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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Can you cycle up a one-way street?

2456

Comments

  • #52
    ceannair06
    Closed Accounts Posts: 205 ✭✭ceannair06


    schemingbohemia wrote: »
    You might mention this to all the people in the Netherlands, France and many other countries that provide for contra-flow cycling on one-way streets.

    Because something is legal in another country doesn't make it legal in yours.


  • #53
    galwaytt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,790 ✭✭✭✭galwaytt


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    An example would be the idea that any restriction that applies to cars must also be applied to cyclists. It is a cultural view or cultural concept it has nothing to do with logic or the law.

    "Cultural concept" = "Particular mindset or view of the world"

    ..the reverse is also true: it is also a (construed) cultural concept that cycling is for everyone, that everyone is capable of it (responsibly), that it is suitable for everywhere, and that it must be accommodated at the expense of any other road user or indeed the principles of road safety. Cycling against oncoming traffic (short of a specific legal, marked route to do so) - quite apart from the ineptitude of the ability to comprehend plain English, is spectacularly stupid as well as feeding the view that they are lawless.

    And I'm cyclist too btw.

    Ode To The Motorist

    “And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, generates funds to the exchequer. You don't want to acknowledge that as truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at the Green Party, you want me on that road, you need me on that road. We use words like freedom, enjoyment, sport and community. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent instilling those values in our families and loved ones. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the tax revenue and the very freedom to spend it that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a bus pass and get the ********* ********* off the road” 



  • #54
    schemingbohemia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,606 ✭✭✭schemingbohemia


    GM228 wrote: »
    The difference is it is legal in those countries, they can cycle the wrong way up a one way street without a contra flow lane, here you can't legally do that!

    GM228
    ceannair06 wrote: »
    Because something is legal in another country doesn't make it legal in yours.

    My reply was based on Ceannair06's reply to the post that suggested such a law was about to be brought in!

    So to make it easier, in many countries it is legal to cycle contra-flow in one way streets, it is currently allowed for here as was mentioned earlier in the thread, many more should be brought in.

    Ceannair06 is anti-cyclist and doesn't seem to realise that it's actually easier to see a cyclist coming towards you rather than from behind and thus safer for both driver and cyclist.


  • #55
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    ceannair06 wrote: »
    Because something is legal in another country doesn't make it legal in yours.

    Because something is legal in another country doesn't make it ridiculous to ask if it is legal in this country.


  • #56
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    ceannair06 wrote: »
    Apologies - but come on, it's like saying "can I steal from an OAP ?", "Can I fondle my dog on Grand Canal Square ?", "Can I have a kip in the beds in Arnott's ?". Ridiculous questions deserve contempt!
    But it is legal to cycle in the direction opposite to motor traffic on North Leinster st, and a few others in Phibsboro, Dublin.

    So its a germane question


  • #57
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    Carawaystick wrote: »
    But it is legal to cycle in the direction opposite to motor traffic on North Leinster st, and a few others in Phibsboro, Dublin.

    So its a germane question

    That is correct, DCC introduced a few of them and wanted to expand the plans, and following a 20/20 split vote on the issue it was then blocked by Críona Ní Dhálaig, that may have something to do with the fact that they are not actually legal!

    GM228


  • #58
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    GM228 wrote: »
    that may have something to do with the fact that they are not actually legal!

    Link to the legislation banning them please?


  • #59
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    Carawaystick wrote: »
    Link to the legislation banning them please?

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html#zzsi182y1997a28

    S.I. No. 182/1997 - Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997-Section 28

    "28. Where traffic sign number RRM 019 [No Entry Line] is provided across the entrance to a road, a driver shall not proceed beyond such sign so as to enter that road."

    There are no exceptions to Section 28.

    GM228


  • #60
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    GM228 wrote: »
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html#zzsi182y1997a28

    S.I. No. 182/1997 - Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997-Section 28

    "28. Where traffic sign number RRM 019 [No Entry Line] is provided across the entrance to a road, a driver shall not proceed beyond such sign so as to enter that road."

    There are no exceptions to Section 28.

    GM228

    The exceptions can easily be made by removing part of the no-entry marking -- see attached images for examples with different levels of segregation.

