Can you cycle up a one-way street?

GM228 · 19-11-2015 7:17pm

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Nevertheless the correct answer is "Yes the Irish Traffic regulations were updated in 1998 to provide for two-way cycling on streets that are one-way for other vehicles."

We already know that, but it's not as simple as that, that would imply you can cycle the wrong way down any one way street, your post should read:-

"Yes the Irish Traffic regulations were updated in 1998 to provide for two-way cycling on streets that are one-way for other vehicles when certain conditions are met."

GM228

monument · 19-11-2015 7:55pm

Warning: calling people trolls or other names is against the Commuting and Transport charter and some posters above should expect to get warning and/or infractions (when I or another mod gets the time).

Do not reply to this message in-thread!

-- moderator

galwaycyclist · 19-11-2015 8:07pm

GM228 wrote: »

We already know that, but it's not as simple as that, that would imply you can cycle the wrong way down any one way street, your post should read:-

"Yes the Irish Traffic regulations were updated in 1998 to provide for two-way cycling on streets that are one-way for other vehicles when certain conditions are met."

GM228

I accept the nuance

galwaycyclist · 19-11-2015 8:11pm

Snickers Man wrote: »

It was not illegal to own or use condoms. It was illegal to sell them. So if you could get hold of a carton of johnnies while visiting abroad (or Newry) you were NOT breaking the law by using them in Dublin, or Ballygobackwards.

Whereas cycling the wrong way down a one-way street IS illegal, and, except in cases where there is a clearly demarked and/or kerb/cone separated contra flow system, rightly so.

Straw man there? The words I used were "getting access" not own or use. If you read the rest of the thread you will see that two-way cycling on one-way streets is the normal situation in other countries.

So Ireland is the unusual case in having local authority officials who keep attempting to make illegal that which is perfectly legal elsewhere.

GM228 · 19-11-2015 9:45pm

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Straw man there? The words I used were "getting access" not own or use. If you read the rest of the thread you will see that two-way cycling on one-way streets is the normal situation in other countries.

So Ireland is the unusual case in having local authority officials who keep attempting to make illegal that which is perfectly legal elsewhere.

Other countries dosn't matter, certain laws are legal in some countries, should we follow suit with all other countries laws too, just because something is illegal dosn't give us an automatic right to make it legal here too!

Perhaps those who make it legal are the exception, not those who make it illegal, afterall contra-flow cycling is illegal in more countries than it is legal!

Local authority officials don't make it illegal!

GM228

EDIT: Post edited following hindsight

galwaycyclist · 19-11-2015 10:24pm

GM228 wrote: »

Other countries dosn't matter, euthanasia is "normal" and legal in some countries as is acts associated with prostitution, should we follow suit with that too? Obviously totally seperate issues but just because something is illegal dosn't give us an automatic right to make it legal here too!

Perhaps those who make it legal are the exception, not those who make it illegal, afterall contra-flow cycling is illegal in more countries than it is legal!

Local authority officials don't make it illegal!

GM228

Good gosh. Cycling in both directions on a road = euthanasia?

That kind of exaggeration only serves to support the parallels with the daft leaps of "logic" that went with attempts to block family planning in this country.

Of course it is local authority officials who make it illegal they are the ones choosing the road signs and road markings. Are you trying to suggest that there is some conspiracy of "rogue" civil engineering firms going around installing different road markings and signs than they were given in the contracts?

GM228 · 19-11-2015 10:30pm

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Good gosh. Cycling in both directions on a road = euthanasia?

That kind of exaggeration only serves to support the parallels with the daft leaps of "logic" that went with attempts to block family planning in this country.

Of course it is local authority officials make it illegal they are the ones choosing the road signs and road markings. Are you trying to suggest that there is some conspiracy of "rogue" civil engineering firms going around installing different road markings and signs than they were given in the contracts?

I'm not comparing euthanasia with cycling, just using it solely as an example that because something is legal somewhere else dosn't automatically make it legal here or necessary say it should be legal here.

I never made any suggestions of rogue firms fitting signs they shouldn't! Signs are fitted as per the legal requirements and accepted best practice, no sign is fitted that shouldn't be. Some signs are required by law.

