Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Should traffic laws be further enforced for cyclists?

1…567911

Comments

  • #242
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    Lumen wrote: »
    Since (unless you can provide an example) no cyclist has been taken to court for passing on the left, filtering, or not using a mandatory cycle lane, your assertions concerning what is and isn't the law in these areas are speculative.

    As it happens I am in posession of a legal opinion to the effect stated. I have been asked not to publish it. PM me if you want details.


  • #243
    droidus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,544 ✭✭✭droidus


    So what you're saying is, that since pretty much every cyclist here filters on the left, we are all breaking the law anyway, and we may as well jump the lights as well?


  • #244
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    droidus wrote: »
    So what you're saying is, that since pretty much every cyclist here filters on the left, we are all breaking the law anyway, and we may as well jump the lights as well?

    Bit early for conclusions. Perhaps we need a bit more discussion as to what our attitudes to the law are first? Then we can start discussing the implications.


  • #245
    Dermot Illogical
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,131 ✭✭✭Dermot Illogical


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    Bit early for conclusions.

    I've come to one already.


  • #246
    doozerie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,830 ✭✭✭doozerie


    I think that describing what cyclists typically do (passing traffic on the left) as undertaking, while technically correct, assumes a few things that, to my mind at least, rarely hold true. For one thing it assumes that a cyclist makes a conscious move to the inside to pass, rather than already being on the inside by virtue of a line of traffic placing/keeping the cyclist in that position - and inherent in this is an assumption that the cyclist typically should and could otherwise be occupying the position of a car in traffic and therefore being part of the line of traffic. In practice, motorists generally expect cyclists to not occupy the road in front of them, but rather expect them to keep to the left to permit motorised traffic to pass, and this attitude applies regardless of the relative speeds of cyclist and motorists. I think that cyclists too generally adopt the same approach, for reasons of safety and/or convenience (and no, it's not always safe). Cycle lanes promote this behaviour but the behaviour has existed for a lot longer than the cycle lanes. Obviously cyclist road position varies according to the width of the road, the volume of traffic, etc., but keeping to the inside of motorised traffic has been the standard approach, so far as I can tell, anywhere I've cycled (and trying to interleave with motorised traffic has been the cause of most aggro I've encountered while on the bike, though sometimes it's an entirely necessary, and/or the safest, thing to do too).

    Behaviour does not over-ride the laws, of course, and perhaps a cyclist could be found legally at fault for undertaking. But if this were the case, would things change for the better if everyone were to alter their riding/driving styles overnight to adhere to a requirement for cyclists to not undertake, I wonder? It's an academic question though, I think, as I'm not sure that either cyclists or motorists would be keen to see such a law enforced and for the same reason I couldn't see the gardai as being keen to encourage it either. The current situation of cyclists keeping inside motorised traffic is a compromise, and a strictly illegal one perhaps (I've not checked the actual laws either), but one with benefits for cyclists and motorists alike it seems to me and I can't picture a reasonable alternative that would work better for either party.


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    blorg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,995 ✭✭✭✭blorg


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    I wouldn't say it's stupid to pass on the right. I've only ever found a problem with it when traffic is backed up in your direction and totally stationary, so you get people who get frustrated and unexpectedly swing across the road to turn around and drive the other way.
    I've been hit in this situation, clipped on the back wheel and sent flying through the air. No serious injuries thankfully. Motorist said he didn't expect me to be passing on the right. I do think most expect cyclists to pass on the left and that it is safer in most situations.


  • #248
    Idleater
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,176 ✭✭✭Idleater


    doozerie wrote: »
    I think that describing what cyclists typically do (passing traffic on the left) as undertaking, while technically correct...
    It is only undertaking if both the cyclists and vehicular traffic are moving side by side and the cyclists make a move to pass. Staying in lane does not constitute a move.
    The liklihood of this happening in anything but slow moving traffic is remote.
    Where a cyclist and traffic are traveling faster say 50kmph in a 60 zone and there is an opportunity to overtake legally one would presume the cyclist would have the sense and wherewithal to overtake legally and safely on the right.
    Similarly, if the vehicular traffic slows eg due to traffic lights, then cyclists on the left may legally continue with due care without being termed undertaking under the "traveling in queues " exemption without resorting to the traffic must be turning right for straight ahead or cyclist turning left and vehicles traveling straight.
    Due care and attention always supersedes overtaking and passing on the left.


