Legal obligation to use cycle paths

Capt'n Midnight · 25-03-2012 06:00PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

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

http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/RSA-Statistics/Surveys--Consultations/Speed/

In the past 98-99% of drivers on urban link roads were above the speed limit.
It's a lot better than it was, but I've never heard of anyone doing any survey on cyclists with anything like that sort of measured breaking of laws, nevermind one specific law.

Every day I drive I see motorists who can't indicate correctly on roundabouts, on phones, changing lanes without indicating, on motorways it's the norm to see HGV's exceed the speed limit. Or turning right at the no right turn sign at the right turn at Kilmainham. Add in stuff like driving on white hatched islands (one penalty point) and I'd have to say that most Irish motorists break the law on a regular basis.

Why does all this matter ?

Because most collisions between cars and motorists happen at junctions where cycle paths end.

And it's frequently a case of a cyclist on the main road having right of way over a left turning car Vs. a left turning car having right of way of a cyclist on a separate cycle path. Loosing your right of way doesn't help safety. It doesn't help motorists respect cyclists either as they unlearn that they have to yield to cyclists when cutting across their path.

When a cyclist stops they have to get back to cruising speed again, the energy required is roughly the same as cruising for 300m. Three stops because you've lost right of way is nearly equivalent to adding one Km to a cyclists journey.

Most of our cycle lanes are geared to cyclists giving up rights. They are expected to yield to third class road users at junctions, they are expected to wait for pedestrian lights at junctions and roundabouts, they are expected to dismount and open the gate and manoveur a bike though and close the gate and remount. (this took a lot of pleasure out of the canal path into the city) They are expected to use a surface that if it was on a road would be scheduled for repair. They are expected to use a surface that is never swept clear of glass and debris.

Cycling facilities in Dublin are getting better, but a lot of the money has been wasted when in could have been used to provide commuter friendly routes. Every commuter that moves from car to bike frees up a car space somewhere, the goal to get 25% of commuter journeys by bike might be a lot closer to reality if 25% more road space was given to cyclists.

SleepDoc · 25-03-2012 06:37PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Thats rubbish and you now it. Are you seriously saying there is no such thing as an accident?
So if its not an accident then its intentional is that what you are saying?

You say the majority of the collisions are the fault of the motorists. Any proof?
Im not disputing it but seeing that you are sure of yourself.
By saying the majority of the collisions are the fault of the motorists and not all you are agreeing then that some are caused by cyclists themselves which is my main point.

Got any peer reviewed, objective papers of your own to support your point of view? Anecdote doesn't count.

Liability for a road traffic collision may be apportioned even if the act is not deliberate, for example, ommitting to switch on your lights at night.

You're really clutching at straws.

Hilly Bill · 25-03-2012 06:52PM

SleepDoc wrote: »

Got any peer reviewed, objective papers of your own to support your point of view? Anecdote doesn't count.

Liability for a road traffic collision may be apportioned even if the act is not deliberate, for example, ommitting to switch on your lights at night.

You're really clutching at straws.

What are you on about now?
Not clutching at any straws and i dont need any papers or links or anything else to know that there is such a thing as an accident . To thing otherwise is just plain daft.

Hilly Bill · 25-03-2012 06:59PM

dave_o_brien wrote: »

As lovely as this has been, I have to go after this response.

It wouldn't have to be taken to court unless one party didn't co-operate. In that case, yes it would be dependant on the garda report and legal action. It would be extremely unlikely to go to court, arbitration being far more likely due to its speed and low cost. Only then if one party did not agree with the resolution of arbitration would it go to court.

Having insurance will prevent collisions? That's a new one to me... How come it doesn't work for motorists?

It does work for those that have insurance in the first place as they take more care. As it stands with cyclists they think that they can cycle anywhere they want in any direction they want without the fear of prosecution .

Hilly Bill · 25-03-2012 07:01PM

loughgill wrote: »

Have found this and other similar posts on other threads very interesting. Seems logical. However, it might interest some of ye to know that this is the response I got from the Road Safety Authority recently when I asked them about my obligation to use cycle facilities of various types and signage.

