Incident between taxi and bike - Dublin city centre

cdebru

Edit: from memory this scheme involves something like 40 different locations where cyclists following the main road are expected to stop and yield to crossing traffic.[/QUOTE]



That is not on the roadway it is a cycle track on a footpath, and the cycle track effectively ends at each junction with the cyclists expected to yield before leaving the cycle track to enter the roadway before rejoining the cycle track. A motorist in this case would not be crossing the cycle track.
It is poor design, and makes the cycle track completely unusable and a waste of time and money even putting it there, but it doesn't show what I asked which is when a motorist could enter a cycle track without yielding to traffic in the cycle track.



For example here could a motorist enter this cycle lane without yielding to cyclists already using it ?

galwaycyclist

cdebru wrote: »

That is not on the roadway it is a cycle track on a footpath, and the cycle track effectively ends at each junction with the cyclists expected to yield before leaving the cycle track to enter the roadway before rejoining the cycle track. A motorist in this case would not be crossing the cycle track.
It is poor design, and makes the cycle track completely unusable and a waste of time and money even putting it there, but it doesn't show what I asked which is when a motorist could enter a cycle track without yielding to traffic in the cycle track.



For example here could a motorist enter this cycle lane without yielding to cyclists already using it ?

Strictly speaking for your interpretation to be correct, it seems to me there would need to be a separate set of upright cycle track signs for each section.

I have other examples involving on-road cycle tracks.

In your example above, yes provided they don't endanger anyone in the act of entering the cycle track. I am not aware of any law that would stop motorists turning off the main road from blocking it, for instance if a queue of cars was waiting to turn.

Edit: Just to clear this up now before we get side tracked.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Strictly speaking for your interpretation to be correct, it seems to me there would need to be a separate set of upright cycle track signs for each section.

Under Irish law the status of "cycle track" is created by an upright "cycle track" sign and the presence of the special line markings. The bicycle symbols painted on the surface do not have any legal meaning - or didn't the last time I checked the regulations.

dubscottie

galwaycyclist wrote: »

The bicycle symbols painted on the surface do not have any legal meaning - or didn't the last time I checked the regulations.

I have seen 100's of "Danger High Voltage" signs but I don't ignore them if they don't meet regulations..

If the road markings have no meaning then why do bicyclists have a issue with people walking on paths with a painted bicycle on the ground? By your own admission its a free for all..

galwaycyclist

dubscottie wrote: »

I have seen 100's of "Danger High Voltage" signs but I don't ignore them if they don't meet regulations..

If the road markings have no meaning then why do bicyclists have a issue with people walking on paths with a painted bicycle on the ground? By your own admission its a free for all..

I suppose for the same reason pedestrians have an issue with people cycling on footpaths? I am unclear where you are getting your "free for all" from?

Perhaps you need to tell us what you mean by "free for all"? I am not aware of any road marking that has the effect of removing the law.

monument

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Ah ok in the traffic signs regulations they only refer to the standard lane marking as creating a "traffic lane". Cycle track markings have different dimensions and different names or designations.

I used to think the two had different dimensions, but the last time I checked, I'm nearly sure that was not the case.

If I recall correctly, the only "different dimensions" is the space between broken while lines for centre lines and broken cycle lane markings.

Bus lanes have far more radically different dimensions, yet nobody thinks it's ok to not yield to traffic in a bus lane when crossing such.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

No they dont but as you would see if you kept reading the thread they usually become standard lane markings at junctions. Do cycle track markings become standard traffic lane markings?

It makes a difference because the law on yielding to other traffic is written with respect to traffic lanes. There is nothing about yielding to other traffic if crossing a cycle track. This may be just sloppy and poorly thought out law-making or it may be something else.

The same regulations as drafted in 1997 also seem to have "dropped" the requirement to yield at zebra crossings.

The zebra crossing thing was fixed in recent regulations, but to be honest my reading of the zebra crossing regs are that all zebras and the beckons etc do is to make it cristal clear that this is where people should be crossing. The same yielding rules apply elsewhere. Any added protection zebras give over crossing almost anywhere else would come from common law / court precedent / the clearness of the crossing point, not the regulations as currently or previously written.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Edit: There are also various examples of cycle lanes "on-road cycle tracks" that have had yield markings painted on them even though they are on main roads.. The apparent intent being to facilitate cars cutting across the cycle track. Has anyone here ever seen that done on a bus lane?