  • #249
    Diarmuid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭Diarmuid


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    As it happens I am in posession of a legal opinion to the effect stated. I have been asked not to publish it. PM me if you want details.

    "ROTR :galwaycyclist special edition" ?


  • #250
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 11,961 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Diarmuid wrote: »
    "ROTR :galwaycyclist special edition" ?
    Again, no-one is going to pull you up for passing on the inside. But you could be completely without legal defence in the event of an accident doing so. This doesn't mean that you should pass on the right, necessarily, since avoiding an accident in the first place is more important. But it is important that the law protect people who are doing what they in all good faith regard as the correct thing to do. As things stand, it looks as if it doesn't afford cyclists any legal protection if they are injured passing on the inside. (This is mostly of importance at junctions, where passing on the inside is far more likely to result in injury.)


  • #251
    RobFowl
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 11,672 Mod ✭✭✭✭RobFowl


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    As it happens I am in posession of a legal opinion to the effect stated. I have been asked not to publish it. PM me if you want details.

    Legal opinions are merely that until they are tested in court.
    On a separate matter as part of a company I'm a director of (unpaid !) we have had 3 eminent legal opinions including senior counsel which are completely at odds with each other.


  • Advertisement
  • #252
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 78,484 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    RobFowl wrote: »
    Legal opinions are merely that until they are tested in court.
    On a separate matter as part of a company I'm a director of (unpaid !) we have had 3 eminent legal opinions includind senior counsel which are completely at odds with each other.
    I always make sure the Counsel I'm proposing to use is going to agree with me before seeking his/her opinion;)


  • #253
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 11,961 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    On the subject of legal opinions, I quite like this:
    http://ukcyclerules.com/

    Of tangential relevance to here, I suppose, since our legal system is derived from theirs, and judges look at decisions there when considering their decisions here.


  • #254
    Magic Beans
    Closed Accounts Posts: 329 ✭✭Magic Beans


    Why not just abolish all traffic laws for cyclists? It's not as if they observed them anyway is it? Sure isn't the motorist liable for all accidents anyway regardless of who caused them?


  • #255
    Captain Havoc
    Moderators, Sports Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 11,393 Mod ✭✭✭✭Captain Havoc


    Magic Beans wrote: »
    Why not just abolish all traffic laws for cyclists? It's not as if they observed them anyway is it?

    Now that statement is just plain retarded.
    Magic Beans wrote:
    Sure isn't the motorist liable for all accidents anyway regardless of who caused them?

    No

    https://ormondelanguagetours.com

    Walking Tours of Kilkenny in English, French or German.



  • #256
    blorg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,995 ✭✭✭✭blorg


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    Again, no-one is going to pull you up for passing on the inside. But you could be completely without legal defence in the event of an accident doing so. This doesn't mean that you should pass on the right, necessarily, since avoiding an accident in the first place is more important. But it is important that the law protect people who are doing what they in all good faith regard as the correct thing to do. As things stand, it looks as if it doesn't afford cyclists any legal protection if they are injured passing on the inside. (This is mostly of importance at junctions, where passing on the inside is far more likely to result in injury.)
    That isn't how the law works though. A motorist can't just run down a jaywalker. The motorist is under an obligation to watch for cyclists and the fact the cyclist is doing something of questionable legality would only at best serve to (at most) allocate a percentage of responsibility to them and reduce the damages. I doubt personally that filtering would make a difference in a court case unless the cyclist was behaving really stupidly; even then the benefit of the doubt tends to be given to the weaker road user.


  • #257
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    Idleater wrote: »
    It is only undertaking if both the cyclists and vehicular traffic are moving side by side and the cyclists make a move to pass. Staying in lane does not constitute a move.
    The liklihood of this happening in anything but slow moving traffic is remote.
    Where a cyclist and traffic are traveling faster say 50kmph in a 60 zone and there is an opportunity to overtake legally one would presume the cyclist would have the sense and wherewithal to overtake legally and safely on the right.
    Similarly, if the vehicular traffic slows eg due to traffic lights, then cyclists on the left may legally continue with due care without being termed undertaking under the "traveling in queues " exemption without resorting to the traffic must be turning right for straight ahead or cyclist turning left and vehicles traveling straight.
    Due care and attention always supersedes overtaking and passing on the left.