"Footpath type cycle tracks which are identified by either; Signage or Road Markings must be used ".

(not claiming that anybody who calls such road markings pavement grafitti with no legal status is wrong or right, just sharing the fact that the opposite is what the RSA are putting out there and what we have to deal with).

So the rule is that if its marked as a cycle lane then it must be used provided its safe to do so of course?

SleepDoc · 25-03-2012 07:06PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

What are you on about now?
Not clutching at any straws and i dont need any papers or links or anything else to know that there is such a thing as an accident . To thing otherwise is just plain daft.

So it's a matter of faith to you then?

Like transubstantiation?

Hilly Bill · 25-03-2012 07:08PM

What are you on about now?

Cakewheels · 25-03-2012 07:21PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

So the rule is that if its marked as a cycle lane then it must be used provided its safe to do so of course?

No, don't think there's any real conclusive answers on what the rules are. I'm simply highlighting what the RSA have told me they are, in relation to footpath style cycle "tracks" (lanes are a different matter I think). Personally I find the arguments provided by others already in relation to the legislation and signage I think are quite convincing.

Tbh not sure how much they care about whether it's safe to do so, in my original email to them I asked them if the requirement to use tracks was regardless of the state of maintenance of the track and they ignored that question.

Since it's described in the ROTR how a cyclist can leave a cycle lane (to turn for example), I decided to ask them how one was expected to leave a footpath type track but they ignored that part too.

AltAccount · 25-03-2012 10:15PM

Well, in terms of the new cycle way we're discussing, it didn't take long for drivers to start abusing it...

pigtown · 25-03-2012 10:30PM

Is that a cycle-lane painted on the road beside the truck?

monument · 25-03-2012 11:20PM

pigtown wrote: »

Is that a cycle-lane painted on the road beside the truck?

Yes, the off-road cycle route and the on-road cycle lane serve two different functions.

loughgill wrote: »

Have found this and other similar posts on other threads very interesting. Seems logical. However, it might interest some of ye to know that this is the response I got from the Road Safety Authority recently when I asked them about my obligation to use cycle facilities of various types and signage.

"Footpath type cycle tracks which are identified by either; Signage or Road Markings must be used ".

(not claiming that anybody who calls such road markings pavement grafitti with no legal status is wrong or right, just sharing the fact that the opposite is what the RSA are putting out there and what we have to deal with).

The problem with the RSA is they do not know what they are talking about and generalise and don't seem to have any grasp of case law. They generally are not even the main authority on road traffic law -- the Department of Transport are.

So the RSA will give an answer that a "cycle track" must be used, but 90% of the time the "cycling" marking on footpaths do not conform to the legal meaning of "cycle track". Anything which does not conform to the legal requirements of a cycle tracks is not and mandatory use cannot apply!

I have sent official requests (using EU access environmental information law) to all the Dublin councils on invalid bus lane signs and UK-style shared use signs. Dublin City Council officially confirmed there was no legal backing for the signs in question (and in fairness to DCC, they also fixed the bus lane signs.

The Department of Transport is now well over due to bring in updated road sign regulations. These regs will apparently give legal backing to the bus lane, shared use and other signs, but will also apparently remove mandatory use of cycle tracks!

Hilly Bill wrote: »

So the rule is that if its marked as a cycle lane then it must be used provided its safe to do so of course?

That is incorrect. Mandatory use only applies to correctly marked "cycle tracks" and there are still loads of exceptions, both in law and in case law.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

That leaves 13% the fault of the cyclists .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0_G6Zrz4PU

This was posted a few pages ago and it shows the bad behaviour of cyclists which is widespread.
If a car had ploughed into one of them would you still be blaming the car?

Please tell me exactly what part of the video you are talking about -- the exact time?

monument · 25-03-2012 11:46PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

How are they not the same? They are both road users . Now you are just being silly with the children thing.

In your post directly before this one you said: "I havent said that cycling is the same as driving" and now you're asking "How are they not the same?" .... please make up your mind.