GM228

roverrules · 20-11-2015 12:29am

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Straw man there? The words I used were "getting access" not own or use. If you read the rest of the thread you will see that two-way cycling on one-way streets is the normal situation in other countries.

So Ireland is the unusual case in having local authority officials who keep attempting to make illegal that which is perfectly legal elsewhere.

They're not making it illegal, IT IS illegal.

monument · 20-11-2015 12:58am

FYI

In this country, it is adopted national government policy for the last two governments to provide for: "contra-flow cycle lanes on one-way streets / making two-way streets for cyclists;"

In this country, a number of city development plans have said the same thing.

In this country, there was a choice in recent years made to replace no-entry signs on mass without following the stated policy.

galwaycyclist · 20-11-2015 2:53am

GM228 wrote: »

I'm not comparing euthanasia with cycling, just using it solely as an example that because something is legal somewhere else dosn't automatically make it legal here or necessary say it should be legal here.

I never made any suggestions of rogue firms fitting signs they shouldn't! Signs are fitted as per the legal requirements and accepted best practice, no sign is fitted that shouldn't be. Some signs are required by law.

GM228

Uh sorry no this is what you said

GM228 wrote: »

Other countries dosn't matter, euthanasia is "normal" and legal in some countries as is acts associated with prostitution, should we follow suit with that too? Obviously totally seperate issues but just because something is illegal dosn't give us an automatic right to make it legal here too!

If there were differences between Irish law and the law elsewhere there are numerous examples you could have given.

Instead, you personally chose to use the examples of euthanasia and undefined acts associated with prostitution. Whatever way you want to dress it up this suggests that you personally view cycling on public roads as being in some way equivalent to activities that many view as perverse.

And the problem here is that two-way cycling on all public roads is already provided for under Irish law as it is in other countries, it is not some perverse or unusual act. If the thing we were discussing was not already legal, and perfectly normal, then you might have some tenuous grounds. But because we are talking about something that was first proposed in Foras Forbartha reports 35 years ago and has been legally permissable for 17 years you just sound weird - in my view.

GM228 · 20-11-2015 10:26am

galwaycyclist wrote: »

If there were differences between Irish law and the law elsewhere there are numerous examples you could have given.

That's true, but for some reason they were the first two which came to mind, I did say totally different issues so there's obviously no comparison, the point I was making as I stated was just because something is legal in one country dosn't automatically make it legal in another-if I gave the wrong impression that I was actually comparing cycling with euthanasia then I apologise, that was certainly not what I meant, so please don't say well you said this, that or the other because I have clarified it twice now.

Whatever way you want to dress it up this suggests that you personally view cycling on public roads as being in some way equivalent to activities that many view as perverse.

What a conclusion! FYI I'm a cyclist at times, possibly more often than I'm a motorist and a pedestrian, and I see cycling just as normal as any other form of road transport!

And the problem here is that two-way cycling on all public roads is already provided for under Irish law as it is in other countries, it is not some perverse or unusual act. If the thing we were discussing was not already legal, and perfectly normal, then you might have some tenuous grounds. But because we are talking about something that was first proposed in Foras Forbartha reports 35 years ago and has been legally permissable for 17 years you just sound weird - in my view.

Again it is not already legal on ALL public roads, it is illegal on all on way streets to cycle the wrong way unless certain provisions are made which are supposed to have ministerial signing before hand.

GM228

GM228 · 20-11-2015 10:31am

monument wrote: »

FYI

In this country, it is adopted national government policy for the last two governments to provide for: "contra-flow cycle lanes on one-way streets / making two-way streets for cyclists;"

In this country, a number of city development plans have said the same thing.

In this country, there was a choice in recent years made to replace no-entry signs on mass without following the stated policy.

We do know that, there's no issue with contra-flow cycling in a contra-flow cycle lane, it's the fact that some suggest that contra-flow cycling in any one way street (without a lane) is perfectly legal and that authorities choose to make it illegal that's the issue.

Battery Kinzie wrote: »

I've often heard that they're bringing in a law that says cyclists can go the wrong way up a one way street. Has that been brought in yet, or is it something we can expect to come in soon?

In response to the OPs question, it has been answered already several times, there's already provisions in law to allow cycling in a contra-flow fashion in a contra-flow cycling lane on a one way street when certain conditions are met, otherwise it's not legal on the majority of one way streets in this country.

