nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Official meaning for flashing amber filter light

trellheim

i've been trying to find the official legal meaning for this traffic light.

All I can find is https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1975/si/281/made/en/print

"A driver facing a traffic light lamp which shows a flashing amber light may proceed beyond the stop line at that light (or, if there is no such stop line, beyond the light) but shall yield the right of way to pedestrians crossing the roadway at the said lamp."

this seems like the one for a pelican crossing. I'm trying to find what the official legal meaning of a flashing yellow filter left or right is . Not whats in the RotR

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

I told ya

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119654718#Comment_119654718

Try and make sense of the BE licence.

trellheim

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119651230#Comment_119651230

you've just taken 5 paragraphs there to try and explain an extremely confusing thing, and I am no wiser.

I'm not trying to be negative, but it genuinely does not make sense, either here in the RoTR

As an aside , what does "overtaking" mean , how far back does the cyclist need to be , I find it extremely difficult to judge deliveroo e-bike speeds as they may be going at a very fast clip ( to take one example )

GM228

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119650936#Comment_119650936

but the cyclist is also not supposed to overtake a vehicle turning left

As someone who specialises in law (particularly traffic law) and statutory interpretation I can tell you this is not entirely correct and depends very much on the road layout and provision of lanes, traffic lights etc.

A vague provision in law will not trump a specific positive provision in law, a thing to remember is that the Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations 1997 is a penal statue, as such it's application must be strictly construed, where there are vague provisions which for example contradict international law or there are more specific provisions within the same statute itself than those must prevail over the vague provision, there's a massive body of case law on this from the Superior Courts and these principles of statutory interpretation are long settled.

The same statute makes it very clear that where a flashing amber light is provided that the vehicle turning left must make an unqualified yield right of way to any traffic already on the major road, I say unqualified because where these lights are provided the yield right of way provision is not qualified by the direction of traffic or the position of such traffic. The provision of a cyclist not overtaking on the left realistically can only apply where there are no lanes or flashing amber filter lights, otherwise it creates an ambiguity and fails a number of statutory interpretation rules and can't be read in conjunction with the rest of the Regulation.

Under common law and international law it is long recognised that cycle tracks are lanes and that you must yield to traffic in another lane.

As an aside newer international law (one to which Ireland is not a party to mind you) has expanded on the above and gone a little further and gives a specific example that a cycle overtaking on the left must have priority over a vehicle turning left at a junction. It has simply codified the international legal order of so many states and their common law or civil law legal systems.

standardg60

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119650936#Comment_119650936

Yep that could do with updating alright.

I think the change is more with placing the flashing amber at normal junctions, rather than where you normally see them at a slip road, where you'd be out of the way of a cyclist travelling straight on.

So if you see one at a normal junction now, the something else at play is there's probably a cycle lane on your left.

In fairness to people who might find it confusing they could really do with advertising the change a bit better.

kirving

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119648234#Comment_119648234

When designing any critical safety instruction, human perception, reaction, standardisation and empirical knowledge tends to trump legal (and technical) definitions.

Until recently, flashing amber was used almost exclusively to refer oncoming traffic, or traffic on the road which you were joining, had priority. Now, at some junctions, it's primary purpose is to indicate priority for cyclists (which they always had anyway) but in fact can draw a motorists attention to where they normally used to look (to the right) when they see a flashing amber left arrow.

The below might be a little out of date, but it's what most people learned to drive against, and calls out "other road", and "traffic approaching from the right". It's not that the flashing amber is wrong, but it is a change nonetheless, and I think the unintended consequence until a more widespread rollout happens, will to be to encourage drivers to focus more on what's coming from the right, while at the same time enforcing cyclists view that they have priority over the vehicle have right of way to cross their path. (which is correct, but the cyclist is also not supposed to overtake a vehicle turning left)

https://www.garda.ie/en/crime/traffic-matters/rules_of_the_road.pdf

trellheim

its absolutely confusing folks for me. I cannot see what extra value the flashing amber brings . it just makes you think something else is in play that you are missing

standardg60

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119645996#Comment_119645996

A green left arrow never gave a right to proceed over cyclists on the left travelling straight ahead.

The flashing amber is being introduced now because some drivers who've never cycled don't seem to be able to comprehend this.

standardg60

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119644620#Comment_119644620

If you're changing lanes the emphasis is on you not to be the hindrance.

When you're turning right you don't consider oncoming traffic to be a hindrance to your progress do you?

Turning left requires the same consideration to be given to traffic on your left.