I'll answer your "How are they not the same?" question too:

Generally drivers are in control of a car which is at least a few tons, far larger, can hold at least four passengers, can crush people without moving much, can do 0-60mph (or nearly 100km/h) in a matter of seconds, and the driver is insulated in a large way from his or her surroundings and actions.

A bicycle on the other hand can generally only weighs little over the weight of a person, is little more than the size of a person, holds max another person, is close to zero danger when starting off from been stopped, most travel under 30km/h, usually requires the effort of the cyclist to go faster, and a cyclist is very exposed to his or her surroundings and actions.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Did you bother reading the part where i said "When its safe to do so? " I take it you didnt .

Safety is by far not the only issue -- it is clear you are keeping to one side and are not listening to people.

Cycling on road is a fairly safe activity. The British Medical Association found on far worse UK roads years ago that the health benefits of cycling far outweigh any risks (by 20 to 1). Dublin City is ranked as having some of the safest roads in Europe

Hilly Bill wrote: »

You missed the accidently bit.

And you missed the point that the cycle lane is irrelevant. Regardless of what "accidently" happened or did not happen.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Point was would the court rule against a cyclist regardless of who hit who if there was a safer bike lane off the road that the cyclist could have used and avoided the accident?

An apparent unused "safer bike lane" is irrelevant.

Using or not using an apparently "safer bike lane off the road that the cyclist could have used and avoided the accident" is about as relevant as the cyclist staying at home that day and avoiding the accident.

Cookie_Monster · 26-03-2012 01:28AM

loughgill wrote: »

Have found this and other similar posts on other threads very interesting. Seems logical. However, it might interest some of ye to know that this is the response I got from the Road Safety Authority recently when I asked them about my obligation to use cycle facilities of various types and signage.

"Footpath type cycle tracks which are identified by either; Signage or Road Markings must be used ".

more crap interpretation and wrong instruction from the RSA. Read the road traffic acts, they'll tell you exactly what is and is not allowed. The RSA have their own agendas to push and read the RTAs how they like to.

BostonB · 26-03-2012 02:40AM

Snickers Man wrote: »

...My only frustration is that many cyclists, for reasons I cannot fathom, seem to prefer to mix it with cars in the roadway instead of use the fine facilities the taxpayer has provided for them. ...

Because in general the facilities provided are an incoherent mess.

I don't understand the need for this grand cycle path along the canal. They've put it on quiet roads where there no traffic, and thus very little need to separate cyclists from motorists in the first place. Is there a history of accidents on these roads previously?

I'll guess a lot more cyclists use the other side of the canal and will continue to do so. As its much easier to join with other traffic and make turns into other roads when your in traffic than when you separated from it. The junctions on cycle path are much harder than just staying on the road.

BostonB · 26-03-2012 02:55AM

Snickers Man wrote: »

...The section that I travel along most and which annoys me most when cyclists use it is Herbert Place. There is NO good reason not to use the cycle path there, it's straight, well paved, separated from the road and with reasonable traffic signals. Cyclists slowing down car traffic on that stretch of road are just being inconsiderate....

Or they turn on to this road without knowing theres a cycle lane on one side of the road only. Its not where or how you'd expect it. Of course theres a Dublin Bike station there, on the side without a cycle lane.

This road is less than 300m long, traffic lights both ends, and usually very little traffic. Takes less than minute to drive it. Kinda hard to see how you'd get that worked up about it.

Cookie_Monster · 26-03-2012 08:54PM

Snickers Man wrote: »

separated from the road and with reasonable traffic signals

that's all the reason you need not to use it, it's not part of the road and obviously does not have the same priority...

Carawaystick · 26-03-2012 10:37PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

It is the minority that cycle with care and have all the right protective clothing and obey the rules of the road. Most just jump on a bike and maybe all they have is the helmet

There is no need to wear protective clothing cycling, like there is no need to wear protective clothing on a bus or walking.

