Irish Cycling Legislation

eeeee

NorthStars wrote: »

Yea, sure all we can do in this country is follow others lead.

So, say a cyclist knocks down a pedestrian and seriously injures him/her (as has happened) and then leaves the scene, how does the law catch up with these people?
A registration and insurance regulation would firstly allow witnesses to possibly identify the cyclist and cyclist insurance would cover medical bills etc.
Cyclists are freeloaders, they want the facilities but aren't prepared to pay for them in any way.

Mod warning: Ok this is not the place to come in and rag on cyclists. I would advise you to have a read of the forum charter: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056113049 before posting again. Any questions PM me do not respond in thread.

check_six

On the radio yesterday there was a bit about licensing cycle rickshaws. They also mentioned exploring an insurance requirement. I did this job for a while years and years ago. It was lots of fun and you could make good money, but I left it because of the lack of insurance. Stuff would happen to other riders which had the potential to hurt them or, worse, a customer.

The odd time you'd see nutter (or gang of nutters) grab on to the back of the rickshaw as it was going along and tilt the thing into the air. If you're unlucky everyone gets tipped out onto the footpath. If you're really unlucky someone gets hurt. Then there was the tension with another form ad hoc non-motorised fun transport that operated in the same bit of town. If you've never seen a live action re-enactment of the chariot race in Ben-Hur, where Charlton Heston is pedaling furiously and has a pair of screaming passengers while a horse is encouraged to trample him, you haven't lived!

So I packed it in because it was too dicey that a customer could get hurt due to circumstances beyond my control and then I'd be liable. I don't know what it's like nowadays, but with the streets heaving with taxis at night it can't be easy to make a living.

Does regulation make sense for cycle-rickshaws? Some kind of insurance for passengers would be helpful, for sure. Did Galway do something weird with their rules for rickshaws? Trying to ban them because they were "too big" to fit on the same streets cars went down or something similarly odd?

traprunner

check_six wrote: »

On the radio yesterday there was a bit about licensing cycle rickshaws. They also mentioned exploring an insurance requirement. I did this job for a while years and years ago. It was lots of fun and you could make good money, but I left it because of the lack of insurance. Stuff would happen to other riders which had the potential to hurt them or, worse, a customer.

The odd time you'd see nutter (or gang of nutters) grab on to the back of the rickshaw as it was going along and tilt the thing into the air. If you're unlucky everyone gets tipped out onto the footpath. If you're really unlucky someone gets hurt. Then there was the tension with another form ad hoc non-motorised fun transport that operated in the same bit of town. If you've never seen a live action re-enactment of the chariot race in Ben-Hur, where Charlton Heston is pedaling furiously and has a pair of screaming passengers while a horse is encouraged to trample him, you haven't lived!

So I packed it in because it was too dicey that a customer could get hurt due to circumstances beyond my control and then I'd be liable. I don't know what it's like nowadays, but with the streets heaving with taxis at night it can't be easy to make a living.

Does regulation make sense for cycle-rickshaws? Some kind of insurance for passengers would be helpful, for sure. Did Galway do something weird with their rules for rickshaws? Trying to ban them because they were "too big" to fit on the same streets cars went down or something similarly odd?

My opinion is that rickshaws are a form of public transport and should be regulated and insured.

It will be interesting to see if they will be fined for cycling on pedestrian streets.

Bloggsie

AKW wrote: »

Was mentioned on Twitter that if you can't ID yourself to the satisfaction of the Garda your bike will be confiscated.

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/625058217186471937

This would appear to be a bit loose, When I commute I carry my work ID, but I dont have anything on me that categorically states the bike I am on is mine, if I go for a spin at the weekend, I dont carry any ID. If a guard decides to stop me and I cannot satisfy his or her query in regards to my bike, can they take it, that just does not seem correct!

07Lapierre

To be fair to the Gardai I think the average law abiding cyclist has little to fear. if you run a red light, wearing a track suit ( with the legs tucked into your socks) while cycling with one hand on the bars and holding a phone to your ear with the other, and you do it on a bike worth €4000 or more, then I think you might have a few questions to answer!

HivemindXX

Bloggsie wrote: »

This would appear to be a bit loose, When I commute I carry my work ID, but I dont have anything on me that categorically states the bike I am on is mine, if I go for a spin at the weekend, I dont carry any ID. If a guard decides to stop me and I cannot satisfy his or her query in regards to my bike, can they take it, that just does not seem correct!

