Can you cycle up a one-way street?

Battery Kinzie

I've often heard that they're bringing in a law that says cyclists can go the wrong way up a one way street. Has that been brought in yet, or is it something we can expect to come in soon?

lifeandtimes

Battery Kinzie wrote: »

I've often heard that they're bringing in a law that says cyclists can go the wrong way up a one way street. Has that been brought in yet, or is it something we can expect to come in soon?

the law now states the it is illegal for cyclists to cycle the wrong way down a street, i.e against traffic.

There may be a typo in your op but there will be no law to allow cyclists to travel the wrong way up a one way street

endacl

You're 'traffic'. You follow the rules of the road. Some one way streets have a cycling contra flow indicated. You can cycle up those. All the rest, hop down off the bike and walk if you really must go the wrong way.

ScottStorm

Battery Kinzie wrote: »

I've often heard that they're bringing in a law that says cyclists can go the wrong way up a one way street. Has that been brought in yet, or is it something we can expect to come in soon?

That will never happen.
Honestly whoever is telling you that is either an idiot or thinks you are.

cython

Potentially what the OP is referring to is a motion recently defeated by Dublin City Council on whether to allow contra-flow cycling on certain streets? In any case, since the motion was defeated, this won't be permitted any time soon on any street.

Battery Kinzie

cython wrote: »

Potentially what the OP is referring to is a motion recently defeated by Dublin City Council on whether to allow contra-flow cycling on certain streets? In any case, since the motion was defeated, this won't be permitted any time soon on any street.

That was probably it yeah, thanks.

galwaycyclist

Battery Kinzie wrote: »

I've often heard that they're bringing in a law that says cyclists can go the wrong way up a one way street. Has that been brought in yet, or is it something we can expect to come in soon?

Yes. In 1998 the Irish Traffic and Parking regulations were amended to provide exemptions for cyclists from one-way street restrictions.

However it requires the addition of a plate to the no entry sign and requires a gap in the no entry markings to allow the cyclists to enter the street lawfully.

The problem with the law is that it is left to local authority roads engineers to implement the exemption which means for the most part it doesnt happen.

ezra_pound

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Yes. In 1998 the Irish Traffic and Parking regulations were amended to provide exemptions for cyclists from one-way street restrictions.

However it requires the addition of a plate to the no entry sign and requires a gap in the no entry markings to allow the cyclists to enter the street lawfully.

The problem with the law is that it is left to local authority roads engineers to implementnthe exemption which means for the most part it doesnt happen.

There are several contra cycle lanes though!

endacl

ezra_pound wrote: »

There are several contra cycle lanes parking spaces for vans that are 'just stopping for a minute to drop something off' though!

Pity.

galwaycyclist

ezra_pound wrote: »

There are several contra cycle lanes though!

"Several" is about right. In Belgium, the default assumption is that all one-way streets in 50kmh zones are two-way for cyclists. In France, the same assumption applies on 30kmh streets. The Germans have found that overall safety improves when they provide for two-way cycling on one-way streets (which they have been doing since at least 1980).

Makes us look pretty pathetic.

Edit: Now that I think about it the French example may just apply in Paris - don't have time to check now.

Carawaystick

North Leinster ST in Phibsboro
Cyclists can cycle against the direction of motor traffic

cgcsb

Back, a few weeks ago, when the new measures regulating cycling came out the idea was of allowing contraflow cycling on all on all one way streets was mentioned in the media. Haven't heard anything since though

LXFlyer

There's also a contra-flow cycle lane on Andrew Street between Suffolk Street and Trinity Street.

alcaline

There are several unwritten rules of the road, BMW and Mercedes cars can park anywhere once they put on the hazard lights.
Cyclists can go wrong way on ANY street and on the pavement, but must not under any circumstances use a bike lane.( children are allowed to uses bike lanes, not adults)

GM228

alcaline wrote: »

There are several unwritten rules of the road, BMW and Mercedes cars can park anywhere once they put on the hazard lights.
Cyclists can go wrong way on ANY street and on the pavement, but must not under any circumstances use a bike lane.( children are allowed to uses bike lanes, not adults)

Worthy of it's own thread I think!

GM228

furiousox

Here ya go

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057512237

Snickers Man

lxflyer wrote: »

There's also a contra-flow cycle lane on Andrew Street between Suffolk Street and Trinity Street.

That's not the same thing.
Contra flows good. Well marked, well understood, and well respected.

Some numpty deciding he or she can cycle against traffic on a one-way street is behaving dangerously both to him or her self, to traffic who may not be expecting another vehicle approaching them on the wrong side of the road, and to pedestrians who may not be looking out on a one way street for some idiot coming the other way.

LXFlyer

Snickers Man wrote: »

That's not the same thing.
Contra flows good. Well marked, well understood, and well respected.

