Cycling Fine - One Way Street

Zygnoth

Hi all,

Got pulled over on a one-way street and the garda said the €40 fine would be in the post.

Just took a look online there - it appears to me that there are only 7 offenses that get the €40 fine and one-way street doesn't appear to be one.

Anyone clarify this?

Z

ps This one-way street never has any traffic on it. As in, I've never seen a car driving down it for the past few years though I have seen cars parked.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

I'd say you'll be done by the first of the rules, cycling without due care. Nice and vague to make sure they can nab you when they feel like it.

FluffyAngel

its a suck it in and pay fine ..

if the guard caught you going down a one way street,then your caught ..simples

ps This one-way street never has any traffic on it. As in, I've never seen a car driving down it for the past few years though I have seen cars parked.

if there was ever a sentence befitting boards its this ...how did the parked cars get there?

ScouseMouse

Were you really going the wrong way up a one way street ?

rollingscone

predictability is at the heart of road safety so people proceeding the wrong way down a one way street is a fair cop IMHO.

Plenty of real gripes to be had with the sense of privilege awarded to anyone who drives on the city.

Awarding the same sense of gross privilege to anyone who gets on a bicycle is not the answer.

galwaycyclist

Zygnoth wrote: »

Hi all,

Got pulled over on a one-way street and the garda said the €40 fine would be in the post.

Just took a look online there - it appears to me that there are only 7 offenses that get the €40 fine and one-way street doesn't appear to be one.

Anyone clarify this?

Z

ps This one-way street never has any traffic on it. As in, I've never seen a car driving down it for the past few years though I have seen cars parked.

Clearly there doesn't seem to be any good reason for either the fine or any regulation preventing you, as a cyclist, from using the street in either direction.

Be interesting to see if you get an actual FPN in the post and what charge is listed. At this time it looks like the only option the guard has for this offence is to summons you for a court appearance.

Given that contraflow cycling on one way streets has a good safety record it would seem perverse to go after you on grounds of reckless behaviour.

Zygnoth

Yeah, going the wrong way alright! Though the street is quite an oddity in Dublin - two footpaths, driving lane and parking but no (car) traffic whenever I used it with visibility the entire street. Additionally, cars have often been parked both directions on the one-way part so I presumed it was a local thing.

I think it's mostly used for access to a private car park.

Anyway, shame that I have to stop using it - it was definitely the safer route home though the city.

Lumen

Cue supercilious indignation, complaints about one-way systems in Dublin being unfriendly to cyclists and comparisons with more civilised countries where cyclists are allowed to do whatever they like and then be given a sponge bath by buxom virgins.

logically

Zygnoth wrote: »

Anyway, shame that I have to stop using it - it was definitely the safer route home though the city.

Where exactly is this street? If it's a safe route can you no just dismount and walk it or is it a really long street? I'm surprised you have ridden along a street regularly and never encountered traffic.

Saipanne

"Why should the law apply to meeeeeee?"

Beer Assistant

You deserve the fine a one way street is a one way street, "it's a safer route" what a load of Bo££ox..

Tenzor07

Definitely need more streets around town like this:

ted1

Beer Assistant wrote: »

You deserve the fine a one way street is a one way street, "it's a safer route" what a load of Bo££ox..

Without knowing the road and the alternative , then you are in no position to make that comment.

iwillhtfu

Out of curiosity OP what did the Garda ask you to produce for Identification? Did he just take you at your word when you gave him your details.

BTW I'm not looking to or trying to raise the issue of registration etc for bicycles. I'm just curious as honest Joe will probably give his details where as the common scum bag almost certainly will not.

Beer Assistant

ted1 wrote: »

Without knowing the road and the alternative , then you are in no position to make that comment.

The alternative is to obey the rules of the road and go the correct way with the flow of traffic and not being a lazy so n so taking short cuts up one way streets. I don't need to know the road or the alternative.

Saipanne

Beer Assistant wrote: »

The alternative is to obey the rules of the road and go the correct way with the flow of traffic and not being a lazy so n so taking short cuts up one way streets. I don't need to know the road or the alternative.

No. Can't you see that this is somehow everyone else's fault?

Zygnoth

My issue isn't the fine - just whether it was actually covered in the new system or whether I was going to expect a summons.

