeah, I can see where the confusion arises, but I would tend to agree with that view.

enas

galwaycyclist wrote: »

No unfortunately cycle lanes or cycle tracks are not actually defined as traffic lanes in law and there is no specific duty to yield if crossing a cycle track.

Its one of the things they didn't fix in the latest changes.

I don't know if this has been tested in the courts either way.

All right I see, thanks.

But the question remains concerning the case where there's just one lane, and the cyclists is overtaken by a left turning car. My interpretation is that the left turning car shouldn't be overtaking in the first place (that would at least fall under dangerous driving, overtaking on a junction, etc.), so that clears things up. The "overtake on left" rule doesn't really apply here to the cyclist, unless by overtaking you mean not pulling hard on the brakes.

rp

Over on the AH: I'm a woman on my own stop threatening me thread, I found this useful interpretation, quod lex non prohibit licitum est...

Knasher wrote: »

I took the liberty of emailing somebody in the Dept of Transport in order to ask them if the regulation, as worded, still technically meant that cycle lanes were mandatory, and they were nice enough to get back to me.

The Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking)(Amendment)(No.2) Regulations 2012 (S.I. No. 332 of 2012) do indeed remove the obligation to use a cycle track except in the circumstances which you quote. The wording as set out in essence says that use of the cycle track is mandatory in certain circumstances, and this means by implication that it is not mandatory in others, in accordance with the principle of quod lex non prohibit licitum est.

The circumstances in which use of a cycle track remains mandatory – as set out in Regulation 14(4)(a)-(b) – are (a) where there is a cycle track on a pedestrianized street, and (b) where the cycle track is contra-flow. This means that in cases where the cycle track is on a public road and is with-flow, cyclists are no longer obliged to use the cycle track. The reason the two exceptions are maintained is for safety – in the case of exception (a), it would clearly not be safe to have cyclists weaving through pedestrians on a pedestrianized street, while in the case of (b) it would not be safe for cyclists to leave the track when they are cycling against the flow of traffic.

Dept of transport says no.

Spook_ie

rp wrote: »

Over on the AH: I'm a woman on my own stop threatening me thread, I found this useful interpretation, quod lex non prohibit licitum est...

Interesting, consider this

Mandatory signs indicate that a road user must take a certain action: for example ‘Keep Left’. They generally have white symbols on solid blue discs, although bus lane signs are rectangular;

wonder what their interpretation of this sign actually means then?


So I wouldn't say it's as clearcut as some would think

rp

Spook_ie wrote: »

Interesting, consider this

wonder what their interpretation of this sign actually means then?


So I wouldn't say it's as clearcut as some would think

(b) At a location where traffic sign number RUS 058 indicates that a shared track is non-segregated, as described in paragraph (a), pedestrians and persons driving pedal cycles may use that track.

may ain't must nor should

Spook_ie

rp wrote: »

may ain't must nor should

I think you'll find that "may" refers to both may use it rather than an exclusivity as in sign number RUS 058CL and RUS 058CR

Alek

Spook_ie wrote: »

wonder what their interpretation of this sign actually means then?

Beware of falling bicycles.

enas

Spook_ie wrote: »

I think you'll find that "may" refers to both may use it rather than an exclusivity as in sign number RUS 058CL and RUS 058CR

I'm sorry, but I have no clue what you're saying.

alkos wrote: »

Beware of falling bicycles.

That's it!

Spook_ie

enas wrote: »

I'm sorry, but I have no clue what you're saying.



That's it!

Oh dear....

Exclusivity....

ex·clu·sive (k-sklsv)
adj.
1. Excluding or tending to exclude: exclusive barriers.
2. Not allowing something else; incompatible: mutually exclusive conditions.
3. Not divided or shared with others: exclusive publishing rights.
4. Not accompanied by others; single or sole: your exclusive function.
5. Complete; undivided: gained their exclusive attention.
6. Not including the specified extremes or limits, but only the area between them: 20-25, exclusive; that is, 21, 22, 23 and 24.
7. Excluding some or most, as from membership or participation: an exclusive club.
8. Catering to a wealthy clientele; expensive: exclusive shops.
9. Linguistics Of, relating to, or being a first person plural pronoun that excludes the addressee, such as we in the sentence Chris and I will be in town tomorrow, so we can stop by your office.
n.
1. A news item initially released to only one publication or broadcaster.
2. An exclusive right or privilege, as to market a product.
ex·clusive·ly adv.
ex·clusive·ness, exclu·sivi·ty (kskl-sv-t) n.