There is absolutely no need to wear a bike helmet. posters have mentioned the Netherlands and Denmark as places where cycling is widespread, and no ppe is worn.

Aard · 26-03-2012 11:08PM

Wearing a helmet and other protective clobber gives motorists the idea that the cyclist is safer than he actually is, and consequently tend to be less careful. OTOH, the more "unsafe" cyclists look, the safer motorists drive. I've read something too about novice cyclists in city centres who tend to wobble a bit - that they encourage motorists to drive more slowly. A kind of de-facto enforcer of low (30km/h) speed limits, if you will.

overshoot · 26-03-2012 11:18PM

Aard wrote: »

Wearing a helmet and other protective clobber gives motorists the idea that the cyclist is safer than he actually is, and consequently tend to be less careful. OTOH, the more "unsafe" cyclists look, the safer motorists drive. I've read something too about novice cyclists in city centres who tend to wobble a bit - that they encourage motorists to drive more slowly. A kind of de-facto enforcer of low (30km/h) speed limits, if you will.

here you go (well its about distance not speed but backs up your point)

Across the board, drivers passed an average of 8.5 cm (3 1/3 inches) closer with the helmet than without
The research has been accepted for publication in the journal Accident Analysis & Prevention.

“We know from research that many drivers see cyclists as a separate subculture, to which they don’t belong,” said Dr Walker.

“As a result they hold stereotyped ideas about cyclists, often judging all riders by the yardstick of the lycra-clad street-warrior.

“This may lead drivers to believe cyclists with helmets are more serious, experienced and predictable than those without.

“The idea that helmeted cyclists are more experienced and less likely to do something unexpected would explain why drivers leave less space when passing.

“In reality, there is no real reason to believe someone with a helmet is any more experienced than someone without.

“By leaving the cyclist less room, drivers reduce the safety margin that cyclists need to deal with obstacles in the road, such as drain covers and potholes, as well as the margin for error in their own judgements.

“We know helmets are useful in low-speed falls, and so definitely good for children, but whether they offer any real protection to somebody struck by a car is very controversial.

“Either way, this study suggests wearing a helmet might make a collision more likely in the first place.”

i had thought it was a 3cm difference when i went looking for it

Aard · 27-03-2012 12:25AM

Critical mass is one of the most significant drivers of safety for cyclists. Laws that make helmet-wearing mandatory have an effect of reducing the number of people who cycle, taking away from any kind of safety in numbers. Australia is an unfortunate example of this.

Hilly Bill · 27-03-2012 01:17AM

Carawaystick wrote: »

There is no need to wear protective clothing cycling, like there is no need to wear protective clothing on a bus or walking.

There is absolutely no need to wear a bike helmet. posters have mentioned the Netherlands and Denmark as places where cycling is widespread, and no ppe is worn.

Are you for real?

Hilly Bill · 27-03-2012 01:21AM

monument wrote: »

Yes, the off-road cycle route and the on-road cycle lane serve two different functions.

The problem with the RSA is they do not know what they are talking about and generalise and don't seem to have any grasp of case law. They generally are not even the main authority on road traffic law -- the Department of Transport are.

So the RSA will give an answer that a "cycle track" must be used, but 90% of the time the "cycling" marking on footpaths do not conform to the legal meaning of "cycle track". Anything which does not conform to the legal requirements of a cycle tracks is not and mandatory use cannot apply!

I have sent official requests (using EU access environmental information law) to all the Dublin councils on invalid bus lane signs and UK-style shared use signs. Dublin City Council officially confirmed there was no legal backing for the signs in question (and in fairness to DCC, they also fixed the bus lane signs.

The Department of Transport is now well over due to bring in updated road sign regulations. These regs will apparently give legal backing to the bus lane, shared use and other signs, but will also apparently remove mandatory use of cycle tracks!

That is incorrect. Mandatory use only applies to correctly marked "cycle tracks" and there are still loads of exceptions, both in law and in case law.

Please tell me exactly what part of the video you are talking about -- the exact time?

If you watch the video then you will know, it a bit obvious.