The thread has answered the question several times and should at this stage be locked, otherwise it will continue for another 14 pages going around in circles.

GM228

galwaycyclist · 20-11-2015 12:15pm

GM228 wrote: »

it's the fact that some suggest that contra-flow cycling in any one way street (without a lane) is perfectly legal and that authorities choose to make it illegal that's the issue.

Who has suggested such a thing?

Roadhawk · 20-11-2015 2:22pm

Why would a cyclist want to cycle up a one way street anyway?

The mind set of cyclists clearly needs to change. I would have thought that the rules of the road have to be complied with by all road users including cyclists.

GM228 · 20-11-2015 2:39pm

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Who has suggested such a thing?

That's the impression I get from this thread!

Stating that authorities choose to make it illegal or personally make it illegal suggests that it is or should be legal, but it's not legal and only by personal choice, if I have that wrong by all means clarify it for me.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

And in case you haven't checked the traffic regs in a while (or read this thread) there is nothing inherently unlawful in two-way cycling on one-way streets. The law was changed in 1998 to provide for two-way cycling arrangements.

So for the last 17 years, the local authority officials who try to ban two-way cycling have been exercising personal choices. The have been personally choosing to use their powers to try and ban two-way cycling - other choices were available.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

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)

galwaycyclist wrote: »

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.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Uh no if you read the thread you will see that it can already be perfectly legal. It is just that certain local authority officials choose to make it illegal.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Straw man there? The words I used were "getting access" not own or use. If you read the rest of the thread you will see that two-way cycling on one-way streets is the normal situation in other countries.

So Ireland is the unusual case in having local authority officials who keep attempting to make illegal that which is perfectly legal elsewhere.

GM228

GM228 · 20-11-2015 2:48pm

Roadhawk wrote: »

Why would a cyclist want to cycle up a one way street anyway?

The mind set of cyclists clearly needs to change. I would have thought that the rules of the road have to be complied with by all road users including cyclists.

The rules apply to all, it would appear though that some cyclists believe that it's something personal that authorities choose to block them from contra-flow cycling.

On a lighter note I suggest we should start a "let the buses and taxis go up a one way street too" campaign, afterall they can have exemptions too and the authorities like them better, and sure when we do let them do that we will just put a bus lane only at the start of the one way street, after that they can play dodgers with the oncoming traffic, afterall I think that's the normal safe way for a bus to travel over the Himalayas on the Delhi to Shimla road!

GM228

galwaycyclist · 20-11-2015 3:01pm

GM228 wrote: »

it's the fact that some suggest that contra-flow cycling in any one way street (without a lane) is perfectly legal and that authorities choose to make it illegal that's the issue.

@GM228 Please answer the question. Who has suggested that contra-flow cycling in any one-way street is perfectly legal?

Snickers Man · 20-11-2015 3:03pm

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Straw man there? The words I used were "getting access" not own or use.

Mealy mouth there?

You also said that people who "got hold of " contraceptives were "ignoring the law" and were "otherwise law abiding" whereas in fact they were, as you now concede, very much abiding by the law and far from ignoring it were aware, ie not ignorant, of its strictures.

Comparing law-breaking, not to mention recklessly stupid, cyclists with law abiding sexually responsible people is just silly. And impertinent.

RainyDay wrote:

Zero people are killed each year by cyclists breaking red lights.

Now that's just offensive! I have seen an elderly lady being smashed by a cyclist as she crossed a pedestrian crossing on the green man because the cyclist was sailing through a red light across the top of a T-junction while looking to his right (down the stem of the T) to avoid the traffic that was coming from that direction.

The lady needed an ambulance and was hospitalised but I saw her a few days later so obviously she wasn't killed. So that makes the cyclist's actions all right then?

If it had been my ma he'd done it to he'd have lost his teeth.

galwaycyclist · 20-11-2015 3:06pm

GM228 wrote: »

On a lighter note I suggest we should start a "let the buses and taxis go up a one way street too" campaign, afterall they can have exemptions too and the authorities like them better, and sure when we do let them do that we will just put a bus lane only at the start of the one way street, after that they can play dodgers with the oncoming traffic, afterall I think that's the normal safe way for a bus to travel over the Himalayas on the Delhi to Shimla road!