    I append the relevant traffic regulations,

    Points to note:

    1. The concept of overtaking is not defined as requiring any kind of associated manouevre or momentary change in direction. i.e. the fact that you are staying in lane does not mean you are not overtaking. If you are passing other traffic in possession of the roadway you are overtaking.

    2. There is no reference to "queues" in the regulations, the reference is to "the traffic lane on the driver's right"

    It may be that the courts would interpret the law as you have indicated but we would need evidence of this.
    10. (1) A driver shall not overtake, or attempt to overtake, if to do so would endanger, or cause inconvenience to, any other person.

    (2) A driver shall not overtake, or attempt to overtake, unless the roadway ahead of the driver—

    ( a ) is free from approaching traffic, pedestrians and any obstruction, and

    ( b ) is sufficiently long and wide to permit the overtaking to be completed without danger or inconvenience to other traffic or pedestrians.

    (3) A driver shall not overtake, or attempt to overtake, on a stretch of roadway on which traffic sign number RUS 014 [no overtaking] has been provided.

    (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-article (5), a driver shall overtake on the right and shall not move in towards the left until it is safe to do so.

    (5) A driver may only overtake on the left—

    ( a ) where the driver of the vehicle about to be overtaken has signalled an intention to turn to the right and the driver of the overtaking vehicle intends, after overtaking, to go straight ahead or to turn to the left,

    ( b ) where the driver of the overtaking vehicle intends, after overtaking, to turn left at the next road junction and has signalled this intention,

    ( c ) in slow moving traffic, when vehicles in the traffic lane on the driver's right are moving more slowly than the overtaking vehicle.


  • #258
    Magic Beans
    Closed Accounts Posts: 329 ✭✭Magic Beans


    Captain Havoc wrote: »
    Now that statement is just plain retarded.



    No
    Retarded says the mod.
    I'm basing the statement on the number of posts where cyclists openly admit to ignoring laws because they think the laws are stupid or simply because they don't want to obey them. And I'm making retarded statements. :rolleyes:

    It has been claimed numerous times on this forum that because the motorist has the greater potential do injure or do damage that they bear all responsibilities. I can't recall this being refuted on thread but I'm open to correction there.


  • #259
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 11,961 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    blorg wrote: »
    That isn't how the law works though. A motorist can't just run down a jaywalker. The motorist is under an obligation to watch for cyclists and the fact the cyclist is doing something of questionable legality would only at best serve to (at most) allocate a percentage of responsibility to them and reduce the damages. I doubt personally that filtering would make a difference in a court case unless the cyclist was behaving really stupidly; even then the benefit of the doubt tends to be given to the weaker road user.
    I'm thinking in particular of cyclists being seriously injured or killed while passing on the inside at junctions. I'm not confident that the court wouldn't rule that the cyclist shouldn't have tried the manoeuvre, since it's (arguably) not allowed, and it's certainly not prudent.

    The case is more complicated by the presence of certain cycle lanes that implicitly invite cyclists to attempt this manoeuvre, and the fact that I still haven't managed to find any law, regulation or ruling that makes it clear that a cycle lane is a separate traffic lane.

    I really just wish the whole mess would be tidied up.

    EDIT: Just occurred to me, blorg. We don't really have a legal class of "jaywalkers", do we? You're only in the wrong if you're crossing near but not at a pedestrian crossing. Or throwing yourself in front of oncoming traffic, I suppose.

    FURTHER EDIT: Do courts generally side with cyclists? Or do they assume the cyclist is probably an air-headed scofflaw? Or that cycling is so "dangerous" that injuries are like an Act of God. Not a rhetorical question. I have no idea, just my persecution complex to guide me.