Hilly Bill · 27-03-2012 01:30AM

monument wrote: »

In your post directly before this one you said: "I havent said that cycling is the same as driving" and now you're asking "How are they not the same?" .... please make up your mind.

I'll answer your "How are they not the same?" question too:

Generally drivers are in control of a car which is at least a few tons, far larger, can hold at least four passengers, can crush people without moving much, can do 0-60mph (or nearly 100km/h) in a matter of seconds, and the driver is insulated in a large way from his or her surroundings and actions.

A bicycle on the other hand can generally only weighs little over the weight of a person, is little more than the size of a person, holds max another person, is close to zero danger when starting off from been stopped, most travel under 30km/h, usually requires the effort of the cyclist to go faster, and a cyclist is very exposed to his or her surroundings and actions.

Safety is by far not the only issue -- it is clear you are keeping to one side and are not listening to people.

Cycling on road is a fairly safe activity. The British Medical Association found on far worse UK roads years ago that the health benefits of cycling far outweigh any risks (by 20 to 1). Dublin City is ranked as having some of the safest roads in Europe

And you missed the point that the cycle lane is irrelevant. Regardless of what "accidently" happened or did not happen.

An apparent unused "safer bike lane" is irrelevant.

Using or not using an apparently "safer bike lane off the road that the cyclist could have used and avoided the accident" is about as relevant as the cyclist staying at home that day and avoiding the accident.

Im well aware the diffrence between a car and a bike, there is no need to be silly about that.
Both are road users and are bound by the same rules of the road. What part of that dont you get?

Using or not using an apparently "safer bike lane off the road that the cyclist could have used and avoided the accident" is about as relevant as the cyclist staying at home that day and avoiding the accident

Thats absurd and you know it. You arent making much sense now to be honest.

Hilly Bill · 27-03-2012 01:32AM

AltAccount wrote: »

Well, in terms of the new cycle way we're discussing, it didn't take long for drivers to start abusing it...

Whats the legal obligation there? In my opinion the truck should be done for parking there .

BostonB · 27-03-2012 01:44AM

The problem is people do not feel they will be punished for breaking the rules of the road, and they they don't feel any social compunction to follow them either. The Irish mindset is to get one over authority. I dunno if that's ingrained from our history, but I suspect it is. Unfortunately the majority of the time they have nothing to fear, as Irish people don't complain much, and there's little enforcement of laws.

patrickbrophy18 · 27-03-2012 01:46AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Every day I drive I see motorists who can't indicate correctly on roundabouts, on phones, changing lanes without indicating, on motorways it's the norm to see HGV's exceed the speed limit. Or turning right at the no right turn sign at the right turn at Kilmainham. Add in stuff like driving on white hatched islands (one penalty point) and I'd have to say that most Irish motorists break the law on a regular basis.

While this thread is about The "Grand:rolleyes:" Canal Cycle Way. I'll go off topic to back you up on the quoted text. Anyway, the Dalkey "Squareabout" springs to mind in this instance. Half of the motorists I see at this anomaly of infrastructure are either using their phones or fail to signal in good time. In fact, recently, I have seen a rising number of motorists driving the wrong way along portions of it and even doing U-turns on the triangular traffic islands. In conclusion, Ireland is indeed rampant with crap drivers.

Back to the topic at hand, a lot of tweaks need to be made to the infrastructure in question i.e. The Grand Canal Cycle Route. These tweaks are mainly to do with the dangerous lack of synchronization and the farcically long intervals between green lights for pedestrians and cyclists. From the video a good few pages back, these intervals appear to be two minutes in length which is way too long. The frame rate had to be on fast-forward to show how long these intervals were.

Cookie_Monster · 27-03-2012 01:50AM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Are you for real?

of course he is.

Helmets (and other "protective clothes") are not needed for cycling, and they give the impression of it being far more dangerous than it is. Driving is far far more dangerous than cycling, crash statistics will back this up, but you don't hear calls for forcing motorists to wear helmets. I don't get why it's such a bug bear among people in Ireland, most EU countries are enlightened enough to know they make little difference and that cycling is not the dangerous activity people seem to delight in portrying it as here.

