ROTR. Running in Bike Lanes?

daragh_

Can anyone clarify what the Rules of the Road are around the use of bike lanes by runners?

I've always assumed that while runners could use the road in the absence of a suitable pavement, bike lanes were reserved for bikes (as well as traffic/pedestrians crossing at appropriate points).

Had a robust discussion about this earlier with a chap running in the bike lane along the canal towards Leeson Bridge.

To be fair to him he had stepped out of the way for myself and another cyclist and in the end I came across as a bit of an asshat by telling him off. He was very reasonable but adamant in the view that he was entitled to be there.

So if I'm wrong and runners are legally entitled to run in bike lanes against the flow of traffic I'll happily apologise the next time I see him.

Doctor Bob

Given the presence of a footpath on the other side of the road, right beside the canal itself, his argument based (presumably) on the advice to walk towards traffic where a footpath is absent is bunk.

Option 2 would be to use Dartmouth Walk- he should go down the steps where the footpath terminates, run along the lower road, and go up the steps at the other (Leeson Street) end and re-join Grand Parade where the footpath re-commences. via Dartmouth Square.

(Did I get the location right?)

EDIT: I thought the footpath reappeared at the other steps, but I was mistaken. But as you'll see from this streetview, pedestrians walking in the lane there is not that uncommon.

daragh_

That's it exactly.

Leroy42

Not sure about the exact law, but aren't runners classed as pedestrians and therefore pretty much allowed to go anywhere?

Micilin Muc

Leroy42 wrote: »

Not sure about the exact law, but aren't runners classed as pedestrians and therefore pretty much allowed to go anywhere?

Should they also walk in the middle of the road, because they're allowed?!

I've wondered this myself. I encountered a few people at the weekend along the canal and on the way to Sutton doing this. Why do people do this when there is a bloody footpath right beside the cycle lane?

Leroy42

Micilin Muc wrote: »

Should they also walk in the middle of the road, because they're allowed?!

No, but if they do the onus is on the traffic to avoid them.

My point being that whatever the law says (they can't be in the middle of the road/in the cycle lane) the reality is it is on you to avoid them.

nak

It's a strange one, regularly see guys running in the bike lane on the road going through Templeogue and they don't get out the way. Given the choice of quiet pavement or busy road, seems odd to me.

Doctor Bob

For anyone unfamiliar with the location, blue is footpath, red is no footpath and yellow is a circuitous way of getting around the missing footpath.

Seems to me like he should have been on the canal bank (continuous blue).

Micilin Muc

Leroy42 wrote: »

No, but if they do the onus is on the traffic to avoid them.

My point being that whatever the law says (they can't be in the middle of the road/in the cycle lane) the reality is it is on you to avoid them.

There is also an onus on the pedestrian to not jaywalk.

galwaycyclist

Leroy42 wrote: »

No, but if they do the onus is on the traffic to avoid them.

My point being that whatever the law says (they can't be in the middle of the road/in the cycle lane) the reality is it is on you to avoid them.

This.

Also expecting people to endanger themselves by crossing the road twice because there is inadequate footpath provision on a section of road is in my view unreasonable and unlikely to be entertained by a proportion of pedestrians.

Micilin Muc

Doctor Bob wrote: »

For anyone unfamiliar with the location, blue is footpath, red is no footpath and yellow is a circuitous way of getting around the missing footpath.

Seems to me like he should have been on the canal bank (continuous blue).

Or on the footpath on the other side of the canal. There's plenty of footpath available along the Grand Canal.

Captain Havoc

Micilin Muc wrote: »

There is also an onus on the pedestrian to not jaywalk.

Jaywalking is not an offense in Ireland.

Macy0161

galwaycyclist wrote: »

This.

Also expecting people to endanger themselves by crossing the road twice because there is inadequate footpath provision on a section of road is in my view unreasonable and unlikely to be entertained by a proportion of pedestrians.

Is crossing the road more dangerous than running on the road? Seriously doubt it on that stretch. There's also pedestrian lights either end of that stretch of the canal iirc.

I regularly meet joggers in the cycle lanes, adjacent to a perfectly good path. In fact there's a couple of spots where I regularly meet them that the footpath is in much better condition the cycle lane - pity we can't negotiate a swap!

Doctor Bob

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Also expecting people to endanger themselves by crossing the road twice because there is inadequate footpath provision on a section of road is in my view unreasonable and unlikely to be entertained by a proportion of pedestrians.

I'd agree that footpath provision should be continuous on both sides of all urban streets, at least where feasible.