Some numpty deciding he or she can cycle against traffic on a one-way street is behaving dangerously both to him or her self, to traffic who may not be expecting another vehicle approaching them on the wrong side of the road, and to pedestrians who may not be looking out on a one way street for some idiot coming the other way.

I was merely making the point that said lane exists.

galwaycyclist

Snickers Man wrote: »

That's not the same thing.
Contra flows good. Well marked, well understood, and well respected.

Some numpty deciding he or she can cycle against traffic on a one-way street is behaving dangerously both to him or her self, to traffic who may not be expecting another vehicle approaching them on the wrong side of the road, and to pedestrians who may not be looking out on a one way street for some idiot coming the other way.

Uh no. Any Irish motorist who does not expect cyclists coming the other way on a one-way street is living in a fantasy world of their own creation. If the road had a key "link function" for cyclists before it was made one-way then cyclists will continue to use it after the change is applied.

This is the same issue that arises when people put up walls on key pedestrian corridors in towns and cities. Some pedestrians will just climb over the walls.

The central problem is a a national failure to produce officials who are competent to manage our towns properly.

roverrules

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Uh no. Any Irish motorist who does not expect cyclists coming the other way on a one-way street is living in a fantasy world of their own creation. If the road had a key "link function" for cyclists before it was made one-way then cyclists will continue to use it after the change is applied.

This is the same issue that arises when people put up walls on key pedestrian corridors in towns and cities. Some pedestrians will just climb over the walls.

The central problem is a a national failure to produce officials who are competent to manage our towns properly.

Not if its a proper wall, with broken glass or spikes at the top!

Pedestrians will only climb over walls if the effort to climb it appears less than the effort to walk around.

galwaycyclist

roverrules wrote: »

Not if its a proper wall, with broken glass or spikes at the top!

Pedestrians will only climb over walls if the effort to climb it appears less than the effort to walk around.

Or they will go and pester their parents to drive them to school. Or if they are smaller children, and the wall with spikes means they have to walk on main roads with speeding traffic then their parents will choose to drive them anyway.

So next time you are stuck in morning traffic during school term - remember to thank the people who build walls with spikes in silly places for wasting everybody's time.

Redrocket

Is there any sort of up to date info site where all these rules can be officially read and understood?

Carawaystick

Redrocket wrote: »

Is there any sort of up to date info site where all these rules can be officially read and understood?

statutebook.ie

GM228

Carawaystick wrote: »

statutebook.ie

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/

GM228

roverrules

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Or they will go and pester their parents to drive them to school. Or if they are smaller children, and the wall with spikes means they have to walk on main roads with speeding traffic then their parents will choose to drive them anyway.

So next time you are stuck in morning traffic during school term - remember to thank the people who build walls with spikes in silly places for wasting everybody's time.

But if it's made difficult then they don't climb the wall, likewise if people were prosecuted more often for taking the wrong way on one way streets then the likelihood would be they'd follow traffic directions rather than break the law

galwaycyclist

Redrocket wrote: »

Is there any sort of up to date info site where all these rules can be officially read and understood?

As others have pointed out there is statutebook.ie - however that is the source for all legislation.

There is a thread discussing cycling specific legislation here but its not meant as a source so outdated sources dont get removed /healthwarning

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=88726862

At a high level the governing acts are the Roads Act 1993 and Road Traffic Act 1994. The Minister has powers created in these Acts to make regulations or "Statutory Instruments". The main ones being the "Traffic and Parking" Regulations and the "Traffic Signs" regulations.

The RSA produce a booklet called the "Rules of the Road" as guidance for learner drivers. As with other RSA material, I would not treat this as an unbiased source. You are better off going to the original source material than trusting anything from the RSA.

cdebru

roverrules wrote: »

But if it's made difficult then they don't climb the wall, likewise if people were prosecuted more often for taking the wrong way on one way streets then the likelihood would be they'd follow traffic directions rather than break the law

The problem is poor planning, and then expecting people to act completely illogically in line with the poor planning, like expecting someone on Clare Street to cycle around Lincoln place, down Westland row, on to pearse street all the way around Trinity college onto Grafton street, down Nassau Street to return their Dublin bike to the stand, instead of cycling straight up 200 metres against the flow of traffic.

roverrules

cdebru wrote: »

The problem is poor planning, and then expecting people to act completely illogically in line with the poor planning, like expecting someone on Clare Street to cycle around Lincoln place, down Westland row, on to pearse street all the way around Trinity college onto Grafton street, down Nassau Street to return their Dublin bike to the stand, instead of cycling straight up 200 metres against the flow of traffic.