  • #260
    Idleater
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,176 ✭✭✭Idleater


    Idleater wrote: »
    ...Staying in lane does not constitute a move.
    :
    :
    Similarly, if the vehicular traffic slows eg due to traffic lights, then cyclists on the left may legally continue with due care without being termed undertaking under the "traveling in queues " exemption without resorting to the traffic must be turning right for straight ahead or cyclist turning left and vehicles traveling straight.
    Due care and attention always supersedes overtaking and passing on the left.
    Apologies for not linking to the exact terminology but I wasn't bothered while on my mobile. Hence why I used the quotes. You didn't pick up on my turning left/right remarks either though so I'm forming the opinion that you are just in this to argue.
    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    I append the relevant traffic regulations,

    Points to note:

    2. There is no reference to "queues" in the regulations, the reference is to "the traffic lane on the driver's right"
    ( c ) in slow moving traffic, when vehicles in the traffic lane on the driver's right are moving more slowly than the overtaking vehicle.

    The above sub section is loosly termed by Gardai and Advanced instructors as "travelling in queues" to distinguish it from faster moving traffic for example on a dual carrigeway where the outside lane may move at some point slightly slower than the inside lanes.
    I may have mentioned this before, but I am a (3 time) RoSPA Advanced Driver holder and I am well versed in the use of the roads and the permitted circumstances when filtering and undertaking are allowed, as well as when while it may be allowed it may not be beneficial.


  • #261
    Dermot Illogical
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,131 ✭✭✭Dermot Illogical


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    I append the relevant traffic regulations,

    Points to note:

    1. The concept of overtaking is not defined as requiring any kind of associated manouevre or momentary change in direction. i.e. the fact that you are staying in lane does not mean you are not overtaking. If you are passing other traffic in possession of the roadway you are overtaking.

    2. There is no reference to "queues" in the regulations, the reference is to "the traffic lane on the driver's right"

    It may be that the courts would interpret the law as you have indicated but we would need evidence of this.
    Quote:
    10. (1) A driver shall not overtake, or attempt to overtake, if to do so would endanger, or cause inconvenience to, any other person.

    (2) A driver shall not overtake, or attempt to overtake, unless the roadway ahead of the driver—

    ( a ) is free from approaching traffic, pedestrians and any obstruction, and

    ( b ) is sufficiently long and wide to permit the overtaking to be completed without danger or inconvenience to other traffic or pedestrians.

    (3) A driver shall not overtake, or attempt to overtake, on a stretch of roadway on which traffic sign number RUS 014 [no overtaking] has been provided.

    (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-article (5), a driver shall overtake on the right and shall not move in towards the left until it is safe to do so.

    (5) A driver may only overtake on the left—

    ( a ) where the driver of the vehicle about to be overtaken has signalled an intention to turn to the right and the driver of the overtaking vehicle intends, after overtaking, to go straight ahead or to turn to the left,

    ( b ) where the driver of the overtaking vehicle intends, after overtaking, to turn left at the next road junction and has signalled this intention,

    ( c ) in slow moving traffic, when vehicles in the traffic lane on the driver's right are moving more slowly than the overtaking vehicle.

    Got a link for the regulations relating to cyclists?


  • Advertisement
  • #262
    Lumen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,490 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    Magic Beans wrote: »
    It has been claimed numerous times on this forum that because the motorist has the greater potential do injure or do damage that they bear all responsibilities. I can't recall this being refuted on thread but I'm open to correction there.

    I would like to see references to numerous unrefuted statements stating that motorists bear all responsibilities.

    I don't recall a single one.


  • #263
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 11,961 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    RT66 wrote: »
    Got a link for the regulations relating to cyclists?
    A cyclist is understood to be a driver, in this context, as far as I recall.

    See:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64663741&postcount=108


  • #264
    oflahero
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 765 ✭✭✭oflahero


    Magic Beans wrote: »
    I can't recall this being refuted on thread but I'm open to correction there.

    Do we really have to get into "I demand that someone condemn this illegal/irresponsible behaviour!" territory again? Really? If anything, this forum contains plenty of regular apologias for dodgy cycling and expressions of frustration at examples of it. If you regularly lurk/post here, you can quickly become frustrated about feeling like a punchbag for posters (not necessarily you MagicBeans) who drop in just to tell you what a bunch of pr1cks cyclists are, because one cut them up at the lights that morning. Really, you're choosing the wrong audience.