    In most cases on the streets which the recent council vote was related to, the cycle path would have to be fully segregated. So, you're basically talking about a separate carriageway.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    GM228 wrote: »
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html#zzsi182y1997a28

    S.I. No. 182/1997 - Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997-Section 28

    "28. Where traffic sign number RRM 019 [No Entry Line] is provided across the entrance to a road, a driver shall not proceed beyond such sign so as to enter that road."

    There are no exceptions to Section 28.

    GM228

    See attached images.


  • #62
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    GM228 wrote: »
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html#zzsi182y1997a28

    S.I. No. 182/1997 - Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997-Section 28

    "28. Where traffic sign number RRM 019 [No Entry Line] is provided across the entrance to a road, a driver shall not proceed beyond such sign so as to enter that road."

    There are no exceptions to Section 28.

    GM228

    Yes, there are. See attached.

    Same on dual carriageway and car parks etc with separate entry / exit points.


  • #63
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    monument wrote: »
    Yes, there are. See attached.

    Same on dual carriageway and car parks etc with separate entry / exit points.

    They are contra-flow cycle lanes which are allowed for in legislation, however in relation to cycling against traffic up a one way street which is what we are talking about it is not legal, and that is was DCC have done and tried to expand on (i.e. NO contra-flow lanes.).

    A contra-flow cycle lane is indeed regarded as seperate to a one way street and so Section 28 does not apply in that case.

    GM228


  • #64
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    GM228 wrote: »
    They are contra-flow cycle lanes which are allowed for in legislation, however in relation to cycling against traffic up a one way street which is what we are talking about it is not legal, and that is was DCC have done and tried to expand on (i.e. NO contra-flow lanes.).

    A contra-flow cycle lane is indeed regarded as seperate to a one way street and so Section 28 does not apply in that case.

    GM228

    No cycle lane in the attached example.

    But nearly all of the streets in the 20/20 vote you referenced would require cycle paths or lanes, more likely fully segregated paths.


  • #65
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    GM228 wrote: »
    They are contra-flow cycle lanes which are allowed for in legislation, however in relation to cycling against traffic up a one way street which is what we are talking about it is not legal, and that is was DCC have done and tried to expand on (i.e. NO contra-flow lanes.).

    A contra-flow cycle lane is indeed regarded as seperate to a one way street and so Section 28 does not apply in that case.

    GM228

    No cycle lane in the attached example.

    But nearly all of the streets in the 20/20 vote you referenced would require cycle paths or lanes, more likely fully segregated paths.


  • #66
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    monument wrote: »
    No cycle lane in the attached example.

    But nearly all of the streets in the 20/20 vote you referenced would require cycle paths or lanes, more likely fully segregated paths.

    Having looked at it more closely I agree, which makes it not legal! I suspect that it was meant to be a contra-flow, but the continuous white lines were obviously never done.

    You can currebtly only cycle against taffic legally in a contra-flow cycle lane which clearly that isn't, weather that's intentional or accidental I don't know-either way it is not legal.

    The 20/20 vote included some streets without a contra-flow lane. They already provided some, DCC have already created some illegally!

    GM228


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    GM228 wrote: »
    Having looked at it more closely I agree, which makes it illegal! I suspect that it was meant to be a contra-flow, but the continuous white lines were obviously never done.

    You can currebtly only cycle against taffic legally in a contra-flow cycle lane which clearly that isn't, weather that's intentional or accidental I don't know-either way it is not legal.

    The 20/20 vote included some streets without a contra-flow lane. They already provided some, DCC have already created some illegally!

    GM228

    Uh no unless you can produce some legal.source for this then to my knowledge this is not correct. Legally, in situations where the entrance to a street is blocked by "no-entry" markings then a cycle track marking is required to cross the "no-entry" markings. There is nothing in law that says the cycle track has to continue up the street.

    Also there is nothing in law that says that "no-entry" markings must be used at all. The use of an upright no-entry sign with a crossed-arrow is enough. And in law there can simply be a plate on the sign giving an exemption to cyclists (or buses as I recall).


  • #68
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    GM228 wrote: »
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html#zzsi182y1997a28

    S.I. No. 182/1997 - Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997-Section 28

    "28. Where traffic sign number RRM 019 [No Entry Line] is provided across the entrance to a road, a driver shall not proceed beyond such sign so as to enter that road."

    There are no exceptions to Section 28.

    GM228

    You are looking at the wrong regulations - this was amended under the 1998 statutory instrument.