But at the same time, its not legal, doesn't matter if you'd prefer to cycle that short 200 metres without a contraflow you should be busted, how can we be asking for people who stop in cycle lanes to go the ATM or whatever to be ticketed and in the next suggest people should be allowed to break a different law

cdebru

roverrules wrote: »

But at the same time, its not legal, doesn't matter if you'd prefer to cycle that short 200 metres without a contraflow you should be busted, how can we be asking for people who stop in cycle lanes to go the ATM or whatever to be ticketed and in the next suggest people should be allowed to break a different law

I never said it was legal, the point is that if you have poorly thought out infrastructure, or infrastructure that is compromised to facilitate on street parking then we shouldn't be completely surprised with the human behavioral response to that, the solution is to either not place a bike stand on a one way street or provide access to it, the strong arm of the law solution would just discourage people people from cycling and it not in the best interests of the city in the long term.

galwaycyclist

roverrules wrote: »

But at the same time, its not legal, doesn't matter if you'd prefer to cycle that short 200 metres without a contraflow you should be busted, how can we be asking for people who stop in cycle lanes to go the ATM or whatever to be ticketed and in the next suggest people should be allowed to break a different law

The problem is the merits of the law. This is a similar issue to what used to go on in this country regarding adults getting access contraception. The Irish ban on contraception set us apart as a country that was wilfully backward and as a country that existed outside what was considered perfectly normal in other European countries.

Thousands, most likely the vast majority, of Irish adults ignored the law and got hold of contraception by various means. Most of these people would have been otherwise law abiding. The key point was not that they were inherently law breaking. It was that the Irish state had chosen to place what was considered perfectly normal elsewhere outside the law.

It is the same with one-way streets. The general Irish ban on contraflow cycling sets us apart as a country that is wilfully backward and as a country that exists outside what is considered perfectly normal in other European countries.

dubscottie

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Uh no. Any Irish motorist who does not expect cyclists coming the other way on a one-way street is living in a fantasy world of their own creation. If the road had a key "link function" for cyclists before it was made one-way then cyclists will continue to use it after the change is applied.

This is the same issue that arises when people put up walls on key pedestrian corridors in towns and cities. Some pedestrians will just climb over the walls.

The central problem is a a national failure to produce officials who are competent to manage our towns properly.

What you say is true.. "motorists" Should still look out for cyclists as cyclists don't care about anyone but themselves.

But "I didn't know the rules have changed" is not an excuse. Signs are up and it is your duty as road users to look at them.

And WTF is a "link function"?? Sounds like someone got paid too much to come up with that phrase..

Nichard Dixon

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Uh no. Any Irish motorist who does not expect cyclists coming the other way on a one-way street is living in a fantasy world of their own creation.

I agree. Cyclists have nothing but contempt for the law and will do what they like, since the law does nothing to enforce civilised behaviour on them. I'd like to think that law enforcement would start doing its job, but I wouldn't hold me breath.

ceannair06

Nichard Dixon wrote: »

I agree. Cyclists have nothing but contempt for the law and will do what they like, since the law does nothing to enforce civilised behaviour on them. I'd like to think that law enforcement would start doing its job, but I wouldn't hold me breath.

You'd think the giant NO ENTRY sign would be hint on certain roads wouldn't you ?

Selfish f***s the lot of them.

ceannair06

dubscottie wrote: »

What you say is true.. "motorists" Should still look out for cyclists as cyclists don't care about anyone but themselves.

But "I didn't know the rules have changed" is not an excuse. Signs are up and it is your duty as road users to look at them.

And WTF is a "link function"?? Sounds like someone got paid too much to come up with that phrase..

Dubscottie you can read that as "we used to do it one way, now it's illegal - but that does not match with what I want to do, so I'm ignoring the law".

Lets let them go the wrong way down a one way street, right into the path of an 18 wheeler.

cdebru

ceannair06 wrote: »

You'd think the giant NO ENTRY sign would be hint on certain roads wouldn't you ?

Selfish f***s the lot of them.

If you cycled would you cycle 2 or 3 kms out of your way to obey the road signs ? When you walk do you always walk to the pedestrian crossing and wait for the green man ?

Are the selfish ****s the ones who design the traffic system with only those driving motorised vehicles in mind ?

BuffyBot

Civility folks.

It's not an optional extra around here

galwaytt

cdebru wrote: »

If you cycled would you cycle 2 or 3 kms out of your way to obey the road signs ? When you walk do you always walk to the pedestrian crossing and wait for the green man ?

Are the selfish ****s the ones who design the traffic system with only those driving motorised vehicles in mind ?

You don't get to pick and mix which traffic laws you follow: it's not a la carte. Sign says No Entry ?, then that's exactly what it means. ..

galwaycyclist

galwaytt wrote: »

You don't get to pick and mix which traffic laws you follow: it's not a la carte. Sign says No Entry ?, then that's exactly what it means. ..

The problem is that those who apply laws also have a duty to do so in a manner that does not bring the law into disrepute. The law is also a two-way street.