I imagine this is only in the event that they are giving you an FPN but you either can't or claim that you can't prove who you are. "No probs, I'll pay the €40, my name is Joe Bloggs, 1 Upyerhole Road, Ballykissmearse". Hopefully at least since I don't carry proof of identify either and I don't really want to start.

It's understandable since you wouldn't have to search very hard on boards to find someone suggesting that the best way out of any sort of fine is just to give a false name and address.

As far as I know this is no different from before if they decided to charge you and planned to issue a summons. If they weren't satisfied you were giving the correct name and address they could arrest you and bring you to the station.

roverrules

Can't see why there is such a resistance to carrying some ID, if the worst of things happened I'm bloody sure I'd like my family to be informed promptly rather than having to ring the Gards,hospitals and morgue if I didn't come home on time.

tomasrojo

roverrules wrote: »

rather than having to ring the Gards,hospitals and morgue if I didn't come home on time.

My family would ring the pub first, I'd say.

sam.boles

I only noticed this the other day. S.I. No. 294/1964 was amended by S.I. No. 332/2012. The gardaí were pointing it out on their FB page during the week.

S.I. No. 332/2012 - Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2012 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.

It's also been added to the ROTR as follows:

Rules of the Road, Rev 4 Dec 2013, page 190 wrote:

On occasion it may be safe to cycle two abreast, but you must not cycle in a manner likely to create an obstruction for other users.

The gardaí take this to mean that you shouldn't cycle 2 abreast on small country roads:

Garda Facebook Page wrote:

Cycling 2 abreast is acceptable and legal but only if its is not in a manner likely to cause obstruction. On a small road it would be likely to cause obstruction. We all need to share the road safely. Cyclists need to cycle in a manner which is safe and does cause obstruction to other. See rules of the road page 198

I think that the wording of the SI is quite confusing. Does the new qualifying language apply to cycling two abreast or just to overtaking cyclists cycling two abreast? If it's the former, then from what I can tell, this change runs contrary to international practice.

As I said, I had never heard about this change before. It seems to undermine the RSA's efforts to advertise the fact that cyclists have a right to the roads. The reality is that cars and bikes share the same roads and they will inevitably hold each other up in some situations. Also, are you really an obstruction if you're moving??

galwaycyclist

sam.boles wrote: »

I only noticed this the other day. S.I. No. 294/1964 was amended by S.I. No. 332/2012. The gardaí were pointing it out on their FB page during the week.



It's also been added to the ROTR as follows:


The gardaí take this to mean that you shouldn't cycle 2 abreast on small country roads:


I think that the wording of the SI is quite confusing. Does the new qualifying language apply to cycling two abreast or just to overtaking cyclists cycling two abreast? If it's the former, then from what I can tell, this change runs contrary to international practice.

As I said, I had never heard about this change before. It seems to undermine the RSA's efforts to advertise the fact that cyclists have a right to the roads. The reality is that cars and bikes share the same roads and they will inevitably hold each other up in some situations. Also, are you really an obstruction if you're moving??

This has been dealt with on Rogue cyclists thread I think. Under the 1993 Roads Act (section 67? 68?) there is a duty to avoid injury and damage to property. You cant be forced to endanger yourself for somebody elses "convenience".

On phone now so its a pain to dig out.

sdanseo

rubadub wrote: »

realistically there is no need to enforce most of that.

I think "most" is an overstatement there, but you're right - Garda discretion is a very important and uniquely useful tool.

There's no reason not to legislate for something when you have discretion, because a Garda is meant to be able to reasonably decide when the letter of the law should be applied and when no action is needed.

Example: crossing the road in front of a car on a red man - €40 fine would be very much welcomed. Crossing an empty street between junctions or crossing points - perfectly reasonable.

If the law isn't there, the Garda can't enforce it, even when it is reasonable to.

Bucklesman

galwaycyclist wrote: »

This has been dealt with on Rogue cyclists thread I think. Under the 1993 Roads Act (section 67? 68?) there is a duty to avoid injury and damage to property. You cant be forced to endanger yourself for somebody elses "convenience".