  • #69
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    GM228 wrote: »
    Having looked at it more closely I agree, which makes it illegal! I suspect that it was meant to be a contra-flow, but the continuous white lines were obviously never done.

    What exactly makes it illegal or even not legal?

    There's a legal difference between illegal and not legal, but I think something can be fully legal if you can work around the law (even if guidelines don't provide for it).
    GM228 wrote: »
    You can currebtly only cycle against taffic legally in a contra-flow cycle lane which clearly that isn't, weather that's intentional or accidental I don't know-either way it is not legal.

    There's no law that actually says this. You were asked for such already and you quoted the no-entry line markings law with no exceptions but the no-entry markings can be adjusted with use of an entry treatment and there's nothing that says it can be.
    GM228 wrote: »
    The 20/20 vote included some streets without a contra-flow lane.

    "The motion was promoted at a recent draft development plan meeting by Cllr Clare Byrne (Green Party). It named Parnell Square South, Nassau Street, Merrion Row, Pearse Street, Granby Row, Pembroke Road (Dublin 2), and St Stephen’s Green where contra-flow would be introduced."

    http://irishcycle.com/2015/10/05/push-to-secure-contra-flow-cycling-on-key-dublin-streets-fails-by-one-vote/

    Which one of those would you do without a lane or path?


    GM228 wrote: »
    They already provided some, DCC have already created some illegally!

    There's a bit of a stretch between messed up on no-entry markings / bypass treatment and any illegality -- it's not clear that it's a civil or criminal offense, and I would not say it is. So, while it may not be 100% legal, that does not make it illegal.


  • #70
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    Uh no unless you can produce some legal.source for this then to my knowledge this is not correct. Legally, in situations where the entrance to a street is blocked by "no-entry" markings then a cycle track marking is required to cross the "no-entry" markings. There is nothing in law that says the cycle track has to continue up the street.

    Also there is nothing in law that says that "no-entry" markings must be used at all. The use of an upright no-entry sign with a crossed-arrow is enough. And in law there can simply be a plate on the sign giving an exemption to cyclists (or buses as I recall).

    Indeed there is technically no legal requirement to provide the signs, however when they are provided there can be an exception for a cyclist, however the law is very clear that contra-flow cycling is only permitted in a contra-flow cycle lane, and a contra-flow cycle lane must be seperated by a continuous white line.

    The wording for No Entry reverted back to the 1997 version in 2012.

    GM228


  • #71
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    I edited my last post above, it was incorrectly posted before it was finished.
    GM228 wrote: »
    ...the law is very clear that contra-flow cycling is only permitted in a contra-flow cycle lane, and a contra-flow cycle lane must be seperated by a continuous white line.

    Is that written down somewhere? In legislation or a court judgement. If not, what makes it very clear?


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    GM228 wrote: »
    Indeed there is technically no legal requirement to provide the signs, however when they are provided there can be an exception for a cyclist, however the law is very clear that contra-flow cycling is only permitted in a contra-flow cycle lane, and a contra-flow cycle lane must be seperated by a continuous white line.

    The wording for No Entry reverted back to the 1997 version in 2012.

    GM228

    What I recall happened in 2012 was that the regulations introduced a new EU style variant on the no-entry sign - red disc with a white bar. This version does not have the exemption plate.

    However the old version, the crossed arrow in a red circle with or without the exemption plate, remains lawful.


  • #73
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    monument wrote: »
    I edited my last post above, it was incorrectly posted before it was finished.



    Is that written down somewhere? In legislation or a court judgement. If not, what makes it very clear?

    In legislation.

    The various RTAs apply to cyclists in the exact same manner as a motorist, infact the term "driver" actually also refers to a person in charge of a bicycle and a bicyle is also a vehicle, and that is the legally implied term which can not be disputed or questioned, there is no exception to a cyclist unless specifically allowed for in legislation, so to say a cyclist can drive the wrong way up a one way street is wrong, no road user can (except emergency services), there are no exceptions in the law otherwise except that a cyclist can cycle contra-flow to traffic, but only in a contra-flow lane. Driving contra-flow or against traffic up a one way street is different to driviing contra-flow in a contra-flow lane.

    I have a consolidated version of the RTA 1961 including all amendments/revisions etc which is up to date as of August 2015 so bear with me whilst I find the specific act which included it, but it is there as follows:-

    "pedal cycles shall only be driven in a contra-flow direction on such track".