However, the specific local context along Grand Parade is such that there is, at best, only a weak case to be made for constructing the 'missing link' (red in my map above), as all possible approaches for pedestrians are catered for by other routes or footpaths (not to mention that space is very tight here and there are considerable level changes at both edges of the road in question).

I'd also dispute your use of 'endanger'. People are currently endangering themselves by walking against the traffic on the south side of Grand Parade. Crossing the road twice is, by comparison, a less risky option. (And crossing the road twice at the signalised junctions at either end - which results in no loss of time over the mid-block crossing options - is arguably safer again.)

Had you said 'inconvenience' rather than 'endanger', I wouldn't be disputing your point.

tunney

ronoc wrote: »

I've wondered this myself. I encountered a few people at the weekend along the canal and on the way to Sutton doing this. Why do people do this when there is a bloody footpath right beside the cycle lane?

Change footpath to cyclepath, change cycle lane to road, change cyclist to car and runner to cyclist

twerg_85

Pedestrians must use footpath where available according to road safety authority book. It also says that cycle paths are reserved for cyclists.

Of course, if the cyclists were obeying all rules of the road, then their bell would be in good working order and that would be used to warn the pedestrian

F.

seidenspinner

It is often preferable to run in a cycle lane where there is one adjacent to a footpath as it is quite simply easier to run on. For example, an on road cycle lane generally runs in a straight line at the same level as the road with no dips or hollows. Footpaths in areas with multiple accesses to houses or commercial businesses or wherever can often be dished locally with the effect that a series of dips and hollows in the footpath have to be negotiated by runners in close proximity and this can cause problems like twisting an ankle or slipping. The same can apply to raised adjacent cycle lanes. Footpaths also have road furniture to negotiate like poles and utility cabinets etc. as well as more slippy mahole and utility chamber covers.

I dont know the exact law on this but I would have thought that a cycle lane separated from the road by a solid white line and by a kerb from the footpath is for cyclists only. Dashed cycle lanes are advisory and can be used by all road users.

Macy0161

twerg_85 wrote: »

Of course, if the cyclists were obeying all rules of the road, then their bell would be in good working order and that would be used to warn the pedestrian

Which they don't hear because they're wearing headphones!

radia

Captain Havoc wrote: »

Jaywalking is not an offense in Ireland.

Are you sure? See reg 46 in the Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations 1997.
Although they appear to have made a mess of the enforcement owing to no requirement to provide personal details if caught: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/loophole-means-jaywalkers-escape-prosecution-26254447.html

Alek

daragh_ wrote: »

Can anyone clarify what the Rules of the Road are around the use of bike lanes by runners?

Its fine in cyclocross.

daragh_

I've seen you Alek. That's called controlled falling.

Alek

Only if you call taking a muddy descent at sharp 90deg turn: "control"...

daragh_

Found this Thread in Athletics/Running. Doesn't really clarify the issue but it does give some perspective from a runners POV.

HivemindXX

galwaycyclist wrote: »

This.

Also expecting people to endanger themselves by crossing the road twice because there is inadequate footpath provision on a section of road is in my view unreasonable and unlikely to be entertained by a proportion of pedestrians.

As was already pointed out in a reply I don't think this holds in this particular case. This road frequently has a continuous line of traffic and the cycle lane is very busy and not really wide enough to pass a pedestrian without getting too close to them. Add in the bushes which protrude in to the cycle lane in places and the way they conceal pedestrians and even with cyclists taking due care and attention I think there's a significant risk of a collision. As a pedestrian I have no doubt that crossing the road to the footpath is the better option, even though it is irritating that you might have to do so even though your entry point and exit point could easily both be on the south side of the road.

As far as runners using the cycle lanes in general when there is a footpath directly adjacent, I'm not convinced it is illegal at all. The 'jaywalking' offence is relatively new and seems to only related to crossing the road (not travelling along it) and only to apply within a certain distance of a pedestrian crossing. I do think it is quite rude to do so but it is clear that quite a lot of runners feel they are entitled and no amount of complaining is going to change the minds of those that do so. I decided after an acrimonious exchange with a woman who refused to move on to the pedestrian side of the line when she saw me coming that it wasn't worth the argument and now I just get on with my life.

Baron Kurtz

Just see them as a slow cyclist!:) Manoeuvre around them. Not too hard.

Off topic, and a common offence by said canal, why is a pedestrian green man light a licence for cyclists to cross when they appear? Okay, they deem this light akin to a safety buffer, and a sneaky way to proceed with a crowd of pedestrians, but it breaks my balls. There's always a clutter of apes on bicycles attempting to cross/negotiate a path through pedestrians when they shouldn't be doing so and it ends in a regular shouting match between the two.

