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

Irish Cycling Legislation

Options
12357…12

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    NeedMoreGears
    Registered Users Posts: 1,418 ✭✭✭NeedMoreGears


    Thanks for all the relies to my query.

    My own understanding would be that a cycle lane (not a track as defined in the legislation) is not a "normal" lane. It's more of a place where motors vehicles should not be (other than in specific defined circumstances). Hence the normal concept of changing lanes does not apply (yielding to traffic already in the lane etc) and the various requirement of the cycling undertaking SI apply even where a cyclist is in a cycle lane - i.e. there are circumstances where the cyclist already occupying the cycle lane must yield.

    My suspicion/concern is that cyclist may not be aware of this and may feel that cars will yield to them when turning left, when in fact they don't have to.

    Cycle tracks (as in properly marked and designated ones) may be a different matter but any I've used have had some badly designed yield on the cyclist side, effectively interrupting the cycle track to allow motor vehicles across it.


  • Options
    #123
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,073 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    In Irish law:

    Cycle lanes = cycle tracks.


  • Options
    #124
    UDP
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,188 ✭✭✭UDP


    Not sure if this clarifies things any further.
    https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2013-03-07a.722
    Leo Varadkar wrote:
    The 1998 Regulations to which the Deputy refers amend the 1997 Regulations in order to provide a uniform definition of a cycle track as 'part of a road, including part of a footway or part of a roadway, which is provided primarily for the use of pedal cycles'. Cycle tracks are defined on the ground by signage, including markings on roads or footpaths as set out in the Road Traffic (Signs) Regulations 1997-2012.
    A cycle track is specifically called a track in the regulations and is not identified as a 'lane'. I presume that the Deputy's reference to a duty to yield refers to Regulation 8 of S.I. No. 182 of 1997, which deals with Yielding Right of way, and refers to lanes. This Regulation does not apply to cycle tracks as, when a cycle track 'crosses' other traffic, the crossing is not part of the cycle track. Cycle traffic moving from one section of cycle track to another through a junction must abide by the controls at the junction, such as traffic lights or yield signs, on the same basis as any other traffic. I am not currently reviewing the regulations in respect of cycle tracks.


  • Options
    #125
    Traumadoc
    Registered Users Posts: 2,523 ✭✭✭Traumadoc


    Does that mean if you are in a cycle track, and an oncoming car wants to turn right , they have right of way?:confused:


  • Options
    #126
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,073 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Traumadoc wrote: »
    Does that mean if you are in a cycle track, and an oncoming car wants to turn right , they have right of way?:confused:

    No neassary because when cycle traffic is following this:

    "Cycle traffic moving from one section of cycle track to another through a junction must abide by the controls at the junction, such as traffic lights or yield signs, on the same basis as any other traffic."

    The inside and straight ahead traffic of any type has a common law expectation that traffic in the outside should yield right of way.

    Strangely to many people: you're wrong if you say "I have the right of way", the question is: "Who should be expected to yield right of way?"

    The parliamentary reply is flawed in a way because the focus of the question is flawed, the question of yielding to the inside lane as quoted refers to traffic switching lanes -- crossing you're not allow to drive in and turning is a different matter. The question was posed on a flawed understanding of law and that law is just written law, not also including intent of lawmakers; exceptions; case law etc.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,073 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Just to be cristal clear:

    The Department are clearly correct when they say that Regulation 8 of S.I. No. 182 of 1997, which deals with Yielding Right of way, and refers to lanes does not apply to cycle lanes.

    This is what the section says:

    "(8) A driver shall not drive from one traffic lane to another without yielding the right of way to traffic in that other lane."

    I motorist should not be driving in a cycle track so it can't legally "drive from one traffic lane" in regards to a cycle track. It's an impossibility for that regulation to apply to cycle tracks.

    And crossing over a lane/track/path etc is a different thing. Anybody who suggested that section apples is in the wrong, not the department.