    That is pretty clear!

    GM228


  • #74
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    What I recall happened in 2012 was that the regulations introduced a new EU style variant on the no-entry sign - red disc with a white bar. This version does not have the exemption plate.

    However the old version, the crossed arrow in a red circle with or without the exemption plate, remains lawful.

    That is correct, the new sign (known as RUS 050) can't have an exempt plate, the old sign (known as the RUS 011) can have an exemption plate, but in the case of a cyclist only if there is a contra-flow cycle lane.

    The difference between the two signs is the new one is a no entry sign, the second is a no straigh ahead sign!

    GM228


  • #75
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    GM228 wrote: »
    That is correct, the new sign (known as RUS 050) can't have an exempt plate, the old sign (known as the RUS 011) can have an exemption plate, but in the case of a cyclist only if there is a contra-flow cycle lane.

    The difference between the two signs is the new one is a no entry sign, the second is a no straigh ahead sign!

    GM228

    So if the no-entry road marking is not required, what is your source for your claim that a cycle track is needed to pass a "no straight ahead" sign?


  • #76
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    /
    GM228 wrote: »
    In legislation.

    The various RTAs apply to cyclists in the exact same manner as a motorist, infact the term "driver" actually also refers to a cyclist and that is the legally implied term which can not be disputed or questioned, there is no exception to a cyclist unless specifically allowed for in legislation, so to say a cyclist can drive the wrong way up a one way street is wrong, no road user can (except emergency services), there are no exceptions in the law otherwise except that a cyclist can cycle contra-flow to traffic, but only in a contra-flow lane. Driving contra-flow or against traffic up a one way street is different to driviing contra-flow in a contra-flow lane.

    Yes there is an exception, in design: Provide a way around the no-entry markings and put an "except bicycles/cyclists" plate onto the old-style no-entry sign.

    GM228 wrote: »
    I have a consolidated version of the RTA 1961 including all amendments/revisions etc which is up to date as of August 2015 so bear with me whilst I find the specific act which included it, but it is there as follows:-

    "pedal cycles shall only be driven in a contra-flow direction on such track".

    That is pretty clear!

    GM228

    You're quoting S.I. No. 332/2012 out of context there. The line you quote "pedal cycles shall only be driven in a contra-flow direction on such track" relates to the mandatory use of cycle tracks where such tracks are provided -- it does not make the provision of such tracks mandatory and if such tracks are not provided, in any type of setting, people cycling can't be expected to use them.

    Nor does it or anything else require that that continuous lined cycle tracks are the only option for contra-flow streets.


  • #77
    trellheim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,964 ✭✭✭trellheim


    SI 332 of 2012 is the bad boy you are looking for

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2012/si/332/made/en/print


  • #78
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    So if the no-entry road marking is not required, what is your source for your claim that a cycle track is needed to pass a "no straight ahead" sign?
    monument wrote: »
    /
    You're quoting S.I. No. 332/2012 out of context there. The line you quote "pedal cycles shall only be driven in a contra-flow direction on such track" relates to the mandatory use of cycle tracks where such tracks are provided -- it does not make the provision of such tracks mandatory and if such tracks are not provided, in any type of setting, people cycling can't be expected to use them.

    Nor does it or anything else require that that continuous lined cycle tracks are the only option for contra-flow streets.

    I put away my consolidated act and will answer this based on the specific statutory instruments!

    They are mandatory and they do require a white line!

    In order for an except bicycles sign to be valid the bicycle must be passing the sign to enter a cycle track, it's there in black and white in legislation!

    As per SI 273/1998 (which made contra-flow cycling legal) Article 23 of the RTA 1961 is amended to read:-

    "23. Traffic sign number RRM 019 shall —
    (a) indicate that traffic is prohibited from entering the roadway at the entrance to which it is provided, save for pedal cycles entering a cycle track provided on the roadway."

    Also a contra-flow cycle track does require a continuous white line as per SI 332/2012:-

    "14. (1) A cycle track shall be indicated by— (b) traffic sign number RUS 059 (contra-flow cycle track) provided in association with traffic sign number RRM 022 (continuous white line) which may be marked on the right hand edge of the cycle track or on the left hand edge of the cycle track or on both sides".