GM228

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119644620#Comment_119644620

But does not then all regulations passed since 1888 go against the right for anyone, including the motorist to "pass and repass without hinderence"

We are talking here about the basis of yielding to traffic already lawfully present on the highway which stems from the right to pass and repass without hinderence, it is long settled that there are many aspects to pass and repass which can be lawfully amended or restricted, or indeed reaffirmed, one such right so often reaffirmed is that a vehicle entering another lane must yield the right of way to any other vehicle already in that lane.

A cyclist overtaking on the left when a vehicle is performing the manouvre stated in SI332 of 2012 is most definately being hindered by the cyclist if the cyclist is given carte blanche to overtake on the left.

Forget about left or right for one moment and just concentrate on two lanes and two vehicles, one of those vehicles turns into or crosses the path of the other forcing that other vehicle to slow down or brake or even cause a collission - who do you think is the hinderence?

There are various reasons under the rules of statutory interpretation why the amendments from 2012 are limited in their scope and can not trump other provisions of law relating to cyclists in a cycle track, and it is long accepted in law and convention that you must yield to a vehicle already present in another lane, expecting a cyclist to yield to another vehicle who enters their lane goes against the common law and international law.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119645996#Comment_119645996

this is extremely confusing if you view it in the negative , if there's no flashing amber you don't give way ( but its a bike lane so you should be giving way anyway ? )

It's not really that confusing, put it this way, if there is a cycle track and you are crossing it to to left you must yield right of way irrespective of there being a flashing light or not.

don't even get me started on the truly horrendous and dangerous new flashing amber at Bride St/Bride Rde

really dangerous for cyclists northbound across both sides as the flashing amber looks like its there for pedestrians

But this is a little different than we have been discussing due to the layout of the junction where there are independent cyclist traffic lights which provide the cyclist with a red whilst the motorist has the flashing amber - the flashing amber in this case to allow priority for traffic coming from the opposite direction which is turning right.

trellheim

but where the flashing amber is provided that is a positive regulation which is very specific and the motorist turning left must yield to the cyclist going straight.

this is extremely confusing if you view it in the negative , if there's no flashing amber you don't give way ( but its a bike lane so you should be giving way anyway ? )

don't even get me started on the truly horrendous and dangerous new flashing amber at Bride St/Bride Rd https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3413148,-6.2700904,3a,75y,334.35h,89.89t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1spocNXr_tbIYCaoxJZIw-OQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DpocNXr_tbIYCaoxJZIw-OQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D72.626274%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

really dangerous for cyclists northbound across both sides as the flashing amber looks like its there for pedestrians

Spook_ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119643761#Comment_119643761

But does not then all regulations passed since 1888 go against the right for anyone, including the motorist to "pass and repass without hinderence"

GM228

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119640610#Comment_119640610

Well yes, as I described in my earlier post, but my reply was in relation to what was the difference between a solid lit green and flashing amber.

It could be argued in the courts that S10 (5)(b)(i) of the Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations 1997 as amended does indeed trump the common law requirements of yielding right away when entering a lane under the principles of pass and repass, but I'm not certain such a position would be held, it could even be considered a regulation which is ultra vires - but that's not the discussion for here, ultimately that would be a decision for the Superior Courts, but where the flashing amber is provided that is a positive regulation which is very specific and the motorist turning left must yield to the cyclist going straight.

trellheim

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119637773#Comment_119637773

But isnt it a bike lane in both cases and so you have to give way in both cases if there's a bike there .... I can't see the difference here

GM228

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119637989#Comment_119637989

Any traffic entering a lane has to yield right of way to any traffic already in that lane irrespective of road type, speed etc.

You are not required to slow down to allow other traffic enter the lane you are in, same goes for joining a dual carriageway/motorway etc when entering them from the slip road, traffic already on the road has priority.

I told ya

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119637755#Comment_119637755

Ok. What I meant was in moving traffic, on the open road and not at a junction.

Not trying to derail, take the case of being on a duel carriageway in lane 1 and a vehicle in lane 2 wants to enter lane 1. Does the vehicle in lane 1 have to give way to lane 2 by eg slowing down? Per your paragraph lane 1 has the right of way over the vehicle from lane 2 trying to enter lane 1.

GM228

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119637131#Comment_119637131

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119637214#Comment_119637214

The difference is that unlike the solid green the flashing amber requires you to yield right of way to any traffic on the major road which is not qualified by the direction that the other traffic is travelling in, so if a cyclist is travelling straight ahead and on the major road you must yield right of way to them if they are going straight and you are turning left.