For completion, this is the street: https://goo.gl/maps/jbtEK

Safety wise, it avoids travelling under the DART line on Sandwith Street, where the cycle lane is on the other side of the road and also disappears at the bridge.



Over the years, I've found cars/lorries do erratic things going under the dart bridge. I don't know if it's the darkness or the arch though.

ted1

Beer Assistant wrote: »

The alternative is to obey the rules of the road and go the correct way with the flow of traffic and not being a lazy so n so taking short cuts up one way streets. I don't need to know the road or the alternative.

The rules of the road are written with the motor car in mind. They do not necessarily follow what is safest for the cyclist.

The Bishop Basher

ted1 wrote: »

The rules of the road are written with the motor car in mind. They do not necessarily follow what is safest for the cyclist.

True but irrelevant.

The rules are as they are and should be followed by everyone.

If you have an issue with specific rules your are perfectly entitled to lobby for change.

tomasrojo

Zygnoth wrote: »

My issue isn't the fine - just whether it was actually covered in the new system or whether I was going to expect a summons.

It definitely isn't covered, except it could be argued that it comes under inconsiderate cycling (but only because the term is so nebulous). Even then, if the Gardaí start trying to stick everything under inconsiderate cycling that isn't specifically a FCN offence, someone is going to challenge it eventually. Maybe then there'd be some clearer idea of what "inconsiderate" covers. Since the street was empty, you didn't inconvenience or endanger anyone else, so that doesn't sound like what I think "inconsiderate" is.

tomasrojo

Swanner wrote: »

The rules are as they are and should be followed by everyone.

As someone who flouted the statutory instrument that compelled cyclists to use all cycle tracks where provided, I beg to differ.

tomasrojo

I also don't have a bell on my bike. If I were younger, parents would describe me as "a bad influence".

tomasrojo

(Whatever about the rights and wrongs of doing this when it's against the law, I am personally glad to see new one-way exemptions for cyclists appearing around Dublin. Windsor Terrace next, please.)

Swanner

Swanner wrote: »

True but irrelevant.

The rules are as they are and should be followed by everyone.

If you have an issue with specific rules your are perfectly entitled to lobby for change.

The debate was whether the route was safer, not whether it was legal. Illegal routes are often safer for cyclists for all sorts of reasons. That's not an argument for breaking the law, it's just a fact.

Having looked at the street and assuming it is the lane on the left, I think the idea that in 2015 a guard has nothing better to do that stop and fine a cyclist on that road is absolutely absurd.

This is what happens when you have these cretinous media campaigns against cyclists - we end up with completely dumb policing based on no evidence and no logic.

Idiotic, the whole thing.

The Bishop Basher

tomasrojo wrote: »

As someone who flouted the statutory instrument that compelled cyclists to use all cycle tracks where provided, I beg to differ.

So you only obey the rules that suit you ?

That's fine. Your call.

But you have no right to whinge and moan when you get fined for doing so.

tomasrojo

What makes it a one-way street? There's nothing in that street view, is there? If the sign is down the other end (a no-entry sign?) then the OP is probably in the clear.

tomasrojo

Swanner wrote: »

So you only obey the rules that suit you ?

That's fine. Your call.

But you have no right to whinge and moan when you get fined for doing so.

Virtually everyone who posts here ignored the "use all cycle tracks" statutory instrument.

It's a rare person who follows every single law on the books.

galwaycyclist

Beer Assistant wrote: »

The alternative is to obey the rules of the road and go the correct way with the flow of traffic and not being a lazy so n so taking short cuts up one way streets. I don't need to know the road or the alternative.

Why would the city council deliberately make it illegal to take an obvious, and possibly safer, shortcut?

Why is this decision "correct" in your view?

Or is it simply your view that the city council are incapable of incorrect decisions?

Zygnoth

tomasrojo wrote: »

What makes it a one-way street? There's nothing in that street view, is there? If the sign is down the other end (a no-entry sign?) then the OP is probably in the clear.

There's a 'No Entry' on the ground approaching the street along with left turn only and right turn only signs. If you look at the google earth though, you'll see what I mean about cars parking both ways on the one-way street part.

I'll see what appears in the post anyway - maybe he was just trying to give me a fright. He took driving licence as ID though and took my details down.

The Bishop Basher

tomasrojo wrote: »

Virtually everyone who posts here ignored the "use all cycle tracks" statutory instrument.