The road sign RUS058 says that pedestrians and cyclists may both use the track as opposed to RUS058CL and CR which delineates the track into two halves which ( in theory ) would be exclusive to each other and pedestrians may not use the half designated to cyclists and vice versa

That better for you?

EDIT Or is it the fact that it's a blue mandatory road sign that is escaping you?

enas

Sorry, you were saying:

Spook_ie wrote: »

So I wouldn't say it's as clearcut as some would think

I assumed you meant that it's not so obvious to you that it's not mandatory to use cycle lanes.

Therefore, this bit:

Spook_ie wrote: »

Exclusivity....

interesting as it is, sounds a bit unrelated with your previous point. Hence my confusion.

Spook_ie

enas wrote: »

Sorry, you were saying:



I assumed you meant that it's not so obvious to you that it's not mandatory to use cycle lanes.

Therefore, this bit:



interesting as it is, sounds a bit unrelated with your previous point. Hence my confusion.

I believe you'll find that the wording of the act does not dispel the mandatory requirement to observe roadsigns, as the blue disc with a white background is a mandatory road sign it's not as clear cut as you would like to think, room for confusion absolutely.

Is it mandatory to use cycle lanes when so signposted, then yes I believe that it is mandatory.

Until such time as it's visited by a legal challenge then I'd tend to err on the side of caution as ignorance of a law is not a defence in law

enas

Spook_ie wrote: »

Is it mandatory to use cycle lanes when so signposted, then yes I believe that it is mandatory.

And the meaning of this sign, as was mentioned earlier in this post, is that:

(b) At a location where traffic sign number RUS 058 indicates that a shared track is non-segregated, as described in paragraph (a), pedestrians and persons driving pedal cycles may use that track.

Where does any confusion arise?

Spook_ie

enas wrote: »

And the meaning of this sign, as was mentioned earlier in this post, is that:



Where does any confusion arise?

Because your argument is that ( correct me if I'm wrong ) it says may and you are assuming that it means they may use that pathway but are not obligated to use that pathway

Where in reality and in English it actually says that pedestrians and cyclists may both use the pathway but they are obligated to use the pathway by the fact it is a mandatory sign

buffalo

Spook_ie wrote: »

Where in reality and in English it actually says that pedestrians and cyclists may both use the pathway but they are obligated to use the pathway by the fact it is a mandatory sign

How is it a mandatory sign? All I've seen is this bit:

Mandatory signs indicate that a road user must take a certain action: for example ‘Keep Left’. They generally have white symbols on solid blue discs, although bus lane signs are rectangular;

Which is not really a precise legal definition of which signs constitute mandatory notices, more of general rule of thumb, I would think.

Beasty

The legislation clearly overrides the colour of the sign. In addition to suggest that there is an obligation on cyclists to use the lane is absurd - do you think this one:


means that buses and cyclists must use the lane - of course not - it means that only buses and cyclists can use it

I suggest if you require further clarification of the law Spook_ie you may wish to contact the minister's department directly, or maybe speak to a lawyer.

The rest of us will probably simply continue to rely on the letter of the law

Spook_ie

buffalo wrote: »

How is it a mandatory sign? All I've seen is this bit:



Which is not really a precise legal definition of which signs constitute mandatory notices, more of general rule of thumb, I would think.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on what a mandatory traffic sign looks like then until such time as a legal case occurs:)

galwaycyclist

I am afraid spook may be on to something with this one. The same issue was raised internally within Cyclist.ie I think a couple of years back.

The Department chose not to consult on the issue beforehand.

We will just have to try and get a clarification inserted along with something about cycke tracks being traffic lanes.

ezra_pound

Spook_ie wrote: »

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on what a mandatory traffic sign looks like then until such time as a legal case occurs:)

The blue and white sign means that its a mandatory cycle Lane. However it is not mandatory to cycle in such a Lane unless... O it is Contraflow or in pedestrianised street.

ezra_pound

galwaycyclist wrote: »

I am afraid spook may be on to something with this one. The same issue was raised internally within Cyclist.ie I think a couple of years back.

The Department chose not to consult on the issue beforehand.

We will just have to try and get a clarification inserted along with something about cycke tracks being traffic lanes.

Mandatory cycle Lane just means that cars can't park or drive in it. Has nothing to do with whether mandatory to cycle in it out not.