GM228

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119636960#Comment_119636960

There is no general "give way to traffic on your right" requirements in law, you are getting confused with the yielding right of way to traffic approaching from your right at a junction provisions.

markpb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119637131#Comment_119637131

My understanding is that there is no difference between them. DCC are gradually adding flashing amber lights at junctions like this to remind people of the possible presence of cyclists. How they're picking which junctions to change is unknown, maybe it's based on cycling numbers or maybe they add the extra lamp if they're doing other work on the junction already.

trellheim

take this streetview . What is the difference between a flashing amber and a solid green circle. You have to check the left mirror anyway before turning or at least I normally would

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3481713,-6.2956777,3a,75y,55.77h,75.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDELAGCASExfxdlvpDKjZNw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

why is there no flashing amber on this left turn then its a left turn and two busy roads https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3299616,-6.2639028,3a,75y,257.38h,91.82t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1svQBXMj24c-VHxsDWCjgjKA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DvQBXMj24c-VHxsDWCjgjKA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D97.3855%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

PS the rathmines bridge is much more dangerous for blind spot left turns, having cycled for years at both

I told ya

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119636056#Comment_119636056

Re: your final paragraph. How do you reconcile "give way to traffic on your right".

GM228

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119619054#Comment_119619054

That was myself who clarified what is a “traffic lane” in the Legal Discussion forum a few years ago (road traffic law is one of my specialties in law).

An amendment will only supersede a provision which it is actually amending, other provisions are separate and still stand in their own right, a vague regulation which is not qualified absolutely does not supersede a specific qualified regulation.

They don't need to specifically mention a cyclist, they refer to traffic and vehicles which covers them.

But the area to concentrate on is yielding right of way to traffic in another lane, it is true that a "traffic lane" for the purposes of traffic offences is very narrowly construed due to the way they are defined under the Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997 (and also in the Road Traffic (Signs) Regulations, 1997).

However, under common law S8 (8) of the Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997 has a far broader application, this common law position dates back to the Ex parte Lewis (1888) 21 Q.B.D. 191 case (and even further to time immemorial) and the legal principles of pass and repass on a public highway (which for those who do not know is the common law basis for the right of use and enjoyment of public roads), the legal description of pass and repass was determined in 1888 and held to be a "right for all Her Majesty's subjects at all seasons of the year freely and at their will to pass and repass without let or hindrance" - in other words without limit or interference, since time immemorial use of the roads has been an equal right of way for all road users subject to not limiting or interfering with someone who is lawfully on the road, or in such a circumstance where lawfully already present in a lane (not a "traffic lane" as defined in regulations, but a lane in the ordinary sense).

Once you are lawfully in a lane (the courts will hold this to mean any lane including bus lanes and cycle tracks) other traffic must yield right of way to you when merging into your or crossing through your lane as otherwise they go against the very right of use of the road under common law and the principles of pass and repass of a public road.

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119620783#Comment_119620783

I'm not sure why Toyota would be part of 'Corporate Ireland'? The Liberty survey was across a bunch of countries iirc, so it was nothing specific to Ireland or the Irish market. Both surveys were done by professional surveying companies. They're not 'opinion' surveys, like the Yes Minister example you gave. They're surveys that ask for factual information. If people are asked if they use the phone while driving, the majority of them say yes. It's really not a huge surprise if you look a visible endemic levels of phone usage. What percentage of people do you reckon have a phone on their lap while driving, just waiting to distract them?

harmless

I think anyone still confused about why the amber filter lights were installed can watch the DCC video I posted. It's easy to understand.

However I think the real question is do these lights actually make the roads safer?

trellheim

can we please get off the people on mobile phone , its got its own thread

I told ya

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119623295#Comment_119623295

Well I'm sure you know what they say about arguing with stupid people, they'll drag you down to their level and run rings around you. Maybe after tens of thousands posts I'll cop onto it😀

standardg60

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119619852#Comment_119619852

Driver was on their own so assume the L plate was for a child of theirs, hopefully they're not teaching them to drive

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119623246#Comment_119623246

I never said anything about the 50%. What I previously alluded to was the fact that most drivers use a phone does not mean concurrently and you know it. Instead, now were having this stupid discussion.

spurious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119619855#Comment_119619855

Likewise cyclists breaking red lights, though if surveyed, I bet they deny it. Who wins today's medal?

I told ya

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119623076#Comment_119623076

Lol.

So rather than address the claim of in excess of 50% and see if it even looks somewhat reasonable, just blindly accept it.

Go and talk to the surveyors. That's really a well argued response.

And by the way, I do accept there is a problem with phone use whilst driving. I never posted that phone use should be tolarated.

My problem is with the steadfast acceptance of a vested interest's claim.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119622003#Comment_119622003

Tell you what, contact the surveyors and put your queries to them rather than posting here as if you don't believe there is a problem