As far as I can see 9 out of 10 cyclists use the green man as though it were a green light/cyclist light to proceed. There's something so irksome about that type of manoeuvre that gets me more than anything else.

Sorry for moving off topic.

daragh_

Baron Kurtz wrote: »

Just see them as a slow cyclist!:) Manoeuvre around them. Not too hard.

Sorry for moving off topic.

I've no difficulty going around any obstacle when it's safe to do so.

The issue with the stretch of bike lane is that in rush hour there isn't anywhere to go. I can't swing out onto the road because of the volume of traffic and a walker (or in this case a runner coming towards me) has to balance on the kerb with no pavement beside it.

Not an ideal situation for either of us

I encounter slow cyclists in that bike lane all the time. But they tend to be travelling in the same direction so if I can't pass safely I can wait behind until the next junction or whenever it's safe to pass.

Running against the flow of traffic kind of forces the issue.

eeeee

I find runners running agains the flow of traffic difficult when traffic is heavy and you can't maneuver out of the way. I once had this situation on the rock road into town. Traffic was heavy but moving and the runner was coming down the on road cycle lane and pointed me out onto the road. I had no where to go so kept coming, he pointed some more and he kept on in the cycle lane towards me and kept pointing out into the traffic and stare-ing me out of it for keeping coming towards him. I had to stop. He swore at me, before running around me and bike up onto the footpath and back onto the cycle lane at the last moment. If he did that in the first place there would have been no issue! There was a whole big, empty, unencumbered footpath beside him. You can't expect the cycle lane to be empty of…bicycles!

I didn't know concrete was twice as hard as tarmac (read it in the link to the other thread above) so I understand the cumulative effects of only running on concrete rather than tarmac must be worse if you do a lot of it. It would appear to be legal so why don't the runners run in the direction of traffic? I know it's the other way round from what you learn in school but that only applies if it's a single lane road, not in the city. It's easier to pass something that's moving in the same direction as you rather than against you. It also must be pretty annoying to be a fast runner having to dodge walkers, prams, dogs and slower runners all the time on the footpath. Much like cycling in the cycle lane!

couerdelion

There was a bunch of runners doing interval training in the designated, seperated from traffic, cycles lanes near Leeson Street (Wilton Terrace?). They were running in the same directions as the bikes too so they wouldn't see any one coming towards them.

Now bearing in mind that some of that stretch is a dead end with little traffic vs a busy enough cycle lane you might have though they could have used the road?

Popoutman

gadetra wrote: »

I didn't know concrete was twice as hard as tarmac (read it in the link to the other thread above) so I understand the cumulative effects of only running on concrete rather than tarmac must be worse if you do a lot of it.

From a human bodyweight perspective - there's absolutely no difference. There's no effective deformation underfoot on tarmac. It's like saying that glass is softer than diamond - while true, both are things that I would not want bouncing off my head!

I'd understand if it was phrased as tarmac being physically a lot smoother on the centimetre scale to run on than concrete which may be what the runners are thinking of.

Just thinking - proper athletics running tracks have deformation underfoot, and would be better for those that think that tarmac is soft...

dreamerb

gadetra wrote: »

[...] so why don't the runners run in the direction of traffic?

I think it's much preferable if they're running against the flow of traffic *if* it's so they can watch for traffic and give way to it.

I really don't understand the mentality of the person you encountered though. If you're running against the flow of traffic you should be stepping onto the verge or footpath when you see something approaching.

And don't get me started about the twonks who cycle the wrong direction on a cycle lane... or, as I recently encountered, in a bus lane on South Circular Road. For reasons I utterly fail to understand, *he* swore at *me*. And no, I hadn't expressed my wholly justifiable irritation.

UDP

twerg_85 wrote: »

Pedestrians must use footpath where available according to road safety authority book. It also says that cycle paths are reserved for cyclists.

Of course, if the cyclists were obeying all rules of the road, then their bell would be in good working order and that would be used to warn the pedestrian

F.

is there a link to that rsa book? Saying it in a book doesn't mean anything if it is not backed up by law.

Beasty

UDP wrote: »

is there a link to that rsa book? Saying it in a book doesn't mean anything if it is not backed up by law.

The thread on Irish tax legislation (confirming some of us do not require bells;)) is here

oinkely

My take on this is that I use the cycle lanes provided where I deem them fit for purpose. This might not be to everyones's liking and indeed I have been harangued on many occasions for using the road when there was 'a perfectly good' cycle lane next to it, albeit up a raised kerb and proceeding past numerous driveways.