On phone now so its a pain to dig out.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1993/en/act/pub/0014/sec0067.html#sec67

Shep_Dog

sdanseo wrote: »

There's no reason not to legislate for something when you have discretion, because a Garda is meant to be able to reasonably decide when the letter of the law should be applied and when no action is needed.

For example when the commercial interests of city-centre businesses are affected.

waywardchild

sam.boles wrote: »

I only noticed this the other day. S.I. No. 294/1964 was amended by S.I. No. 332/2012. The gardaí were pointing it out on their FB page during the week.



It's also been added to the ROTR as follows:


The gardaí take this to mean that you shouldn't cycle 2 abreast on small country roads:


I think that the wording of the SI is quite confusing. Does the new qualifying language apply to cycling two abreast or just to overtaking cyclists cycling two abreast? If it's the former, then from what I can tell, this change runs contrary to international practice.

As I said, I had never heard about this change before. It seems to undermine the RSA's efforts to advertise the fact that cyclists have a right to the roads. The reality is that cars and bikes share the same roads and they will inevitably hold each other up in some situations. Also, are you really an obstruction if you're moving??

Is the ROTR not just a guide book rather than law. S.Is seem to be delibertly confusing as far as i can see and have several interpetations until they are tried in a court.

sam.boles

galwaycyclist wrote: »

This has been dealt with on Rogue cyclists thread I think. Under the 1993 Roads Act (section 67? 68?) there is a duty to avoid injury and damage to property. You cant be forced to endanger yourself for somebody elses "convenience".

Roads Act, 1993 wrote:

67.—(1) It shall be the duty of a person using a public road to take reasonable care for his own safety and for that of any other person using the public road.

(2) It shall be the duty of a person using a public road to take all reasonable measures to avoid—

(a) injury to himself or to any other person using the public road,

(b) damage to property owned or used by him or by any other person using the public road.

Thanks for that. I did see it mentioned in the rogue cyclists thread but I think the first post here should be updated to reflect the most recent version of the law.

If I understand what your saying, the effect of the law should be the same despite the clumsy new wording. I think the change was a step backward. It makes it harder to defend defensive two-abreast riding if you need to reference yet another law.

waywardchild wrote:

Is the ROTR not just a guide book rather than law.

Yes it's just a guide but it's very influential as that's what people think the actual rules are. It's also the RSA's official interpretation and that's what the gardaí are now telling the public.

Shep_Dog

sam.boles wrote: »

As I said, I had never heard about this change before. It seems to undermine the RSA's efforts to advertise the fact that cyclists have a right to the roads. The reality is that cars and bikes share the same roads and they will inevitably hold each other up in some situations. Also, are you really an obstruction if you're moving??

The RSA seesms to be selective in what laws it reads. It is ignoring the law that an drivers overtaking manouvre must not cause inconvenience to anyone (for example, cyclists lawfully riding two abreast?) and that cars must not be parked in a way that obstructs the free flow of traffic (for example: in a cycle lane?)

It seems like the RSA will do anything other than tackle the causes of cyclist deaths and injuries.

Cyclist FPNs, High Vis etc are just ways of avoiding unpopular actions against motorists.

tomasrojo

sam.boles wrote: »

Yes it's just a guide but it's very influential as that's what people think the actual rules are. It's also the RSA's official interpretation and that's what the gardaí are now telling the public.

Of course, the RSA have a private, top-secret agency to interpret the law for them.
http://irishcycle.com/2015/06/03/rsa-rejects-foi-on-cycle-lane-safety-due-to-commercial-sensitivity/

Don't got trying to interpret the law yourself now. Leave it to the RSA and their secret decoder ring.

radia

tomasrojo wrote: »

Of course, the RSA have a private, top-secret agency to interpret the law for them.
http://irishcycle.com/2015/06/03/rsa-rejects-foi-on-cycle-lane-safety-due-to-commercial-sensitivity/

That's bizarre. If commercial sensitivity were really a concern, they could always provide the correspondence with the legal firm's details redacted. If I were IrishCycle.com, that would be my next FoI request.

Fingers Mcginty

Apologies if it's been asked already but will a rear red light suffice for mandatory reflector?

tomasrojo

IIRC, in law, no, unless the light has a reflective surface of a certain size, and the reflectivity is visible from a certain distance (the specs are earlier in this thread somewhere). Some lights do combine a light and a reflective surface and would fulfill this requirement.