The officials who try to ban two-way cycling on one-way streets are clearly open to the accusation that they are trying to use the law to impose a particular cultural concept rather than for any reason of public safety or public benefit. (Unless you count pushing everyone into cars as a public benefit).

The other accusation that can be made is that they are penalising cyclists because they want to earn cash from car parking fees. So again we have public officials using the law to ban something for their own self interest rather than for any general public interest or benefit.

RainyDay

lxflyer wrote: »

There's also a contra-flow cycle lane on Andrew Street between Suffolk Street and Trinity Street.

You mean this one?

https://twitter.com/elainesnowden/status/654642128782557184

RainyDay

galwaytt wrote: »

cdebru wrote: »

If you cycled would you cycle 2 or 3 kms out of your way to obey the road signs ? When you walk do you always walk to the pedestrian crossing and wait for the green man ?

Are the selfish ****s the ones who design the traffic system with only those driving motorised vehicles in mind ?

You don't get to pick and mix which traffic laws you follow: it's not a la carte. Sign says No Entry ?, then that's exactly what it means. ..

So just to be clear, you NEVER break a speed limit - ever?

sonny.knowles

ScottStorm wrote: »

That will never happen.
Honestly whoever is telling you that is either an idiot or thinks you are.

Or both.

galwaycyclist

galwaytt wrote: »

You don't get to pick and mix which traffic laws you follow: it's not a la carte. Sign says No Entry ?, then that's exactly what it means. ..

And in case you haven't checked the traffic regs in a while (or read this thread) there is nothing inherently unlawful in two-way cycling on one-way streets. The law was changed in 1998 to provide for two-way cycling arrangements.

So for the last 17 years, the local authority officials who try to ban two-way cycling have been exercising personal choices. The have been personally choosing to use their powers to try and ban two-way cycling - other choices were available.

Trying to make this discussion exclusively about choices made by cyclists is a large over-simplification.

sonny.knowles

galwaycyclist wrote: »

The problem is that those who apply laws also have a duty to do so in a manner that does not bring the law into disrepute. The law is also a two-way street.

The officials who try to ban two-way cycling on one-way streets are clearly open to the accusation that they are trying to use the law to impose a particular cultural concept rather than for any reason of public safety or public benefit. (Unless you count pushing everyone into cars as a public benefit).

The other accusation that can be made is that they are penalising cyclists because they want to earn cash from car parking fees. So again we have public officials using the law to ban something for their own self interest rather than for any general public interest or benefit.

What 'cultural concept'?

galwaycyclist

sonny.knowles wrote: »

What 'cultural concept'?

An example would be the idea that any restriction that applies to cars must also be applied to cyclists. It is a cultural view or cultural concept it has nothing to do with logic or the law.

"Cultural concept" = "Particular mindset or view of the world"

twowheelsonly

cdebru wrote: »

The problem is poor planning, and then expecting people to act completely illogically in line with the poor planning, like expecting someone on Clare Street to cycle around Lincoln place, down Westland row, on to pearse street all the way around Trinity college onto Grafton street, down Nassau Street to return their Dublin bike to the stand, instead of cycling straight up 200 metres against the flow of traffic.

Or you could walk that 200 metres??
Just thinking outside the box here :rolleyes:

sonny.knowles

galwaycyclist wrote: »

An example would be the idea that any restriction that applies to cars must also be applied to cyclists. It is a cultural view or cultural concept it has nothing to do with logic or the law.

"Cultural concept" = "Particular mindset or view of the world"

Would traffic lights be considered a cultural concept? Or footpaths?

ceannair06

Battery Kinzie wrote: »

I've often heard that they're bringing in a law that says cyclists can go the wrong way up a one way street. Has that been brought in yet, or is it something we can expect to come in soon?

ARE YOU INSANE ????

Of COURSE you can't!!!!

monument

ceannair06 wrote: »

ARE YOU INSANE ????

Of COURSE you can't!!!!

Read the charter before posting again.

-- moderator

ceannair06

monument wrote: »

Read the charter before posting again.

-- moderator

Apologies - but come on, it's like saying "can I steal from an OAP ?", "Can I fondle my dog on Grand Canal Square ?", "Can I have a kip in the beds in Arnott's ?". Ridiculous questions deserve contempt!

schemingbohemia

ceannair06 wrote: »

Apologies - but come on, it's like saying "can I steal from an OAP ?", "Can I fondle my dog on Grand Canal Square ?", "Can I have a kip in the beds in Arnott's ?". Ridiculous questions deserve contempt!

You might mention this to all the people in the Netherlands, France and many other countries that provide for contra-flow cycling on one-way streets.

GM228

schemingbohemia wrote: »

You might mention this to all the people in the Netherlands, France and many other countries that provide for contra-flow cycling on one-way streets.

The difference is it is legal in those countries, they can cycle the wrong way up a one way street without a contra flow lane, here you can't legally do that!

GM228