If a jogger, runner, pedestrian etc chooses to use the cycle lane then I will do whatever I must to avoid hitting them. As I see it, I can't really apply my 'use it when I deem it safe' policy if I am going to getupset about other people using the bike lanes when they deem it the best course of action.

In reality, the legality of the situation comes second to me getting home from work in one piece, without having impaled anyone else with my sticky out bull horns, and without being T boned by someone coming out of their driveway looking the other way.

Macy0161

Pretty sure one of the spots I regularly encounter joggers in the cyclelane is a tarmac pavement and a concrete cycle path!

Also most of the separated cycle paths I use go up and down for driveways just as much as the footpath.

simonrooneyzaga

frustrating when there are walkers / runners in the cycle lane in the phoenix park, considering there is a path running right beside it!! (especially when PR's are on the line ;-))

UDP

Beasty wrote: »

The thread on Irish tax legislation (confirming some of us do not require bells;)) is here

I am looking for the law where it says cycle tracks are exclusively for cyclists. My reading suggests that only mechanically propelled vehicles cannot use them.

eeeee

I suppose it's similar to one of the reasons some of us don't use the cycle lane. I imagine running on a footpath with walkers, prams, kids etc. wobbling all over the place must be super annoying for runners. They have human debris!

seamus

I'll out myself and say that yes I do this on occasion when I'm running;

1. When the path is really full and I don't want to stop to get around people and obstacles
2. When the path is full of crap (like leaves or puddles).
3. The path is badly slanted or has loads of up-and-downy entrances (kills your knees)

I will qualify it though by saying that I only ever run against the flow of the traffic and even then if it's a choice between making a bike go around me or stopping and waiting to get by the obstacle, I always go with the latter. I've come up behind my fair share of runners on cycle lanes with their back to the traffic and it frustrates me no end.

There are a lot of people who go on about tarmac being softer than concrete, but I think that's only true in very select circumstances. I've never noticed a difference, so I think the idea of tarmac being "softer" for someone on their feet is mostly psychosomatic. It is however usually much smoother and flatter than paths (the camber is usually minimal), which is a nicer running experience.

Doctor Bob

UDP wrote: »

I am looking for the law where it says cycle tracks are exclusively for cyclists. My reading suggests that only mechanically propelled vehicles cannot use them.

Two most relevant subsections highlighted below. The first is directly relevant to the OP, the second to your query.

Rules for Pedestrians


46. (1) A pedestrian shall exercise care and take all reasonable precautions in order to avoid causing danger or inconvenience to traffic and other pedestrians.
(2) A pedestrian facing a traffic light lamp which shows a red light shall not proceed beyond that light.
(3) A pedestrian about to cross a roadway at a place where traffic sign number RPC 003 or RPC 004 [pedestrian lights] has been provided shall do so only when a lamp of the facing pedestrian lights is lit and emits a constant green light.
(4) Subject to sub-article (5), save when crossing the roadway, a pedestrian shall use a footway if one is provided, and if one is not provided, shall keep as near as possible to the right edge of the roadway.
(5) At a road junction where traffic is controlled either by traffic lights or by a member of the Garda Síochána, a pedestrian shall cross the roadway only when traffic going in the direction in which the pedestrian intends to cross is permitted (by the lights or the member) to proceed.
(6) Within a pedestrian crossing complex [traffic sign number RPC 002] a pedestrian shall only cross the roadway at the location of traffic sign number RPC 001 [pedestrian crossing].
(7) On a roadway on which a traffic sign number RPC 001 [pedestrian crossing] has been provided, a pedestrian shall not cross the roadway within 15 metres of the crossing, except by the crossing.
(8) For the purposes of this article, each carriageway of a dual carriageway shall be deemed to be a separate roadway, and where there is a traffic refuge on a roadway the portion of the roadway on each side of the refuge shall be deemed to be a separate roadway.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html#zzsi182y1997a46

brownian

Popoutman wrote: »

From a human bodyweight perspective - there's absolutely no difference. There's no effective deformation underfoot on tarmac. It's like saying that glass is softer than diamond - while true, both are things that I would not want bouncing off my head!

I'd understand if it was phrased as tarmac being physically a lot smoother on the centimetre scale to run on than concrete which may be what the runners are thinking of.

Just thinking - proper athletics running tracks have deformation underfoot, and would be better for those that think that tarmac is soft...

Having run a good deal on both surfaces, I can sincerely state that there really is a substantial difference in comfort between running on tarmac and running on concrete. I appreciate what P-man is saying here - but none the less, tarmac really is a lot more comfortable. I regularly drop off the footpath to run on the road...but I do tend to jump back onto the pavement when there are cars or cyclists coming the other way!

