Legal obligation to use cycle paths

dave_o_brien · 22-03-2012 08:17PM

AltAccount wrote: »

Treating a cyclist as a pedestrian when they don't want, and don't need to be, is a flaw.

The major flaw is treating the pedestrian poorer than the vehicle users. Once again, urban areas must be designed to make the pedestrians experience as enjoyable as possible. The bickering between cyclists and motorists (both of which I am) should be secondary to this. The single biggest issue with this cycle "facility" is how sh*t it is for people on foot.

nomdeboardie · 22-03-2012 08:39PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

It would be better if the cyclists weren't there at all until they start taking responability.

"What...what happened? Do you think it's the rapture?"
"No, apparently some Hilly Bill wished the cyclists away. He held up a giant staff and banished them with Godly words. They slithered off into the Irish Sea...maybe heading for one of those civilised continental countries."

galwaycyclist · 22-03-2012 09:24PM

Milan Cobian wrote: »

Germany's cities were rebuilt in the 1950's without the benefit of cycle lanes, which were not added until much later. At the time of course, the cyclists were by far in the majority (as in Dublin) and such additions were not necessary.

Hmm I am not sure about this - my understanding is that in the 1950s cycling infrastructure was used in Germany as a continuation of the pre-war policy of segregating cyclists so as to remove impediments to the flow of motor vehicles.

As cycling died out in the 1960s the space was then rededicated to cars - parking etc. Following the spontaneous bicycle boom of the 1970s German traffic engineers were then left running around trying to put the cycling facilities back in. (In some cities e.g. Munster they never took them out)

galwaycyclist · 22-03-2012 09:31PM

Snickers Man wrote: »

But if we have cycle lanes then cyclists have an obligation to use them for their benefit and the benefits of others.

The problem with that argument is that much of the "cycling infrastructure" is self-evidently intended to benefit motorists at the expense of cyclists' convenience and safety.

Your argument is equivalent to telling people of a certain colour to sit at the back of the bus, use only this door, drink only from this water fountain because that is what has been "allocated" for them to use.

In Ireland, we have a very well trained knee-jerk reaction to that kind of thing.

Mycroft H · 22-03-2012 10:47PM

A cycle track is only a cycle track when prescribed by law. You only then have the obligation to use them.

The relevent laws are within the 'Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997, Section 14'

14. (1) Where traffic sign numbers RUS 009 or RUS 009A and either RRM 022 or RRM 023 [cycle track] are provided, the part of road to which they relate shall be a cycle track.

(2) The periods of operation of a cycle track may be indicated on an information plate which may be provided in association with traffic sign number RUS 009 or RUS 009A.

(3) All pedal cycles must be driven on a cycle track where one is provided.

(4) Where a cycle track is one-way, pedal cycles shall be driven in the same direction as traffic on the side of the roadway adjacent to the cycle track is required to travel.

(5) When a cycle track is two-way, pedal cycles shall be driven as near as possible to the left hand side of each lane.

(6) ( a ) A mechanically propelled vehicle, other than a mechanically propelled wheelchair, shall not be driven along or across a cycle track.

( b ) A reference in sub-article (a) to driving along or across a cycle track shall include a reference to driving wholly or partly along or across a cycle track.

( c ) This sub-article shall not apply to a vehicle being driven for the purpose of access to or egress from a place adjacent to the cycle track or from a roadway to such a place.

This is the relevent sign

Only when this sign is present along with a segregated track, then it is a cycle track and has standing in law. Only then does a cyclist have an obligation to use it.

There is many other pseudo cycle tracks out there that are sorta marked as cycle tracks but are not true cycle tracks and a cyclist has no obligation to use them.

Cookie_Monster · 22-03-2012 11:42PM

BX 19 wrote: »

Only when this sign is present along with a segregated track, then it is a cycle track and has standing in law. Only then does a cyclist have an obligation to use it.

this requirement is also supposed to be removed soon. The Dail keep threatening to actually get around to it...

Mycroft H · 23-03-2012 12:20AM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

this requirement is also supposed to be removed soon. The Dail keep threatening to actually get around to it...

But its still law until its removed, altered or otherwise

I'm happy as in my experience most of those cycle lanes with those signs are not too bad. Its the raised footpath shared ones that are a disaster. I don't even bother with them anymore.

Carawaystick · 23-03-2012 02:24AM

BX 19 wrote: »

A cycle track is only a cycle track when prescribed by law. You only then have the obligation to use them.

The relevent laws are within the 'Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997, Section 14'

This is the relevent sign

Only when this sign is present along with a segregated track, then it is a cycle track and has standing in law. Only then does a cyclist have an obligation to use it.