It's a rare person who follows every single law on the books.

That doesn't make it right.

As I already stated, if you have an issue with individual laws / rules, you can lobby your local TD's for change.

That's how most of us operate in a civilised democracy.

Of course you can break any rules you like.

Just don't be on here whinging like OP when you get caught and fined.

galwaycyclist

Zygnoth wrote: »

My issue isn't the fine - just whether it was actually covered in the new system or whether I was going to expect a summons.

For completion, this is the street: https://goo.gl/maps/jbtEK

Safety wise, it avoids travelling under the DART line on Sandwith Street, where the cycle lane is on the other side of the road and also disappears at the bridge.

Over the years, I've found cars/lorries do erratic things going under the dart bridge. I don't know if it's the darkness or the arch though.

Does the street itself has a name? Having trouble figuring out the location from the link.

tomasrojo

A one-way on small street like that is to control motorised traffic.

If a cyclist meets a car coming the other way, they can get out of the way. If a car meets a car coming the other way, they have to reverse back.

It's not primarily safety. It's to allow smooth traffic flow mostly.

(I don't habitually go down one-way streets the wrong way -- in fact, I'm one of the few people who wheels their bike down Windsor Terrace -- but the time is right to roll out more exemptions for cyclists.)

tomasrojo

Swanner wrote: »

That doesn't make it right.

As I already stated, if you have an issue with individual laws / rules, you can lobby your local TD's for change.

That's how most of us operate in a civilised democracy.

Of course you can break any rules you like.

Just don't be on here whinging like OP when you get caught and fined.

I'm not really advocating breaking any laws, and personally, with the exception of the cycle track rule, which was absurd and unjust, and the bell law, which is merely a bit silly and almost certainly never going to be enforced, I do try to follow them. It just really isn't a moral issue when you violate a minor traffic law that is designed for smooth flow of motorised traffic.

People violate minor laws all the time. The Gardaí indeed advocate "balance" in the policing of motorists parking on mandatory cycle facilities. By "balance" they mean allowing almost everyone to do it.

Zygnoth

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Does the street itself has a name? Having trouble figuring out the location from the link.

It's Cumberland Street South, I believe.

The real kicker of the whole thing was seeing a cycling garda going the wrong way down Tara Street following the fine.

CramCycle

Just to be clear, it is not a one way street, there is just no entry from one end. if you dismount and go through the no entry sign it is a two way street. You can leave the street onto Pearse St. at the other end by turning left (as indicated by the no right turn sign).

tomasrojo

CramCycle wrote: »

Just to be clear, it is not a one way street, there is just no entry from one end. if you dismount and go through the no entry sign it is a two way street. You can leave the street onto Pearse St. at the other end by turning left (as indicated by the no right turn sign).

Yeah, that's what I was wondering. Not every street with a no-entry sign is one-way.

Zygnoth

CramCycle wrote: »

Just to be clear, it is not a one way street, there is just no entry from one end. if you dismount and go through the no entry sign it is a two way street. You can leave the street onto Pearse St. at the other end by turning left (as indicated by the no right turn sign).

The Garda indicated that it only became two-way at the entry to the garage, which is on the Pearse St. side of the DART track. He said it was a one way street from there up to the No-Entry markings.

tomasrojo

Well, he's wrong if there are no street marking or signs saying it's one-way.

But you're still breaking the law by cycling through a no-entry sign or marking.

CramCycle

Zygnoth wrote: »

Over the years, I've found cars/lorries do erratic things going under the dart bridge. I don't know if it's the darkness or the arch though.

You will often see lorries waiting for a break in traffic so they can enter in the centre (highest point), to reduce the risk of a bridge strike.

Nonetheless, they happen quite alot. Several times the lorry continues, presumably without reporting it as the DART continues to function for the rest of the day AFAIK.

I have rang up a few times to let them know but I get the impression they think I am a prank caller.

Truth is the lorries should not be attempting to go under at all, as most of them well know but they continue to do it regardless.

tomasrojo

CramCycle wrote: »

Truth is the lorries should not be attempting to go under at all, as most of them well know but they continue to do it regardless.

Seems an obvious candidate for adding a bar to stop them entering at all. With plenty of warnings, of course.

Zygnoth

Zygnoth wrote: »

It's Cumberland Street South, I believe.