    As I have stated a contra-flow cycle lane MUST be provided to make contra-flow cycling legal!

    GM228


  • #79
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    GM228 wrote: »
    They are mandatory and they do require a white line!

    In order for an except bicycles sign to be valid the bicycle must be passing the sign to enter a cycle track, it's there in black and white in legislation!

    As per SI 273/1998 (which made contra-flow cycling legal) Article 23 of the RTA 1961 is amended to read:-

    "23. Traffic sign number RRM 019 shall —
    (a) indicate that traffic is prohibited from entering the roadway at the entrance to which it is provided, save for pedal cycles entering a cycle track provided on the roadway."

    Also a contra-flow cycle track does require a continuous white line as per SI 332/2012:-

    "14. (1) A cycle track shall be indicated by— (b) traffic sign number RUS 059 (contra-flow cycle track) provided in association with traffic sign number RRM 022 (continuous white line) which may be marked on the right hand edge of the cycle track or on the left hand edge of the cycle track or on both sides".

    As I have stated a contra-flow cycle lane MUST be provided to make contra-flow cycling legal!

    GM228

    No you have only shown that a cycle track (of unspecified length) is required to enter a street where the no-entry road marking has been used. There is nothing that states that a cycle track is needed to proceed any further.

    So now, given that a no-entry road marking is not needed to close a road to entering traffic. please show us where it says that a cycle track is needed for a cyclist to pass a "no straight ahead" sign fitted with an exemption plate.


  • #80
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    No you have only shown that a cycle track (of unspecified length) is required to enter a street where the no-entry road marking has been used. There is nothing that states that a cycle track is needed to proceed any further.

    So now, given that a no-entry road marking is not needed to close a road to entering traffic. please show us where it says that a cycle track is needed for a cyclist to pass a "no straight ahead" sign fitted with an exemption plate.

    In the context of passing a "no straight ahead" sign when entering a one way street please re-read what I wrote as it also applies.

    Traffic sign RRM 019 is present on a one way street weather there is a RUS 011 OR RUS 050 sign!

    The RTA dosn't say a contra-flow bus lane has to be the full lenght of the road either, however the Department of Transport, Tourism and Science road signs manual shows both types as going the lenght of the road.

    Lets face it there has to be a provision of a cycle lane to enter a one way street (admittedly it dosn't specify for the entire street), otherwise it ain't legal-I think I've proved that!

    GM228


  • #81
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    GM228 wrote: »
    In the context of passing a "no straight ahead" sign when entering a one way street please re-read what I wrote as it also applies.

    Traffic sign RRM 019 is present on a one way street weather there is a RUS 011 OR RUS 050 sign!

    The RTA dosn't say a contra-flow bus lane has to be the full lenght of the road either, however the Department of Transport, Tourism and Science road signs manual shows both types as going the lenght of the road.

    Lets face it there has to be a provision of a cycle lane to enter a one way street (admittedly it dosn't specify for the entire street), otherwise it ain't legal-I think I've proved that!

    GM228

    Again you appear to be choosing to miss the point. I put it to you that there is nothing in law that prevents using the upright sign by itself along with an exemption plate. There is nothing in law that says that the no-entry road marking must be used to control the direction that certain types of traffic may use a particular street in.

    If you have a legal source for your claim then please produce it. The traffic signs manual is not a source of law.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    Again you appear to be choosing to miss the point. I put it to you that there is nothing in law that prevents using the upright sign by itself along with an exemption plate. There is nothing in law that says that the no-entry road marking must be used to control the direction that certain types of traffic may use a particular street in.

    If you have a legal source for your claim then please produce it. The traffic signs manual is not a source of law.

    I'm not choosing to miss the point, yes I agree there is nothing in law to prevent the use of the sign on its own, but in practice as per the manual roads are not marked that way therefore they are not legal, there is nothing in law requiring many signs but that does not take away from the fact that signage is done as per the manual which is based on the RTAs and are accepted standards/best practice for signage.

    Look at the contra-flow lanes DCC introduced in this:-

    http://irishcycle.com/2015/08/22/contra-flow-cycling-streets-could-be-rolled-out-across-dublin-city/

    They are not legal, contra-flow cycling is only legal when certain conditions are met and those roads don't meet the conditions, you can't disagree with that!