GM228

Contraflow bus lanes are also provided for in law

galwaycyclist · 20-11-2015 3:12pm

GM228 wrote: »

That's the impression I get from this thread!

Stating that authorities choose to make it illegal or personally make it illegal suggests that it is or should be legal, but it's not legal and only by personal choice, if I have that wrong by all means clarify it for me.

GM228

Absolutely it should be very clear. Most Irish town centres significantly pre-date mass motorisation. In pretty much every case that I know of, any one-way streets were originally two-way. So creating a one-way street, by the very definition, involves the banning of behaviour that was previously quite legal. Local authority officials choose to render unlawful that which was previously lawful.

However there is nothing in law that forces them to do so for all drivers (and cyclists are drivers in law). The officials are exercising a personal choice to make the normal pre-existing cycling behaviour unlawful as well.

GM228 · 20-11-2015 3:17pm

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Contraflow bus lanes are also provided for in law

I do know that!

GM228

Roadhawk · 20-11-2015 3:20pm

Ok well let’s look at this from a cyclist’s point of view. The main danger that cyclists in Cities complain about are motorists (cars, buses, trucks, etc.). To cycle the wrong way up a one-way street is clearly putting the cyclist in danger if there is traffic coming the opposite way. The sense of entitlement to use the road should take safety into consideration. In my opinion, to cycle the wrong way up a one-away street, illegal or not, is dangerous and wrong.

GM228 · 20-11-2015 3:22pm

galwaycyclist wrote: »

@GM228 Please answer the question. Who has suggested that contra-flow cycling in any one-way street is perfectly legal?

Read that sentence as a whole, I didn't just say "it's the fact that some suggest that contra-flow cycling in any one way street (without a lane) is perfectly legal".

I said "it's the fact that some suggest that contra-flow cycling in any one way street (without a lane) is perfectly legal and that authorities choose to make it illegal that's the issue"

GM228

galwaycyclist · 20-11-2015 3:25pm

GM228 wrote: »

Read that sentence as a whole, I didn't just say "it's the fact that some suggest that contra-flow cycling in any one way street (without a lane) is perfectly legal".

I said "it's the fact that some suggest that contra-flow cycling in any one way street (without a lane) is perfectly legal and that authorities choose to make it illegal that's the issuend that authorities choose to make it illegal that's the issue"

GM228

Thats the same thing. So again who has suggested "that contra-flow cycling in any one way street (without a lane) is perfectly legal" ??

galwaycyclist · 20-11-2015 3:30pm

Roadhawk wrote: »

Ok well let’s look at this from a cyclist’s point of view. The main danger that cyclists in Cities complain about are motorists (cars, buses, trucks, etc.). To cycle the wrong way up a one-way street is clearly putting the cyclist in danger if there is traffic coming the opposite way. The sense of entitlement to use the road should take safety into consideration. In my opinion, to cycle the wrong way up a one-away street, illegal or not, is dangerous and wrong.

With regret you've missed the point. All roads are not equally risky. In fact in city cycling (and driving) the main risks come from junction conflicts - with some junctions such as roundabouts having a particular risk of collisions.

If taking a route contraflow along a one-way street allows cyclists to avoid more problematic locations, then they have reduced their risk.

There is also good reason to think that contraflow cyclists may be at lower risk of incidents involving parked, or parking, cars than are cyclists using the street in the "with-flow" direction.

GM228 · 20-11-2015 3:31pm

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Absolutely it should be very clear. Most Irish town centres significantly pre-date mass motorisation. In pretty much every case that I know of, any one-way streets were originally two-way. So creating a one-way street, by the very definition, involves the banning of behaviour that was previously quite legal. Local authority officials choose to render unlawful that which was previously lawful.

However there is nothing in law that forces them to do so for all drivers (and cyclists are drivers in law). The officials are exercising a personal choice to make the normal pre-existing cycling behaviour unlawful as well.

So based on that argument should we bring back slavery and so called "eye for an eye" laws, afterall they were previously lawful!

GM228

Roadhawk · 20-11-2015 3:32pm

Guys you are getting caught up in technicalities of each others quotes. Back to the main question... "can you cycle up a one way street?"