There is many other pseudo cycle tracks out there that are sorta marked as cycle tracks but are not true cycle tracks and a cyclist has no obligation to use them.

Ah. I knew there was an out.

S14(3) wrote:

All pedal cycles must be driven on a cycle track where one is provided.

Bikes are ridden or cycled not driven.
c.f you ride a horse but drive a coach and 4 through a loophole.

Hilly Bill · 23-03-2012 12:19PM

dave_o_brien wrote: »

It would be EVEN better if there were no cars allowed within the limits of the canals either. But neither of those options are going to happen, so practicing best planning for urban areas is a priority, ie, prioritising the pedestrian and designing to discourage the use of motorised vehicles.

Cars are not allowed within the limits of the canal because they will just sink.

Discourage the use of motorised vehicles? The pedestrian has the priority of the footpath what more do you want?

Hilly Bill · 23-03-2012 12:20PM

AltAccount wrote: »

Well that's obviously not an option, so do you have any reasonable or constructive suggestions to make in the meantime?

Ye, keep the bikes off the road until they have passed a rules of the road test.

seamus · 23-03-2012 12:23PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Ye, keep the bikes off the road until they have passed a rules of the road test.

Logically then pedestrians should not be allowed outside their door until they've passed a similar test. There aren't footpaths everywhere.

Hilly Bill · 23-03-2012 12:39PM

seamus wrote: »

Logically then pedestrians should not be allowed outside their door until they've passed a similar test. There aren't footpaths everywhere.

Now thats just being silly .

Grolschevik · 23-03-2012 12:43PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Ye, keep the bikes off the road until they have passed a rules of the road test.

seamus wrote: »

Logically then pedestrians should not be allowed outside their door until they've passed a similar test. There aren't footpaths everywhere.

There's merit to both suggestions, actually! I lived the first 11 years of my life in the North, and we did our "cycling proficiency test" at age 9 or 10. Proficiency in terms of both bike control and the rules of the road. (We got a badge that we wore with pride; it was like a contest among my peer group.)

The rules have stuck with me all my life, and even now inform my driving. I recently started cycling again, and could remember all of what I was taught about hand signals and bike positioning on the road.

Something like this would benefit cyclists, drivers and pedestrians, as it would inculcate road-use awareness at an early age.

desertcircus · 23-03-2012 01:00PM

The cycle path along the canal is about 80-90% wonderful, but that remaining 10% is so awful as to make the whole thing near-pointless. Cycling east and want to turn at the Pepper Canister? You're better off on the road. Going as far as Grand Canal Dock? The route goes over cobbles for a hundred metres, which in the history of ridiculous planning decisions in Ireland really ranks close to the top. Turning at any junction not at a bridge, crossing a junction, trying to make good time, avoiding pedestrians? On every count you're better off on the road.

I use my bike to get to and from work. I'm not massively interested in how nice the new facility is: if it's slower than the alternative, it's useless. Railing against cyclists for not using cycle lanes is ridiculous and futile, particularly when coming from people who haven't used the lanes themselves.

Snickers Man · 23-03-2012 01:17PM

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Your argument is equivalent to telling people of a certain colour to sit at the back of the bus, use only this door, drink only from this water fountain because that is what has been "allocated" for them to use.

.

Beneath contempt.

galwaycyclist · 23-03-2012 02:08PM

Snickers Man wrote: »

Beneath contempt.

With regret I should point out that I am not the one who is advocating legislative policies that have unfortunate echoes in those of the National Socialists.

Cycle tracks for the expansion of motorised traffic
http://www.oocities.org/galwaycyclist/info/vbriese_abstract.html

bk · 23-03-2012 02:36PM

Just to point out, that in Amsterdam, on many streets, cyclists actually have priority over even pedestrians, never mind cars.

Interestingly cars on many of these streets are limited to 30km/h and have strict liability. If they hit a pedestrian or cyclist, they are automatically assumed to be at fault.

As a pedestrian tourist in Amsterdam, you have to really watch out not to get riden over by a bike. Also many junctions are designed in such a way that bikes don't actually have to stop at car or pedestrian red lights.

Watching the video posted of the canal route earlier, it is noticeable how many people are wearing bright yellow florescent vests and helmets. In Amsterdam last weekend, I didn't see one single cyclist wearing a yellow vest our helmet. What a difference.

dave_o_brien · 23-03-2012 03:08PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Cars are not allowed within the limits of the canal because they will just sink.

Discourage the use of motorised vehicles? The pedestrian has the priority of the footpath what more do you want?