    As for the main topic, I feel like I'm coming over all cliched and Daily Mail on this, but as the stockmarkets plummet and London suburbs burn up, actually getting in any way het up about how passing on the left in traffic MIGHT BE ILLEGAL, would you ever just put a sock in it.


  • #265
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    RobFowl wrote: »
    Legal opinions are merely that until they are tested in court.
    On a separate matter as part of a company I'm a director of (unpaid !) we have had 3 eminent legal opinions including senior counsel which are completely at odds with each other.


    Agreed but why is it that Irish cyclists should be put in the position of having to seek legal opinions on matters that should be very clear and well understood by all road users?

    We have a very long thread going here discussing whether cyclists should face the increased sanction of the law and we can't even agree what those laws are or how they apply?


  • #266
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 11,961 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Idleater wrote: »
    ( c ) in slow moving traffic, when vehicles in the traffic lane on the driver's right are moving more slowly than the overtaking vehicle.

    But the cyclist is frequently in the same lane when passing on the inside. Does that make a difference?


  • #267
    Idleater
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,176 ✭✭✭Idleater


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    But the cyclist is frequently in the same lane when passing on the inside. Does that make a difference?

    Nope not at all, there are several examples where two vehicles could easily pass each other in the same lane and be deemed to be travelling in queues :pac:, turning left or turning right.

    Similarly, one is allowed to overtake when there is a solid white line, just as long as one does not cross the line. This is quite applicable to motorcylists.

    I should reiterate for posterity that Due Care and Attention supersedes overtaking/filtering. If you go up the inside / outside of a line of cars at 50kmph and a pedestrian steps out for example you must be able to stop without changing position (swerving is not allowed under due care and attention).


  • #268
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    Idleater wrote: »
    Apologies for not linking to the exact terminology but I wasn't bothered while on my mobile. Hence why I used the quotes. You didn't pick up on my turning left/right remarks either though so I'm forming the opinion that you are just in this to argue.

    <snip>

    I may have mentioned this before, but I am a (3 time) RoSPA Advanced Driver holder and I am well versed in the use of the roads and the permitted circumstances when filtering and undertaking are allowed, as well as when while it may be allowed it may not be beneficial.

    I am not clear as to the relevance of your remarks on turning left/right this discussion is about overtaking traffic moving in the same direction.

    I have done the UK National Standard Cycling Instructor course (although this being Ireland its not my day job). The reason the legal opinion was sought is because I and a colleague are about to kick off a cycle training project in Galway and the project sponsor agreed to fund the legal advice to clarify where we and our trainees stand.


  • #269
    Lumen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,490 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    Agreed but why is it that Irish cyclists should be put in the position of having to seek legal opinions on matters that should be very clear and well understood by all road users?

    We have a very long thread going here discussing whether cyclists should face the increased sanction of the law and we can't even agree what those laws are or how they apply?

    Whilst your prudence in seeking legal advice on a largely theoretical legal issue is arguably admirable, 99.9% of cyclists just get on with riding their bikes, the reasonable ones assuming that (barring contact with some overzealous garda having a really bad day) they'll be left alone to do so.

    edit: I now understand why you got the legal advice, but your requirements are unusual.


  • #270
    Idleater
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,176 ✭✭✭Idleater


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    I am not clear as to the relevance of your remarks on turning left/right this discussion is about overtaking traffic moving in the same direction.

    You brought the left/right turning up by linking to the legislation to point out to me that my "travelling in queues" (everyone going straight) is wrong.

    I pointed out that no, infact there is allowance for queues of slow moving traffic to go straight ahead without resorting to the turning left/right clauses as the slow moving traffic allows for "undertaking" when everyone is travelling straight.


  • Advertisement
  • #271
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 11,961 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    I have done the UK National Standard Cycling Instructor course (although this being Ireland its not my day job). The reason the legal opinion was sought is because I and a colleague are about to kick off a cycle training project in Galway and the project sponsor agreed to fund the legal advice to clarify where we and our trainees stand.
    Very thorough. Though I suppose you have to be when you can get sued.


Advertisement