GM228 · 20-11-2015 3:36pm

Roadhawk wrote: »

Guys you are getting caught up in technicalities of each others quotes. Back to the main question... "can you cycle up a one way street?"

It's not a simple yes or no, it's yes-there are provisions in law to allow cycling in a contra-flow fashion in a contra-flow cycling lane on a one way street when certain conditions are met, otherwise it's not legal on the majority of one way streets in this country

GM228

Roadhawk · 20-11-2015 3:45pm

Perfect answer. Unless a contra-flow lane is provided you cannot cycle the wrong way up a one-way street into oncoming traffic.

galwaycyclist · 20-11-2015 5:27pm

GM228 wrote: »

So based on that argument should we bring back slavery and so called "eye for an eye" laws, afterall they were previously lawful!

GM228

To follow your logic in the other direction. Are you arguing that because some roads are made one-way then it must follow that all roads must be made one-way?

galwaycyclist · 20-11-2015 5:33pm

Roadhawk wrote: »

Perfect answer. Unless a contra-flow lane is provided you cannot cycle the wrong way up a one-way street into oncoming traffic.

Not correct. If you read the thread you will see that the law provides for contraflow situations that do not require contraflow cycle lanes.

The road simply remains two-way for cyclists.

This is the same as what happens in other countries. In some cases it may make sense to use a contra-flow lane as part of the treatment. In other cases just making the road two-way for cyclists is entirely feasible and safe. It depends on the local traffic conditions. Irish traffic law, as expressed, does not impose a particular type of treatment.

GM228 · 20-11-2015 6:17pm

galwaycyclist wrote: »

To follow your logic in the other direction. Are you arguing that because some roads are made one-way then it must follow that all roads must be made one-way?

No because two way roads are still lawful!

GM228

GM228 · 20-11-2015 6:29pm

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Not correct. If you read the thread you will see that the law provides for contraflow situations that do not require contraflow cycle lanes.

The road simply remains two-way for cyclists.

This is the same as what happens in other countries. In some cases it may make sense to use a contra-flow lane as part of the treatment. In other cases just making the road two-way for cyclists is entirely feasible and safe. It depends on the local traffic conditions. Irish traffic law, as expressed, does not impose a particular type of treatment.

I would disagree with that, I would attempt (again) to show why, but what's the point?

Onto the merry go round once more!

You MUST enter a cyle lane to contra-flow cycle, the law isn't specifically clear that a lane must go the entirety of the street, but I'd argue it must! The law also dosn't specifically say a contra-flow bus lane must go all the way, should we allow a bus go up a one way street after it's lane ends also?

GM228

Roadhawk · 20-11-2015 6:41pm

I cant seem to find the legislation linked to allowing cyclists to use a one-way street the wrong way. Can anyone post a link?

monument · 20-11-2015 6:41pm

GM228 wrote: »

I would disagree with that, I would attempt (again) to show why, but what's the point?

Onto the merry go round once more!

You MUST enter a cyle lane to contra-flow cycle, the law isn't specifically clear that a lane must go the entirety of the street, but I'd argue it must! The law also dosn't specifically say a contra-flow bus lane must go all the way, should we allow a bus go up a one way street after it's lane ends also?

GM228

You should report Dublin City Council to the Department of Transport. If the Department of Transport agree with you they should take action.

GM228 · 20-11-2015 6:45pm

monument wrote: »

You should report Dublin City Council to the Department of Transport. If the Department of Transport agree with you they should take action.

The law agrees with me, it's black and white-that's all that matters.

GM228

trellheim · 20-11-2015 8:08pm

Are you folks so blind you can't see the other road users coming in here and looking at us cyclists and loss of respect because some person on a hobbyhorse is advocating cycling in a frankly dangerous fashion .

I've been city cycling in Dublin since the mid'80s and I've heard much talk about cycling infrastructure. But this bizarre and dangerous notion is just plain stupid. Let me be clear here - I am a daily cycle commuter along the north quays and around D1 and if I saw this going the wrong way up the North Quays I'd hang my head in shame at one tosser ruining it for the rest of us.

Do we need the small clear words here, like the ones we use when we're trying to explain the simple stuff ?

monument · 20-11-2015 8:40pm

GM228 wrote: »

The law agrees with me, it's black and white-that's all that matters.