    GM228


  • #83
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    GM228 wrote: »
    "23. Traffic sign number RRM 019 shall —
    (a) indicate that traffic is prohibited from entering the roadway at the entrance to which it is provided, save for pedal cycles entering a cycle track provided on the roadway."

    Yeah, that looks great but again amounts to selective quoting.

    RRM 019 (ie the no-entry road markings) does not and cannot apply where the road designer offers a bypass to the no-entry road markings. So anything in the provision you have quoted which relates to RRM 019 does not apply where there is no RRM 019 marked on the ground.

    So, something like this would work on a one-way street without a cycle lane the whole way along it:

    367872.JPG

    GM228 wrote: »
    Also a contra-flow cycle track does require a continuous white line as per SI 332/2012:-

    "14. (1) A cycle track shall be indicated by— (b) traffic sign number RUS 059 (contra-flow cycle track) provided in association with traffic sign number RRM 022 (continuous white line) which may be marked on the right hand edge of the cycle track or on the left hand edge of the cycle track or on both sides".

    Ok, fair enough on that. You're right.

    GM228 wrote: »
    however the Department of Transport, Tourism and Science road signs manual shows both types as going the lenght of the road.

    The traffic signs manual does indeed do that. But the traffic signs manual (1) lists these as "examples", (2) only covers contra-flow cycle tracks, and (3) does not exclude the use of contra-flow cycling without lanes.

    GM228 wrote: »
    Lets face it there has to be a provision of a cycle lane to enter a one way street (admittedly it dosn't specify for the entire street), otherwise it ain't legal-I think I've proved that!

    You have not proved it.

    Sure it isn't provided for within the traffic signs manual but it isn't expressly forbidden in the manual or by law, indeed the workarounds seem to allowed. The Department should really catch up with Dublin City Council's positive experimentation and expressly show it in the traffic signs manual and even change an SI to dot the is and cross their Ts... on the other hand, if the Department of Transport thinks that Dublin City Council are breaking the law or a ministerial order, they should take it up with the council.


  • #84
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    GM228 wrote: »
    I'm not choosing to miss the point, yes I agree there is nothing in law to prevent the use of the sign on its own

    GM228

    Therefore to get back to the original question by the original poster, there is nothing in law that makes it inherently illegal to cycle both ways on a one way street.

    The issue is simply that Irish local council roads engineers personally choose to make it illegal even on minor streets or roads with schools (where children could be approaching school from any direction)


  • #85
    trellheim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,964 ✭✭✭trellheim


    Therefore to get back to the original question by the original poster, there is nothing in law that makes it inherently illegal to cycle both ways on a one way street.

    No no no you're not doing that. That is absolute BS. I've followed this and you have a bee in your bonnet about it. Signage and cycle lane contraflows aside for a moment

    a oneway street is one where the traffic all goes in the same direction. No more, no less. Get off your bike and stop acting the maggot. I am a commuting cyclist every day in Dublin and it is thick ideas like this that give cyclists a bad name.


  • #86
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    trellheim wrote: »
    No no no you're not doing that. That is absolute BS. I've followed this and you have a bee in your bonnet about it. Signage and cycle lane contraflows aside for a moment

    a oneway street is one where the traffic all goes in the same direction. No more, no less. Get off your bike and stop acting the maggot. I am a commuting cyclist every day in Dublin and it is thick ideas like this that give cyclists a bad name.

    Nevertheless it is Government policy which is why the law was changed. It was also one of the key recommendations for expanding the public bike schemes to other cities. If you are a cyclist and you disagree with two-way cycling then you are free not to do it.

    However it is widely recommended way of improving cycling conditions.

    Edit: But just to make sure we understand the blame game. It is the local council roads engineers who are "acting the maggot" as you put it. The cyclists are doing something perfectly normal and something that also has a good safety record.


  • #87
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    But just to make sure we understand the blame game. It is the local council roads engineers who are "acting the maggot" as you put it.

    I would certainly agree with that especially when you see roads done this non-legal way:-

    http://irishcycle.com/2015/08/22/contra-flow-cycling-streets-could-be-rolled-out-across-dublin-city/

    The problem with the above is although the signs allow the cyclist go the wrong way the cyclist could technically still be done for breaking the law (although I doubt ANY judge would deliver a conviction under the circumstances), and so your point above is correct, blame the engineers.