Spook_ie

Beasty wrote: »

The legislation clearly overrides the colour of the sign. In addition to suggest that there is an obligation on cyclists to use the lane is absurd - do you think this one:


means that buses and cyclists must use the lane - of course not - it means that only buses and cyclists can use it

I suggest if you require further clarification of the law Spook_ie you may wish to contact the minister's department directly, or maybe speak to a lawyer.

The rest of us will probably simply continue to rely on the letter of the law

We're not talking about sign RUS028/029 or 030, though in the case of RUS030 you would ( I believe as to otherwise would put you on the RHS of the road and into oncoming traffic ) be obligated to use the lane as it's a contraflow bus lane but signs RUS 058/058CL and 058CR

The letter of the law is the debate in question as ignorance of the law is not deemed a defense in law

galwaycyclist

Beasty wrote: »

The legislation clearly overrides the colour of the sign. In addition to suggest that there is an obligation on cyclists to use the lane is absurd - do you think this one:


means that buses and cyclists must use the lane - of course not - it means that only buses and cyclists can use it

I suggest if you require further clarification of the law Spook_ie you may wish to contact the minister's department directly, or maybe speak to a lawyer.

The rest of us will probably simply continue to rely on the letter of the law

As far as I know it is the shape that is important. The rectangular shape does not imply mandatory use. In the UK-where there was no compulsion - the cycle lane signs used to be rectangular.

Spook_ie

Beasty wrote: »

The legislation clearly overrides the colour of the sign. In addition to suggest that there is an obligation on cyclists to use the lane is absurd - do you think this one:


means that buses and cyclists must use the lane - of course not - it means that only buses and cyclists can use it

I suggest if you require further clarification of the law Spook_ie you may wish to contact the minister's department directly, or maybe speak to a lawyer.

The rest of us will probably simply continue to rely on the letter of the law

Excuse the double post...

Are you advocating that a cyclist shouldn't be using the bus lane then!

Unless otherwise turning right or overtaking then you should be on the left i.e in the bus lane, the signage means that you shouldn't expect other traffic other than cyclists/buses/taxis/ER vehicles in that lane EDIT during its hours of operation

Beasty

Spook_ie wrote: »

Excuse the double post...

Are you advocating that a cyclist shouldn't be using the bus lane then!

Unless otherwise turning right or overtaking then you should be on the left i.e in the bus lane, the signage means that you shouldn't expect other traffic other than cyclists/buses/taxis/ER vehicles in that lane EDIT during its hours of operation

No I'm simply saying only cyclists and buses can use it but are not obliged to

ezra_pound

Blue and white means motor way. Its an official motor way for bikes and buses. You can cycle as fast as you want with these signs.

I really think the colour of this sign is insignificant.

Spook_ie

galwaycyclist wrote: »

As far as I know it is the shape that is important. The rectangular shape does not imply mandatory use. In the UK-where there was no compulsion - the cycle lane signs used to be rectangular.

I believe you are correct, the majority of information signage is rectangular otherwise whenever we meet this sign we'd all have to park

or go to Hospital


In reality it means there are other regulations you should be aware of

Spook_ie

Beasty wrote: »

No I'm simply saying only cyclists and buses can use it but are not obliged to

Unless overtaking, turning right or whatever they are obliged to use it by the primary law of the roads of keeping left

Spook_ie

ezra_pound wrote: »

Blue and white means motor way. Its an official motor way for bikes and buses. You can cycle as fast as you want with these signs.

I really think the colour of this sign is insignificant.

You wish you are still under a duty of care even when unlicensed or unregulated

Cookie_Monster

Spook_ie wrote: »

You wish you are still under a duty of care even when unlicensed or unregulated

bikes are never unlicensed nor unregulated.
There are plenty of regulations and the non requirement of a licence does not mean they are unlicensed (which would be not meeting the requirement to have one were it required).

Spook_ie

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

bikes are never unlicensed nor unregulated.
There are plenty of regulations and the non requirement of a licence does not mean they are unlicensed (which would be not meeting the requirement to have one were it required).

Unlicensed in you do not need a license to cycle as a commuter
Unregulated in that there are no regulations pertaining to a speed limit both of which are the relevent bits when replying to

Blue and white means motor way. Its an official motor way for bikes and buses. You can cycle as fast as you want with these signs.

ezra_pound

Spook_ie wrote: »

You wish you are still under a duty of care even when unlicensed or unregulated

What died this have to do with a duty of care? Why you getting all tort on me? Doubt know What you mean about unlicensed.

ezra_pound

Anyway I think you guys are reading way too muck into colour of sign! Thats mt point about motor way! Blue and white = motor way.