GM228

My lawyer friends tell me that the law is rarely black and white. In this case: Except cyclist/bicycles is provided for, issues with small details such as road markings don't amount to much.

Until recent years there was no legal bases at all in providing shared footpath (the signs showing a bicycle and a pedestrian, with a dividing line or no line). These were put all over Ireland and only after that were they retrospectively given backing by means of an SI.

Back to contra-flow, one way except cyclist/bicycles is provided for. It's only a small detail to leave part of a no entry marking out and there's feck all chance a judge would be willing to rule against a person following a council's legally allowed except cyclist/bicycles sign.

trellheim wrote: »

Are you folks so blind you can't see the other road users coming in here and looking at us cyclists and loss of respect because some person on a hobbyhorse is advocating cycling in a frankly dangerous fashion .

I've been city cycling in Dublin since the mid'80s and I've heard much talk about cycling infrastructure. But this bizarre and dangerous notion is just plain stupid. Let me be clear here - I am a daily cycle commuter along the north quays and around D1 and if I saw this going the wrong way up the North Quays I'd hang my head in shame at one tosser ruining it for the rest of us.

Do we need the small clear words here, like the ones we use when we're trying to explain the simple stuff ?

Where is the post suggesting that people should cycle the wrong way on the quays?

GM228 · 20-11-2015 9:37pm

monument wrote: »

My lawyer friends tell me that the law is rarely black and white. In this case: Except cyclist/bicycles is provided for, issues with small details such as road markings don't amount to much.

Until recent years there was no legal bases at all in providing shared footpath (the signs showing a bicycle and a pedestrian, with a dividing line or no line). These were put all over Ireland and only after that were they retrospectively given backing by means of an SI.

Back to contra-flow, one way except cyclist/bicycles is provided for. It's only a small detail to leave part of a no entry marking out and there's feck all chance a judge would be willing to rule against a person following a council's legally allowed except cyclist/bicycles sign.

Where is the post suggesting that people should cycle the wrong way on the quays?

That's the point, the signs are not legally allowed for if there is no cycle path to enter, entering a one way street without a cycle lane is not provided for in current regulations.

Authorities have as much a duty to follow rules when providing these things as the people who use them!

Indeed a judge most likely wouldn't find against a cyclist in this case (I stated that previously), but that dosn't take away from the fact that they need to be provided for legally!

GM228

galwaycyclist · 20-11-2015 11:09pm

GM228 wrote: »

That's the point, the signs are not legally allowed for if there is no cycle path to enter, entering a one way street without a cycle lane is not provided for in current regulations.

GM228

So please show us all where the regulations say the signs are not legally allowed for without particular road markings.

Such a stark claim should be very very easy to prove.

galwaycyclist · 20-11-2015 11:13pm

trellheim wrote: »

Are you folks so blind you can't see the other road users coming in here and looking at us cyclists and loss of respect because some person on a hobbyhorse is advocating cycling in a frankly dangerous fashion .

I've been city cycling in Dublin since the mid'80s and I've heard much talk about cycling infrastructure. But this bizarre and dangerous notion is just plain stupid. Let me be clear here - I am a daily cycle commuter along the north quays and around D1 and if I saw this going the wrong way up the North Quays I'd hang my head in shame at one tosser ruining it for the rest of us.

Do we need the small clear words here, like the ones we use when we're trying to explain the simple stuff ?

So every single one-way street in every town in the country should be treated as if its on the Liffey quays?

Limited world view there.

trellheim · 20-11-2015 11:34pm

Really ? Its the same world we all occupy and the laws we agree to "limit" ourself by when taking to the roads.

You're the one advocating and encouraging illegal behaviour - for 13 pages on my browser .
Whether it is the Liffey quays or a small oneway road in , for argument's sake, Westport it doesn't make any difference to the inscription on the tombstone if you are killed, or worse, cause someone else to be killed, because they didn't expect a road user travelling fast in an illegal direction. I wonder why you cannot see this.

I have to say I am amazed at your persistence with this all-right-jack and frankly cavalier attitude to other road users here. You bring the rest of us into disrepute. For shame.

galwaycyclist · 21-11-2015 12:18am

Roadhawk wrote: »

I cant seem to find the legislation linked to allowing cyclists to use a one-way street the wrong way. Can anyone post a link?