    GM228


  • #88
    trellheim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,964 ✭✭✭trellheim


    Let's check the stupid suggestions list here. Signage and contras aside :

    We have a poster suggesting the inane notion that cycling the wrong way up a oneway street is not illegal.

    Let's just look at that for a moment and eye it for the truly stupid notion it is.

    So : if I saw you in the bike lane in the north quays coming against me you'd be on the end of a fair few things, the least of which would be very harsh language. I can just imagine the bus drivers here .

    Don't you dare blame this on signage. This is clearly illegal and you'd be done.


  • #89
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    trellheim wrote: »
    Let's check the stupid suggestions list here. Signage and contras aside :

    We have a poster suggesting the inane notion that cycling the wrong way up a oneway street is not illegal.

    Let's just look at that for a moment and eye it for the truly stupid notion it is.

    So : if I saw you in the bike lane in the north quays coming against me you'd be on the end of a fair few things, the least of which would be very harsh language. I can just imagine the bus drivers here .

    Don't you dare blame this on signage. This is clearly illegal and you'd be done.

    Now you are trying to mix up cycling on the wrong side of the road with cycling in both directions on a road. They are not the same thing - is this an attempt to slip a straw man into the debate?

    Using roads in both directions is the natural state of affairs it is is the one-way street that is breaking with the usual.convention. Cycling from A to B by the shortest route is entirely normal, reasonable and expected behaviour.

    When someone tries to block normal, reasonable and expected behaviours for no good reason then they should not be surprised if compliance is low. If they want to blame someone for the low compliance then take a long hard look in the mirror.


  • #90
    dubscottie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 854 ✭✭✭dubscottie


    Can you cycle up a one way street.. Yes. as long as you are going the way the road markings and signs show.

    They are there. For all traffic including cyclists.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    dubscottie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 854 ✭✭✭dubscottie


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    Cycling from A to B by the shortest route is entirely normal, reasonable and expected behaviour.

    When someone tries to block normal, reasonable and expected behaviours for no good reason then they should not be surprised if compliance is low..

    So How many €40 fines have you got for breaking lights etc..

    Its not normal behavior. Its breaking the law.

    And please don't reply with the usual "but in Holland" thing..

    Aggressive drivers in the winter.. More like lack of lights on bikes..


  • #92
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    trellheim wrote: »
    This is clearly illegal and you'd be done.
    Yes, it is illegal - but chance of being done for it are tiny, just like the chances of motorists being done for breaking red lights, phoning while driving, or going the wrong-way up one-way streets are tiny.


  • #93
    ceannair06
    Closed Accounts Posts: 205 ✭✭ceannair06


    RainyDay wrote: »
    Yes, it is illegal - but chance of being done for it are tiny, just like the chances of motorists being done for breaking red lights, phoning while driving, or going the wrong-way up one-way streets are tiny.

    Ah the old cyclist get out, "we're morons but cars are worse".


  • #94
    ceannair06
    Closed Accounts Posts: 205 ✭✭ceannair06


    dubscottie wrote: »
    So How many €40 fines have you got for breaking lights etc..

    Its not normal behavior. Its breaking the law.

    And please don't reply with the usual "but in Holland" thing..

    Aggressive drivers in the winter.. More like lack of lights on bikes..

    Dubscottie, dont waste your time - galwaycyclist is the Chemical Ali of the biking morons.


  • #95
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    ceannair06 wrote: »
    Ah the old cyclist get out, "we're morons but cars are worse".

    Not really - more like "We're morons, but we don't kill 200 people each year and maim thousands of others ,unlike motorists".


  • #96
    Milly33
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,657 ✭✭✭Milly33


    AHh this annoys the crap out of me I hope the answers is no you cant.. It is so dangerous... I work on a one way street and the amount of near misses with cyclist as they cycle down the wrong way... When your on a one way street although you look before turning and all that goes you don't really expect to meet anything coming down...

    Cyclist need to pay attention to the rules of the road just like car do, I met one chap during the week who was cycling down the wrong way in the middle of the lane he was just asking to hit


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    Milly33 wrote: »
    Cyclist need to pay attention to the rules of the road just like car do,


    Bwaaahaaahaaa


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgHmr8d--Bo


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=on2m8sinavE


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z3APqNA6rU


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4iXW05Ic


    Do you want me to keep going?