  • Options
    #128
    roverrules
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 331 ✭✭roverrules


    Traumadoc wrote: »
    Does that mean if you are in a cycle track, and an oncoming car wants to turn right , they have right of way?:confused:

    Would imagine that would depend on
    Cycle traffic moving from one section of cycle track to another through a junction must abide by the controls at the junction, such as traffic lights or yield signs, on the same basis as any other traffic. I am not currently reviewing the regulations in respect of cycle tracks.


    If they're there their right of way is confirmed.


  • Options
    #129
    Traumadoc
    Registered Users Posts: 2,523 ✭✭✭Traumadoc


    So a cyclist in a cycle lane is the same as a pedestrian on a footpath?


  • Options
    #130
    UDP
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,188 ✭✭✭UDP


    monument wrote: »
    Just to be cristal clear:

    The Department are clearly correct when they say that Regulation 8 of S.I. No. 182 of 1997, which deals with Yielding Right of way, and refers to lanes does not apply to cycle lanes.

    This is what the section says:

    "(8) A driver shall not drive from one traffic lane to another without yielding the right of way to traffic in that other lane."

    I motorist should not be driving in a cycle track so it can't legally "drive from one traffic lane" in regards to a cycle track. It's an impossibility for that regulation to apply to cycle tracks.

    And crossing over a lane/track/path etc is a different thing. Anybody who suggested that section apples is in the wrong, not the department.
    Yes, because a cycle track is not a lane. It is part of a lane so that is why the rules regarding changing lanes does not apply to the track as the then minister points out.


  • Options
    #131
    NamelessPhil
    Registered Users Posts: 1,098 ✭✭✭NamelessPhil


    The status of cycle tracks is also complicated by the fact that some of them have signs with times of operation on them such as the infamous track that passes through Ranelagh.

    I would argue that a cycle track with a time of operation sign should be kept clear for cyclists during the specified times and motorists should not encroach during the period of operation.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,073 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    UDP wrote: »
    Yes, because a cycle track is not a lane. It is part of a lane so that is why the rules regarding changing lanes does not apply to the track as the then minister points out.

    No because motorists can't change lanes into a cycle lane.

    It's illegal for them to drive in a cycle lane, marked with a solid line. And the cycle lanes marked with a dashed line used mostly in Dublin where they never should have been.

    Where did you think it says that cycle tracks are part of another lane? Are footpaths and bus lanes also "part of a lane" because they are not classed as general traffic lanes?


  • Options
    #133
    UDP
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,188 ✭✭✭UDP


    monument wrote: »
    No because motorists can't change lanes into a cycle lane.

    It's illegal for them to drive in a cycle lane, marked with a solid line. And the cycle lanes marked with a dashed line used mostly in Dublin where they never should have been.

    Where did you think it says that cycle tracks are part of another lane? Are footpaths and bus lanes also "part of a lane" because they are not classed as general traffic lanes?
    Sorry, what I meant is they are part of the road generally but are not a separate traffic lane. Many of the cycle lanes can be driven on by cars and do act as part of the lane they are beside (when they have a broken line). This is part of the problem with Cycle lanes - it is not 100% clear where they fit into the road traffic laws. They are not a lane but many of them have restricted access. This is why cyclists need to be very careful when using them as they do not have the clear right of way some people think they do.


  • Options
    #134
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,073 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    UDP wrote: »
    Sorry, what I meant is they are part of the road generally but are not a separate traffic lane. Many of the cycle lanes can be driven on by cars and do act as part of the lane they are beside (when they have a broken line). This is part of the problem with Cycle lanes - it is not 100% clear where they fit into the road traffic laws. They are not a lane but many of them have restricted access. This is why cyclists need to be very careful when using them as they do not have the clear right of way some people think they do.

    I think we need to make a clear distinction between normal cycle lanes which are marked with a solid white line and a cycle track sign (ie 'mandatory cycle tracks') on one hand, and then on the other hand dashed cycle lanes which which never should have been used as extensively as they have been and when are often marked within other lanes without any signs to back them up (without signs these are not cycle tracks).