The societal impact of helmets is also well known, while they may marginally reduce fatalaties and injuries they drastically reduce the number of cyclist if made manditory and have a detrimental affect of overall population health.
Helmets are designed for very low speed, low mass crashes, falling off your bike for example, they offer next to no protection when you get hit by a car or truck at speed and are not designed for that anyway.

Hilly Bill · 27-03-2012 01:56AM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

of course he is.

Helmets (and other "protective clothes") are not needed for cycling, and they give the impression of it being far more dangerous than it is. Driving is far far more dangerous than cycle, crash statistics will back this up, but you don't hear calls for forcing motorists to wear helmets.

The societal impact of helmets is also well know, while they may marginally reduce fatalaties and injuries they drastically reduce the number of cyclist if made manditory and have a detrimental affect of overall population health.
Helmets are designed for very low speed, low mass crashes, falling off your bike for example, they offer next to no protection when you get hit by a car or truck at speed and are not designed for that anyway.

Its easier to fall off your bike than fall out of your car hence why a helmet is needed. Its not just the helmet but the hi visable clothing in day and especially at night with a light.
If there is no protection if you get hit by a car or a truck at speed then doesnt that make it a good reason that bikes should not be on the roads and proper safe bike lane built and not the red tarmac lanes that we have at the side of the road.

overshoot · 27-03-2012 02:37AM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Its easier to fall off your bike than fall out of your car hence why a helmet is needed. Its not just the helmet but the hi visable clothing in day and especially at night with a light.

As per my earlier reply

“We know helmets are useful in low-speed falls, and so definitely good for children, but whether they offer any real protection to somebody struck by a car is very controversial.
“Either way, this study suggests wearing a helmet might make a collision more likely in the first place.”

yes a cyclist should be lit up at night, same as any car and helmets are good at low speeds... roughly around that of a jogger, should they wear them? what is the point of it, if if increases your chances of an accident where it will be of no use to you?

Hilly Bill wrote: »

If there is no protection if you get hit by a car or a truck at speed then doesnt that make it a good reason that bikes should not be on the roads and proper safe bike lane built and not the red tarmac lanes that we have at the side of the road.

again as was posted earlier, awareness! the accident doesnt happen in the straight line, it is at the unavoidable mixing points. remove the awareness increase the accidents.
i would side with dave's points earlier about a full reverse of the traffic priorities. when you watch junction flows abroad it is nearly as simple as giving straight through priority for all, turning left/right becomes subservient. i think something like n2/n3/doyles corner is probably the closest we have to this.
but if the council are going to make cycle lanes they could at least make decent attempts and not hash jobs in places which renders the other 90% useless to the commuter cyclist who is interested in time not scenery... just like the commuter driver! (citing the blind corner and mix with pedestrians as the main example and traffic light times).

think il go back to lurker mode now

Cookie_Monster · 27-03-2012 02:45AM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Its easier to fall off your bike than fall out of your car hence why a helmet is needed. Its not just the helmet but the hi visable clothing in day and especially at night with a light.

high vis is the most ridiculous thing ever invented and has zero benefit on the roads. Lights are manditory, as they should be. It's not about falling out of your car but crashing it, helmets would reduce deaths and injuries amoung car drivers but will never be made manditory because it's ridiculous.

So why not make car drivers wear helmets, just in case, or at the very least protective eyewear in case the glass breaks. Yes I'm being ridiculous, but so is anyone who think helmet usage is nessecary for casual road cyclists. The risks are just not there.

If there is no protection if you get hit by a car or a truck at speed then doesnt that make it a good reason that bikes should not be on the roads and proper safe bike lane built and not the red tarmac lanes that we have at the side of the road.

no, the more vunerable the road user they more they should be catered for on the road rather than trying to banish them to off road routes that have less priority, do not always follow roads and subject to the badly planned, designed and built cycle lanes/tracks/paths in this country.

Legal obligation to use cycle paths

Comments