In practice, it's unlikely you'll be stopped if you have a decent rear light.

randomname2005

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Reflectors

What the law says:
37. (1) Every vehicle used in a public place shall be equipped only with such reflectors as comply with the following provisions of this article.

(2) Every reflector with which a vehicle is equipped and which is visible from outside the vehicle shall be—

(a) red, if facing to the rear,
(b) amber, if facing to the side,
(c) white, if facing to the front.

What this means:
You need to have a red rear reflector on your bicycle at all times. The only exception is if, during daylight, you are doing a race or on your way to and from one. If you put any additional reflectors on your bike, they need to comply with the colour regulations, i.e. red facing rear, yellow facing sideways or white facing to the front.

Just reading through this and have questions about standard reflectors attached to bicycles. From my experience it is mostly the case that reflectors attached to the pedals (facing backwards) are amber, and reflectors stuck between or to the wheel spokes (facing sideways) are white. Is there a requirement on bicycle shops and manufacturers to change this so that they comply with the law in the same way that new bikes are fitted with bells?

Chips Lovell

I'm unaware of any legislation that obliges bike shops to sell bikes with particular equipment. Other countries are different, e.g. in the UK all bikes must be sold with a bell on them.

randomname2005

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I'm unaware of any legislation that obliges bike shops to sell bikes with particular equipment. Other countries are different, e.g. in the UK all bikes must be sold with a bell on them.

When I was getting my new bike recently I had a bell on the list of accessories to buy. When I commented on it to the assistant manager in the shop who I was dealing with she said it was a legal requirement. Perhaps they put one on as a bonus.

Maybe a better question - should shops be prevented from selling items which directly contravene the law?

Chips Lovell

Bicycles without bells or reflectors don't directly contravene the law though. There are some circumstances when they aren't required.

randomname2005

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Bicycles without bells or reflectors don't directly contravene the law though. There are some circumstances when they aren't required.

True

rubadub

randomname2005 wrote: »

should shops be prevented from selling items which directly contravene the law?

I would not like to see this, maybe make it a requirement to warn people. I would not like to be paying for stuff on each and every bike when I more than likely have a selection of old ones I could fit myself.

If helmets were mandatory I would hate to see them included. Just as I am usually not a fan of mp3 players which come with earphones included, which would rarely be the type I want.

There would also be a question of what constitutes a bike, and not just a subassembly of spare parts.

My roars of warning are far more effective than most bells.

galwaycyclist

randomname2005 wrote: »

When I was getting my new bike recently I had a bell on the list of accessories to buy. When I commented on it to the assistant manager in the shop who I was dealing with she said it was a legal requirement. Perhaps they put one on as a bonus.

Maybe a better question - should shops be prevented from selling items which directly contravene the law?

Yes. If we are taking cycling seriously as form of transport rather than a sport then, in my view, it should be an offence to sell a bike without the required items.

UDP

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Yes. If we are taking cycling seriously as form of transport rather than a sport then, in my view, it should be an offence to sell a bike without the required items.

and if you have your own bell etc? or are not going to cycle the bike home?

randomname2005

rubadub wrote: »

I would not like to see this, maybe make it a requirement to warn people. I would not like to be paying for stuff on each and every bike when I more than likely have a selection of old ones I could fit myself.

If helmets were mandatory I would hate to see them included. Just as I am usually not a fan of mp3 players which come with earphones included, which would rarely be the type I want.

There would also be a question of what constitutes a bike, and not just a subassembly of spare parts.

My roars of warning are far more effective than most bells.

Agree with these, except the last one. I find that a bell gets attention without abuse or other objects hurled at you.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Yes. If we are taking cycling seriously as form of transport rather than a sport then, in my view, it should be an offence to sell a bike without the required items.

Going with rubadub, it should not be necessary to buy a new, e.g., bell if the bell you had on your last bike still works and you salvaged it. Let the shop put that money to better tyres/tubes etc. And they can save more money by removing the items that make the bike illegal too.

I can deal with adding items onto the bike which you may have at home in order to make it legal. Having read the legislation I have to remove items from my new bike which are illegal (amber pedal reflectors). Poor form IMHO

tomasrojo

Amber pedal reflectors not illegal. Relevant statute earlier in thread.