The source of law here is the Traffic Signs regulations.

S.I. No. 181/1997 - Road Traffic (Signs) Regulations, 1997

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/si/181/made/en/print

Prohibitory Signs.6.
(1) A prohibitory traffic sign shall consist of a white disc with a red border, appropriate symbols, figures or letters shown in black on the disc, and one or more oblique red bars, and shall indicate any of the following:—
(a) that a vehicle shall not proceed in the direction indicated in the arrow depicted on the sign; or
(b) that a vehicle, or specified type or category of vehicle, shall not enter a road at the entrance to which the traffic sign bas been provided; or
(c) that a vehicle, or a specified type or category of vehicle, shall not proceed past a certain point on a road at which the traffic sign has been provided; or
(d) that a vehicle, or a specified type or category of vehicle, shall not be parked or stopped in an area, or on a road, or on part of a road, where the traffic sign has been provided.

(2) The following shall be as set out in the Second Schedule:—
(a) the dimensions and designs at prohibitory traffic signs;
(b) the symbols, figures and letters to be used on such signs;
(c) the sign numbers applying to such signs.

(3) The traffic signs to which this article refers may be accompanied by an information plate as defined in article 3(2) or on an information plate indicating the type or category of vehicle to which the prohibition or restriction applies.

(4) Traffic sign numbers RUS 01I, RUS 012 and RUS 013 may be accompanied by a rectangular plate which shall be placed below the sign and on which may be shown in black letters on a white background, the message "Except Buses and Taxis — Ach amháin Busanna agus Tacsaithe", to indicate that the prohibitions indicated by the said signs do not apply in the case of omnibuses and taxis.

In 1998 these were amended as follows.

S.I. No. 273/1998 - Road Traffic (Signs) (Amendment) Regulations, 1998

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1998/si/273/made/en/print

5. The following shall be substituted for sub-article (4) of article 6 of the Principal Regulations:—

"(4) Traffic sign numbers RUS 011, RUS 012, and RUS 013 may be accompanied by a rectangular plate which shall be placed below the sign and on which may be shown in black letters on a white background,
(a) the message 'Except Buses and Taxis — Ach Amháin Busanna agus Tacsaithe', to
indicate that the prohibitions indicated by the said signs do not apply in the case of omnibuses and taxis; or
(b) the message 'Except Cyclists — Ach Amháin Rothaithe', to indicate that the prohibitions indicated by the said signs do not apply in the case of cyclists; or
(c) the message 'Except Buses, Taxis, and Cyclists — Ach Amháin Busanna, Tacsaithe agus Rothaithe', to indicate that the prohibitions indicated by the said signs do not apply in the case of omnibuses, taxis, and cyclists.".

What this does is create a mechanism where roads may be lawfully opened to certain classes of vehicle in both directions while being open to other classes of vehicle only from one direction.

It doesn't have to be only cyclists its just that it is way easier to do for cyclists

Edit: I should point out that the above is simply one of the means where two-way use could be provided..

Victor · 21-11-2015 1:41am

GM228 wrote: »

Not necessarily down to recklessness, but there's a very interesting study here from the US which shows accident rates per kilometer are 26 to 48 times higher for cyclists than for motorists. In the case of cyclist-motorist accidents the motorists are to blame more often than the cyclist.

Skewed data. Few people cycle more than 10-20km on a typical day. Some people drive hundreds of km per day, much of it on motorways. This results in car journeys being relately safer per km, but as or more dangerous per trip or per person.

Flying, per km, is much safer than driving, but if I got into a 737 every time I went to Spar, it wouldn't be very safe, would it?

GM228 wrote: »

Again that doesn't mean motorists are any more reckless than any other group, it just shows that motoring is the biggest cause of death and suffering mostly due to the fact that they go faster and weight more and naturally enough will create a bigger mess.

I know someone who keeps a nerf gun in the office and is wont to using it.

Imagine someone else keeps an AK47 in their office and is is wont to using it.

Imagine they both manage to shoot someone. Who is being more reckless?

dubscottie wrote: »

Got any proof that motorists are the cause of all these deaths?