BTW, it's not really a runner (ahem) to run in the same direction as traffic - you need to be able to see the danger coming, so you can avoid it. Pavements are great in theory, but they are blocked by walkers, buggies, dogs, lamp-posts (with bikes attached), driveway dip-downs, road furniture, bus-stops... it's as awkward for a runner to stop as a cyclist, so bike lanes are an understandable temptation.

Finally - I used to live on Dartmouth Square. That location on Grand Parade is a perfect storm for a problem like this one - it's madly busy, there's nowhere to go (on the S side of the road), and if you want to get from D. Square into town, you can go up the steps, but you're straight into traffic. I would have to agree that it's a crap choice of place to run, and that either side of the canal would make a lot more sense.

rainbow kirby

Actually had the opposite to this while I was out running on Sunday lunchtime while I was back home in Dublin - what seemed like a group spin with quite a lot of juniors insisting on coming down the pedestrian side of a path which was half footpath/half cycle lane. One would have thought that the adults with them would have at least tried to keep them on the correct side...

slap/dash

i do run on the bike path at times in the phoenix park, but the idea of doing it elsewhere is crazy in my opinion, at least in dublin, or in cities.

i'll qualify this by saying that i hate running in the bike path and only do it when, as lately, the walk/run path is flooded.

i do see a lot of runners in the park that project a poor attitude: when on the bike path on my bike, ill often encounter runners two abreast who make zero accomodation for me to pass. there are also large groups who run all across roads who seem to have some sort of machismo issues with owning the road.

of course theres plenty of nice runners (like me!)

on a side note: the fecking state that the park gets in from marathon runners and other events is terrible. those who throw gel packs and etc around are the lowest. just put it in a pocket or in your sock until you can dispose of it at the very least in an area thats not the bloody park!!!

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

I have been running for years and have never had the need to use the road or cycle lane to run on, save for a race and then the roads are blocked off.

The routes I run are generally fine. I can understand that in some circumstances a runner may need to go out onto the road or onto a cycle lane, but they should only do so occasionally and to move when vehicles are comming. You would encounter runner/cyclists taking up more room than needed and having absolutely no consideration for others. That's the big problem. If they consider others when using the cycle lanes or footpaths then it's completely fine.

ItsLikeThis

brownian wrote: »

it's as awkward for a runner to stop as a cyclist, so bike lanes are an understandable temptation.

Change down gear/brake/unclip... I dont see how?

NamelessPhil

S.I. 182/1997

Section 46 of the above S.I. sets out the regulations for pedestrians.

46. (1) A pedestrian shall exercise care and take all reasonable precautions in order to avoid causing danger or inconvenience to traffic and other pedestrians.


(2) A pedestrian facing a traffic light lamp which shows a red light shall not proceed beyond that light.


(3) A pedestrian about to cross a roadway at a place where traffic sign number RPC 003 or RPC 004 [pedestrian lights] has been provided shall do so only when a lamp of the facing pedestrian lights is lit and emits a constant green light.


(4)Subject to sub-article (5), save when crossing the roadway, a pedestrian shall use a footway if one is provided, and if one is not provided, shall keep as near as possible to the right edge of the roadway.


(5) At a road junction where traffic is controlled either by traffic lights or by a member of the Garda Síochána, a pedestrian shall cross the roadway only when traffic going in the direction in which the pedestrian intends to cross is permitted (by the lights or the member) to proceed.


(6) Within a pedestrian crossing complex [traffic sign number RPC 002] a pedestrian shall only cross the roadway at the location of traffic sign number RPC 001 [pedestrian crossing].


(7) On a roadway on which a traffic sign number RPC 001 [pedestrian crossing] has been provided, a pedestrian shall not cross the roadway within 15 metres of the crossing, except by the crossing.


(8) For the purposes of this article, each carriageway of a dual carriageway shall be deemed to be a separate roadway, and where there is a traffic refuge on a roadway the portion of the roadway on each side of the refuge shall be deemed to be a separate roadway.

TL:DR If there is a footway a pedestrian shall use it.

Alek

slap/dash wrote: »

i do run on the bike path at times in the phoenix park

Please don't.

There is plenty of space around suitable for running and not so much for cycling.

jrar

As both a cyclist AND a runner, I do nearly all of my running on roads albeit I do frequent slightly quieter places than Templeogue Rd. or Grand Parade !

In the case of Templeogue Road, as a runner I can see several advantages to using the bike lane / road, namely it's easier on knees/hips than the cement pavement, there's no street furniture, signs, bus stops, pedestrians etc. to negotiate your way around, you are less likely to be knocked down by cars existing private driveways, there's no undulating dished sections to run on so smoother/more level underfoot