It's not a matter of what I want. What would be best for almost every urban centre is to ban motorised vehicle and dedicate most of the space to pedestrians. Obviously this will not happen, so what should happen is that the number of roads with private motorised access to Dublin City Centre should be strategically reduced, narrowed and made one way only, coupled with a decrease in the number of car parking spaces and an increase in the cost of parking. Perhaps introduce a congestion charge similar to London. These are not new ideas, these are ideas that have been floated by city planners, architects and urbanists for years. Some of them have been followed through on; Dublin has far more one-way streets than 20 years ago, far fewer free car parking spots, cost of parking is increased and the 30kmph zone has been introduced, although hardly enforced.

What you are saying is that because you have a car, you should be entitled to use the road. That sense of entitlement is part of the reason more stringent measures have not been taken to further discourage reliance on private motorised vehicles. It's sad from a planning perspective.

You do realise that the role of city planning is to make the city as enjoyable as possible for the person, right? This person will inevitably spend time on foot, as a pedestrian. The volume of motorised traffic in Dublin creates a very hostile atmosphere for pedestrians, ie, for shoppers, people walking to work, people on lunch from work, families in town for a day out, tourists, etc. This is bad for businesses that rely on these types of people for income. It is no coincicdence that within the city centre, the two busiest commercial areas are Grafton Street and Henry Street, areas that are pedestrianised and surrounded by streets that heavily prioritise the pedestrian. Combine the prioritisation of the pedestrian with an improvement in public transport infrastructure and a massive reduction in private vehicle and you have a recipe for a far more enjoyable city with an increase in economic activity.

On the other hand, you could prioritise the car and watch the tourists and the shoppers leave and then wonder why Dublin is such a sh*thole compared to places like Copenhagen and Barcelona.

So yes, pedestrians have priority on footpaths, no sh*t Sherlock. Footpaths in urban areas should have priority over roads. Sadly, they don't, as this crappy piece of infrastructure along the Canal proves. At least the government can tell Europe that they have an extra 5km of cycle paths. Europe loves statistics.

AltAccount · 23-03-2012 03:28PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Ye, keep the bikes off the road until they have passed a rules of the road test.

How does that address the issue of whether cyclists should be compelled to use bike lanes - the topic at hand?

Lawrence1895 · 23-03-2012 03:29PM

Some cycle paths are just:
- Giant pot holes, covered with red paint
- Shattered with glass and other sharp objects
- An additional lane for motorists, who want to turn left in a few miles down the road
- Some handy parking space to drop into the chipper or newsagent

Am not saying, all of the cycle paths in Dublin are like that, but there are a few. You have to be a cyclist yourself, having a puncture or nearly hit by a car, and you know, what I'm talking about

Hilly Bill · 23-03-2012 04:18PM

AltAccount wrote: »

How does that address the issue of whether cyclists should be compelled to use bike lanes - the topic at hand?

They should use the bike lanes until they have learnt the rules of the road.

Hilly Bill · 23-03-2012 04:25PM

dave_o_brien wrote: »

It's not a matter of what I want. What would be best for almost every urban centre is to ban motorised vehicle and dedicate most of the space to pedestrians. Obviously this will not happen, so what should happen is that the number of roads with private motorised access to Dublin City Centre should be strategically reduced, narrowed and made one way only, coupled with a decrease in the number of car parking spaces and an increase in the cost of parking. Perhaps introduce a congestion charge similar to London. These are not new ideas, these are ideas that have been floated by city planners, architects and urbanists for years. Some of them have been followed through on; Dublin has far more one-way streets than 20 years ago, far fewer free car parking spots, cost of parking is increased and the 30kmph zone has been introduced, although hardly enforced.

What you are saying is that because you have a car, you should be entitled to use the road. That sense of entitlement is part of the reason more stringent measures have not been taken to further discourage reliance on private motorised vehicles. It's sad from a planning perspective.

You do realise that the role of city planning is to make the city as enjoyable as possible for the person, right? This person will inevitably spend time on foot, as a pedestrian. The volume of motorised traffic in Dublin creates a very hostile atmosphere for pedestrians, ie, for shoppers, people walking to work, people on lunch from work, families in town for a day out, tourists, etc. This is bad for businesses that rely on these types of people for income. It is no coincicdence that within the city centre, the two busiest commercial areas are Grafton Street and Henry Street, areas that are pedestrianised and surrounded by streets that heavily prioritise the pedestrian. Combine the prioritisation of the pedestrian with an improvement in public transport infrastructure and a massive reduction in private vehicle and you have a recipe for a far more enjoyable city with an increase in economic activity.