    If motorists generally paid attention to the rules of the road, they wouldn't be killing 200 people each year on the roads.


  • #98
    Milly33
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,657 ✭✭✭Milly33


    No they are just as stupid as the cyclist. But in fairness a cyclist is asking for a lot more trouble. Which one do you think does more damage car or bike..... A car is protected you hit a bike (haha had put bit my bad) and the person is fecked so they should be taking more care of themselves.


  • #99
    ceannair06
    Closed Accounts Posts: 205 ✭✭ceannair06


    Milly33 wrote: »
    No they are just as stupid as the cyclist. But in fairness a cyclist is asking for a lot more trouble. Which one do you think does more damage car or bike..... A car is protected you hit a bit and the person is fecked so they should be taking more care of themselves.

    Excellent point.


  • #100
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    Milly33 wrote: »
    AHh this annoys the crap out of me I hope the answers is no you cant.. It is so dangerous...

    Have you got a source for that? If something is dangerous there must be numbers to back that up no?
    I work on a one way street and the amount of near misses with cyclist as they cycle down the wrong way... When your on a one way street although you look before turning and all that goes you don't really expect to meet anything coming down...

    If I understand correctly, you frequently encounter cyclists coming in both directions. However, even though this is the case, you still haven't learned to expect it or anticipate it?


  • #101
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    Have you got a source for that? If something is dangerous there must be numbers to back that up no?



    If I understand correctly, you frequently encounter cyclists coming in both directions. However, even though this is the case, you still haven't learned to expect it or anticipate it?

    Expecting or anticipating something dosn't make anything less dangerous or OK to do either!

    Should we expect and anticipate everyone to break a red light aswell and then when they (who are in the wrong) hit us we are then in the wrong for not anticipating it?

    Good points in this:-

    http://bicyclesafe.com
    The Wrong-Way Wreck
    You're riding the wrong way (against traffic, on the left-hand side of the street). A car makes a right turn from a side street, driveway, or parking lot, right into you. They didn't see you because they were looking for traffic only on their left, not on their right. They had no reason to expect that someone would be coming at them from the wrong direction.

    Even worse, you could be hit by a car on the same road coming at you from straight ahead of you. They had less time to see you and take evasive action because they're approaching you faster than normal (because you're going towards them rather than away from them).

    How to avoid this collision:

    Don't ride against traffic. Ride with traffic, in the same direction.

    Riding against traffic may seem like a good idea because you can see the cars that are passing you, but it's not. Here's why:

    Cars which pull out of driveways, parking lots, and cross streets (ahead of you and to the left), which are making a right onto your street, aren't expecting traffic to be coming at them from the wrong way. They won't see you, and they'll plow right into you.
    How the heck are you going to make a right turn?
    Cars will approach you at a much higher relative speed. If you're going 15mph, then a car passing you from behind doing 35 approaches you at a speed of only 20 (35-15). But if you're on the wrong side of the road, then the car approaches you at 50 (35+15), which is more than twice as fast! Since they're approaching you faster, both you and the driver have lots less time to react. And if a collision does occur, it's going to be at a faster relative speed.
    Riding the wrong way is against the law and you can get ticketed for it.
    One study showed that riding the wrong way was three times as dangerous as riding the right way, and for kids, the risk is seven times greater. (source)

    Nearly one-fourth of crashes involve cyclists riding the wrong way. (source) Some readers have challenged this, saying if 25% of crashes are from going the wrong way, then riding the right way is more dangerous because it accounts for 75% of crashes. That idea is just wrong. First off, only 8% of cyclists ride the wrong way, yet nearly 25% of them get hit -- meaning wrong-way cyclists really are three times more likely to get hit than those who ride the proper way. Second, the problem with wrong-way biking is that it promotes crashes, while right-way biking does not. For example, cyclists running stop signs or red lights is 17% of their crashes. (source) But do we therefore conclude that not running signals causes 83% of crashes?! (Hint: No.)

    Good reading here also:-

    http://m.elkharttruth.com/living/Community-Blogs/Cycling-Sense/2014/10/01/Cyclists-riding-against-traffic-are-one-of-the-leading-causes-of-bicycle-motorist-accidents.html
    While wrong-way cyclists make up only five percent of bicycle traffic, they make up 21 percent of total car-bike collisions, according to the League of American Bicyclists.

    GM228


  • Advertisement
Advertisement