    For example, the dashed cycle lanes inside most bus lanes have no legal meaning. One of the few exceptions I can think of is the Rock Road opposite Blackrock College where there's both a bus lane sign and a cycle track sign.

    But even with dashed cycle lanes, it's questionable if the legal allowance of allowed to drive in them extends to driving along them for extended lengths. The purpose of being allowed to drive in them was mainly for access to footpaths, short-term loading etc.


  • Options
    #135
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Just thought I'd add a note here about the Fixed-Charge Notice regime.

    The regime starts on the 31st of July 2015. It introduces no new laws, but allows a Garda to issue a ticket to a person breaking one of seven laws, rather than go through the lengthy process of bringing them to court.

    The seven offences are:
    1. Cyclist driving a pedal cycle without reasonable consideration.
    2. No front lamp or rear lamp lit during lighting-up hours on a pedal cycle.
    3. Cyclist proceeding into a pedestrianised street or area.
    4. Cyclist proceeding past traffic lights when the red lamp is illuminated.
    5. Cyclist proceeding past cycle traffic lights when red lamp is lit.
    6. Cyclist failing to stop for a School Warden sign.
    7. Cyclist proceeding beyond a stop line, barrier or half barrier at a railway level crossing, swing bridge or lifting bridge, when the red lamps are flashing


  • Options
    #136
    Captain Chaos
    Registered Users Posts: 11,174 ✭✭✭✭Captain Chaos


    If I was a Gard I'd be able to hand out about 20-50 tickets a day on my walk to and from work. But realistically there is no way to enforce any of that, no man power for one and there is nothing to stop a cyclist for just leaving the area and getting away either. Also how do you issue a ticket with a fine to someone with no ID. Most cyclists would not carry any official ID on them most of the time.


  • Options
    #137
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Covered here somewhere:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057356011

    Main discussion there. Just thought I'd put a note here, since this is linked to by the Charter sticky. And it is new legislation (albeit with no new offences, just a new system of punishment), legislation being the subject of this thread.


  • Options
    #138
    rubadub
    Registered Users Posts: 32,379 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    Captain Chaos wrote: »
    If I was a Gard I'd be able to hand out about 20-50 tickets a day on my walk to and from work. But realistically there is no way to enforce any of that,
    realistically there is no need to enforce most of that.

    If they had jaywalking fines as easy you could had out several thousand, but again in most cases it would sensibly not be enforced. Most people I encounter breaking these laws do it in a fairly safe & reasonable manner. Even the whingers seem to turn a blind eye and only focus on the dangerous minority.
    Captain Chaos wrote: »
    Also how do you issue a ticket with a fine to someone with no ID.
    same way as other fines or incidents.


  • Options
    #139
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    Captain Chaos wrote: »
    If I was a Gard I'd be able to hand out about 20-50 tickets a day on my walk to and from work.

    If I was a Garda, I could spend all day every day at any major junction and hand out 30 or so tickets each hour to drivers breaking the red lights.


  • Options
    #140
    Shep_Dog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 499 ✭✭Shep_Dog


    RainyDay wrote: »
    If I was a Garda, I could spend all day every day at any major junction and hand out 30 or so tickets each hour to drivers breaking the red lights.
    You could increase number that if you included failing to stop on amber or failing to stop behind the stop line...both are offenses and both commonly committed by 'law-abiding' motorists.


  • Options
    #141
    sconhome
    Registered Users Posts: 5,468 ✭✭✭sconhome


    Captain Chaos wrote: »
    I Also how do you issue a ticket with a fine to someone with no ID. Most cyclists would not carry any official ID on them most of the time.

    Was mentioned on Twitter that if you can't ID yourself to the satisfaction of the Garda your bike will be confiscated.

    https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/625058217186471937


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    Shep_Dog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 499 ✭✭Shep_Dog


    Was stopped at red lights today, on my hack bike, a 'sportif' rider on a road bike, wearing an An Post White jersey and green shorts just cruised past me like there was no red light and signalled authoritatively to another cyclist who was coming through a green light, to get out of his way....