It suggests that neither the council officials involved, nor the garda*, view cycle tracks as like other traffic lanes.

* under the road traffic acts the garda are supposed to be consulted on regulatory traffic signs.

Edit 2: For completeness I should acknowledge that it may also be the case that some garda and local officials consider themselves to be above, or possibly outside, the law.

This does not support your general contention that motorsists are not expected to yield when crossing cycle lanes.

The fact that some cycle lanes/tracks have yield markings painted on them indicates that motorists have priority on those junctions, but where the yield markings are not used on cycle tracks, then the normal rules apply.

cdebru

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Strictly speaking for your interpretation to be correct, it seems to me there would need to be a separate set of upright cycle track signs for each section.

I have other examples involving on-road cycle tracks.

In your example above, yes provided they don't endanger anyone in the act of entering the cycle track. I am not aware of any law that would stop motorists turning off the main road from blocking it, for instance if a queue of cars was waiting to turn.

Edit: Just to clear this up now before we get side tracked.




Under Irish law the status of "cycle track" is created by an upright "cycle track" sign and the presence of the special line markings. The bicycle symbols painted on the surface do not have any legal meaning - or didn't the last time I checked the regulations.

For your interpretation to be correct, cycle tracks would be the only road space with yield signs they aren't, they appear on bus lanes as well for example.

Unless there is a yellow box, I'm not aware of any regulation that would prevent people queuing across any traffic lane, when leaving a roadway, yielding to traffic already in the lane and yielding to potential traffic that may arrive before you exit are different subjects.

I still haven't seen any example of where a motorist could enter or cross a cycle track and not have to yield to cyclists, the example you gave is where cyclists are specifically instructed to yield at junction which is a completely different thing.

galwaycyclist

monument wrote: »

I used to think the two had different dimensions, but the last time I checked, I'm nearly sure that was not the case.

If I recall correctly, the only "different dimensions" is the space between broken while lines for centre lines and broken cycle lane markings.

Bus lanes have far more radically different dimensions, yet nobody thinks it's ok to not yield to traffic in a bus lane when crossing such.

Sure so show us the legislation so we can all see?

This does not support your general contention that motorsists are not expected to yield when crossing cycle lanes.

The fact that some cycle lanes/tracks have yield markings painted on them indicates that motorists have priority on those junctions, but where the yield markings are not used on cycle tracks, then the normal rules apply.

With regret, I haven't made any general contention. You and others have tried to make general contentions about the law, legal opinions as it were, and I have l pointed certain facts about the wording of the traffic regulations that do not seem to support your position in particular situations. There may be case law etc that supports your position and if so feel free to introduce it to the debate.

As I recall we had the same thing with the traffic regulations concerning cyclists overtaking on the left. I pointed out that there was no general provision in the regulations to allow cyclists overtake on the left - various contributors tried to offer interpretations of the law that allowed them pass on the left.

Then the government changed the traffic regulations so as to allow cyclist pass on the left - confirming that this hadn't actually existed before.

galwaycyclist

cdebru wrote: »

For your interpretation to be correct, cycle tracks would be the only road space with yield signs they aren't, they appear on bus lanes as well for example.

Why don't you show us your examples and explain for us how the situation is analagous to a cycle track? The only bus lane examples I can think of involve situations where the bus lane ends and the bus is moving into the general traffic lane.

Unless there is a yellow box, I'm not aware of any regulation that would prevent people queuing across any traffic lane, when leaving a roadway, yielding to traffic already in the lane and yielding to potential traffic that may arrive before you exit are different subjects.

Edit cant find this one now will have to come back to it. Uh no a yellow box does not create an obligation not to block a lane that you cannot exit it merely reinforces an obligation that already exists..

It is this blocking of the cycle track that is the specific issue being discussed. Not interfering with other traffic in the act of the manouevre is already covered by other regulations.

I still haven't seen any example of where a motorist could enter or cross a cycle track and not have to yield to cyclists, the example you gave is where cyclists are specifically instructed to yield at junction which is a completely different thing.

I come across examples every day and I cannot find any evidence that a specific law is being broken.

galwaycyclist

monument wrote: »

Bus lanes have far more radically different dimensions, yet nobody thinks it's ok to not yield to traffic in a bus lane when crossing such.

Just to make clear I think the bus lane legislation also merits another look and more explanation.