Driver error is the cause of the vast majority of collisions - just look at the RSA statistics. The mass and speed of the vehicle is a strong determinant of the outcome of a collision. By virtue of being typically heavier and faster, this makes motor vehicles more dangerous.

In cyclist-motorists collisions, international research points to the motorist being wrong in about 85% of cases.

Have you been to every inquest and know the exact cause of death in road accidents?

Based on the terminology you've just used, it would seem you haven't.

Cause of death is typically things like blunt trauma or blood loss.This is typically very independent of the cause of the collision.

And the reason injuries caused by cyclists don't get reported is because 99% of the time the cyclist will just keep going, knowing that he/she will never get caught and the pedestrian has no way of identifying the cyclist even if they did report it.

We know that isn't true. If it was truely such a problem, it would have been dealt with, but it isn't and hasn't.

roverrules wrote: »

As a point of interest, could it be argued that the use of gears make a cycle mechanically propelled, and the only true non mechanically propelled cycles would be fixies?

The phrase "mechanically propelled" refer to the power source - a machine - as opposed to human, animal or indeed wind power.

Carawaystick wrote: »

Strictly the bolded part includes all human powered bikes, as all muscle movement is under electrical control.

There is a difference between control and propulsion.

Snickers Man wrote: »

It was not illegal to own or use condoms. It was illegal to sell them. So if you could get hold of a carton of johnnies while visiting abroad (or Newry) you were NOT breaking the law by using them in Dublin, or Ballygobackwards.

Off-topic, but my understanding is that they were de facto illegal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraception_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

Whereas cycling the wrong way down a one-way street IS illegal, and, except in cases where there is a clearly demarked and/or kerb/cone separated contra flow system, rightly so.

You are failing to appreciate the full spectrum of one- and two-way ssytems.

Victor · 21-11-2015 2:38am

Roadhawk wrote: »

Why would a cyclist want to cycle up a one way street anyway?

To get to the other side?

Snickers Man wrote: »

Now that's just offensive! I have seen an elderly lady being smashed by a cyclist as she crossed a pedestrian crossing on the green man because the cyclist was sailing through a red light across the top of a T-junction while looking to his right (down the stem of the T) to avoid the traffic that was coming from that direction.

The lady needed an ambulance and was hospitalised but I saw her a few days later so obviously she wasn't killed. So that makes the cyclist's actions all right then?

Engaging in selfish behaviour that hurts someone else is wrong.

The reality is that over the period 1998-2012, pedestrian-motorist collisions killed 926* people (we can assume that pretty much all of them were pedestrians). Pedestrian-cyclist collisions killed 2.

*Excludes multi-vehicle collisions that killed a further approximately 122 people.

You have to also accept that the proliferation of traffic lights is a response to a motoring problem (too many cars). This response punishes all, even those who aren't using cars.

dubscottie · 21-11-2015 2:50am

Take it your a cyclist Victor??

Victor · 21-11-2015 2:55am

dubscottie wrote: »

Take it your a cyclist Victor??

I haven't been on a bike in more than a year and perhaps 3-4 times in the last 4-5 years.

dubscottie · 21-11-2015 4:33am

Victor wrote: »

I haven't been on a bike in more than a year and perhaps 3-4 times in the last 4-5 years.

Just wondered.. You seem pro cyclist a few post back..

I can post pics however of my wounds from Wed night when I was hit by a cyclist firing through a red light..

Did I report it? NO. What is the point. The guy jumped back on his bike and off he went.

Knee elbow and shoulder blooded. But It does not happen according to you.

RainyDay · 21-11-2015 10:34am

dubscottie wrote: »

But It does not happen according to you.

Does not happen according to Victor, the Gardai, the Road Safety Authority, the AA and anyone else who works in the transport sector - certainly it doesn't happen often enough and with enough impact to feature in any statistics of traffic injuries.

But it is amazing how some posters seems to have the 'Bermuda Triangle' zone around them where injuries caused by cyclists happen with amazing frequency.

magicbastarder · 21-11-2015 10:39am

i genuinely do not know (or can't remember anyone telling me) they were knocked down by a cyclist. i know the plural of anecdote is not data, but i know people who have been involved in pretty much every other form of RTA.

Can you cycle up a one-way street?

Comments