On the other hand, you could prioritise the car and watch the tourists and the shoppers leave and then wonder why Dublin is such a sh*thole compared to places like Copenhagen and Barcelona.

So yes, pedestrians have priority on footpaths, no sh*t Sherlock. Footpaths in urban areas should have priority over roads. Sadly, they don't, as this crappy piece of infrastructure along the Canal proves. At least the government can tell Europe that they have an extra 5km of cycle paths. Europe loves statistics.

So your ideal would be to ban cars from the city centre altogether? I take it you dont drive then .

dave_o_brien · 23-03-2012 05:15PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

So your ideal would be to ban cars from the city centre altogether? I take it you dont drive then .

I do drive. I also cycle. I also walk around. It doesn't change my opinion.

As I said before, the ideal urban centre would have dedicated private transport corridors, which were small enough to discourage people from unnecessarily driving into the town. There would be an extensive public transport system to get people into and out of the centre. The priority in all design of all infrastructure would be enhancing the experience of the pedestrian, as this is what accounts for the largest part of people's experience of a city centre. I have never heard of anybody say that "I really like this city, it's great to drive around in." I have heard people say "I really like this city, I walked around it for hours." I am NOT saying that cars have no place in society, just that they are a damaging, but unfortunate, consequence of urban settlements worldwide, and the strategy for dealing with them within the central urban areas should be to make sure that they do not have priority over people. People make for good cities, not motor vehicles. Banning them altogether is Utopian, and I am not interested in Utopias. Managing their ingress and exit from our city is not Utopian, and should be dealt with far more efficiently than it currently is. Dublin (and Limerick, Cork, Galway, Belfast and London for that matter) has far too extensive a network of poorly designed vehicle infrastructure that encourages the use of private cars to the extent that it has a massively negative impact upon the pedestrian experience of what should be a very pleasant, compact city.

The problem we are discussing here is that Dublin has long prioritised the private motor vehicle in favour of the pedestrian, and that the cycling infrastructure specifically referred to here further undermines the pedestrian experience of walking the canal. I commute to the city centre by bicycle every day, and while I think that this is a poor design from a cyclists perspective, I think that it has committed no greater crime than being bad news for people on foot.

AltAccount · 23-03-2012 05:36PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

They should use the bike lanes until they have learnt the rules of the road.

So cyclists with full drivers licences should be allowed to use the road if they want?

Hilly Bill · 24-03-2012 01:49AM

AltAccount wrote: »

So cyclists with full drivers licences should be allowed to use the road if they want?

Only if they put the rules to good use . Its bad enough having drivers not having a clue with the rules of the road without cyclists doing the same .

monument · 24-03-2012 01:56AM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Only if they put the rules to good use . Its bad enough having drivers not having a clue with the rules of the road without cyclists doing the same .

By your logic we should take all drivers off the road until all of them start to behave! :eek:

Hilly Bill · 24-03-2012 02:01AM

monument wrote: »

By your logic we should take all drivers off the road until all of them start to behave! :eek:

No, just the idiots

Rowanvella199 · 24-03-2012 02:05AM

I think cycling should be promoted in every city, im from cork and the way it is in dublin is fantastic, where you can rent a bike for the year and drop it off at multiple paces!

AltAccount · 24-03-2012 12:05PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Only if they put the rules to good use . Its bad enough having drivers not having a clue with the rules of the road without cyclists doing the same .

It's been asked jokingly, but let's just clarify your stance - are you saying the punishment for all vehicle operators who disobey the rules of the road should be for them to be put off the road until they can (somehow) prove they'll obey the rules from now on?

Does this draconian enforcement apply only to certain categories of vehicle operators? Are there specific types of offences this would apply to or would it be a blanket policy?

Hilly Bill · 24-03-2012 03:03PM

AltAccount wrote: »

It's been asked jokingly, but let's just clarify your stance - are you saying the punishment for all vehicle operators who disobey the rules of the road should be for them to be put off the road until they can (somehow) prove they'll obey the rules from now on?

Does this draconian enforcement apply only to certain categories of vehicle operators? Are there specific types of offences this would apply to or would it be a blanket policy?

How is it draconian when its in force for motor vehicles? Its called the penalty points system.
The same sytem should apply to cyclists who break red lights , cycling the wrong direction towards oncoming traffic etc and just ignoring the rules of the road.
Do you prefer all road users to ignore the rules of the road and just do what they want? Its that attitude thats the cause of a lot of accidents on the roads. A bit of cop on can keep you safe.

Legal obligation to use cycle paths

Comments