    I'm really looking forward to seeing some fines handed out.


  • Options
    #143
    rubadub
    Registered Users Posts: 32,379 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    AKW wrote: »
    Was mentioned on Twitter that if you can't ID yourself to the satisfaction of the Garda your bike will be confiscated.
    Interesting, I have a clapped out rust bucket and thought I was going to have to go to the dump and pay to be rid of it. :p


  • Options
    #144
    NorthStars
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,120 ✭✭✭NorthStars


    Captain Chaos wrote: »
    If I was a Gard I'd be able to hand out about 20-50 tickets a day on my walk to and from work. But realistically there is no way to enforce any of that, no man power for one and there is nothing to stop a cyclist for just leaving the area and getting away either. Also how do you issue a ticket with a fine to someone with no ID. Most cyclists would not carry any official ID on them most of the time.

    Cyclists are road users and as such should have their cycles registered and be insured to cover any damage they may cause to other road users.
    I'd suggest a cycle tax too.


  • Options
    #145
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    I know you're joking, rubadub, but recycling centres (or dumps as they used to be called) take bikes for free. My local ones does anyway.


  • Options
    #146
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    NorthStars wrote: »
    Cyclists are road users and as such should have their cycles registered and be insured to cover any damage they may cause to other road users.
    I'd suggest a cycle tax too.
    George?


  • Options
    #147
    rubadub
    Registered Users Posts: 32,379 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    NorthStars wrote: »
    Cyclists are road users and as such should have their cycles registered and be insured to cover any damage they may cause to other road users.
    I'd suggest a cycle tax too.
    Same could be said of pedestrians, the lack of countries doing either speaks volumes about your genius idea...


  • Options
    #148
    buffalo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,059 ✭✭✭buffalo


    NorthStars wrote: »
    Cyclists are road users and as such should have their cycles registered and be insured to cover any damage they may cause to other road users.
    I'd suggest a cycle tax too.

    I read a great post recently which explored the issue of car insurance vs bike insurance in the UK, and came to the following conclusion:
    there’s a fighting chance that the rate of insurance coverage for people on bicycles is—because it is so cheaply and widely available—actually higher than it is for people in motor vehicles.

    Interesting reading, and definitely a site for the subscription list: https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2015/06/03/them-and-theirs/


  • Options
    #149
    NorthStars
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,120 ✭✭✭NorthStars


    rubadub wrote: »
    Same could be said of pedestrians, the lack of countries doing either speaks volumes about your genius idea...

    Yea, sure all we can do in this country is follow others lead.

    So, say a cyclist knocks down a pedestrian and seriously injures him/her (as has happened) and then leaves the scene, how does the law catch up with these people?
    A registration and insurance regulation would firstly allow witnesses to possibly identify the cyclist and cyclist insurance would cover medical bills etc.
    Cyclists are freeloaders, they want the facilities but aren't prepared to pay for them in any way.


  • Options
    #150
    kenmc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,276 ✭✭✭kenmc


    NorthStars wrote: »
    Yea, sure all we can do in this country is follow others lead.

    So, say a cyclist knocks down a pedestrian and seriously injures him/her (as has happened) and then leaves the scene, how does the law catch up with these people?
    A registration and insurance regulation would firstly allow witnesses to possibly identify the cyclist and cyclist insurance would cover medical bills etc.
    Cyclists are freeloaders, they want the facilities but aren't prepared to pay for them in any way.

    What about when a pedestrian knocks down a cyclist and leaves the scene, as happened to my wife. Everyone should wear billboards when they're out walking too. A registration and insurance regulation would firstly allow witnesses to possibly identify the pedestrian and pedestrian insurance would cover medical bills etc.
    Pedestrians are freeloaders, they want the facilities but aren't prepared to pay for them in any way.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,268 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Can I remind anyone who is new to the forum to read the charter, in particular Section 8. This isn't the place for "cyclists should pay road tax" type posts.

    Thanks


Advertisement