The real kicker of the whole thing was seeing a cycling garda going the wrong way down Tara Street following the fine.

Ha!

I was stopped here many, many years ago. A guard (in a van) was hiding under the bridge and hopped out as I cycled sedately past. No fines in those days, our hero had got his man and just gave me a lecture and told me to walk to Pearse Street.

I can remember even then thinking what a ridiculous waste of garda resources that 'operation' was. I can also recall that back then the no entry / one way signage was extremely dilapidated and worn down and easy to miss. No doubt they knew that but considered lying in wait to be a better strategy than fixing the signage.

The no-entry is to stop cars using it as a rat run I assume, there is no real issue with cyclists using it that I can think of.

CramCycle

Zygnoth wrote: »

The Garda indicated that it only became two-way at the entry to the garage, which is on the Pearse St. side of the DART track. He said it was a one way street from there up to the No-Entry markings.

That might be the intention but there are no markings indicating one way. I have been through there from the other side many times, and it has never been marked or treated as one way. All the way up to the end of the car park spaces, where cars do U turns to get back onto Pearse St.

If he had said for breaking the no entry sign, then he might have a point, and admittedly if you argue, this is probably what his story will change to but you were not going the wrong way, you broke a no entry sign.
It is a suck it up and take it fine. Going forward, if you wish to use this route, I would recommend dismounting and remounting where the car park spaces begin. It was only made no entry to prevent a rat run onto Pearse St.

petethedrummer

I'm confused, which street are we talking about? this one?

CramCycle

petethedrummer wrote: »

This street?

Yep, if you come from the other end there is no sign of one way. It also has no marking on the road or signage to hint at a change at the garage either.

The Bishop Basher

tomasrojo wrote: »

I'm not really advocating breaking any laws, and personally, with the exception of the cycle track rule, which was absurd and unjust, and the bell law, which is merely a bit silly and almost certainly never going to be enforced, I do try to follow them. It just really isn't a moral issue when you violate a minor traffic law that is designed for smooth flow of motorised traffic.

People violate minor laws all the time. The Gardaí indeed advocate "balance" in the policing of motorists parking on mandatory cycle facilities. By "balance" they mean allowing almost everyone to do it.

Agreed on most counts and for the record I would be wholly in favour of one way exemptions for cyclists where appropriate.

I just don't agree that we should all start breaking laws we don't agree with. That would set a dangerous precedent as I may wish to break laws that you believe to be just etc etc.

Zygnoth

petethedrummer wrote: »

I'm confused, which street are we talking about? this one?

That's the one alright and that's the side I entered from.

I get that I was wrong, no question - more just how this fits into the new system of on-the-spot fines.

Tenzor07

petethedrummer wrote: »

I'm confused, which street are we talking about? this one?

That one is a well known rat run, I would say that during peak times 8 times out of 10 there is a uniformed gard standing at the bridge or in an unmarked car to catch people out who drive down there.
I'm sure the guards would prefer that the council put in traffic islands etc to discourage people from driving through that section of the street.

tomasrojo

Gas that the Google camera caught that van screeching to a halt as they realised they were about to go through an no-entry sign.

tomasrojo

Swanner wrote: »

Agreed on most counts and for the record I would be wholly in favour of one way exemptions for cyclists where appropriate.

I just don't agree that we should all start breaking laws we don't agree with. That would set a dangerous precedent as I may wish to break laws that you believe to be just etc etc.

There's quite a lot written in Philosophy about the ethics and practicalities of following rules. I can't remember it right now, but it did seem to be a given that the majority of people break minor rules as a matter of course.

petethedrummer

tomasrojo wrote: »

Gas that the Google camera caught that van screeching to a halt as they realised they were about to go through an no-entry sign.

If you pan to the left you see another van double parked. They belong to the Flower shop that is there.

It's a good place to park if you're driving in to the city centre for late night eats. I've never gone up the wrong way but was regularly met by cars going the wrong way and others parked facing the wrong way.

It's very wide with plenty of room for a cyclist to go against the flow. It should be made contraflow for bikes.

CramCycle

CramCycle wrote: »

Yep, if you come from the other end there is no sign of one way. It also has no marking on the road or signage to hint at a change at the garage either.

Does the arrow on the ground not suggest it is a one-way street? I am ashamed to say I don't know.

The no-entry signs are new, or at least new since I got caught there.