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,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Can you cycle up a one-way street?

1235789

Comments

  • #122
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    i like to think that whatever was the thinking 50 years ago might have moved on today.

    The thinking was simply equal rights for all road users.

    GM228


  • #123
    cython
    Registered Users Posts: 4,757 ✭✭✭cython


    GM228 wrote: »
    Sorry that was a typo-should be the RTA 2004, not 1994! (Typo now fixed).

    Your quote from the RTA 1968 is no longer valid.

    RTA 1968 Section 44A was repealed by the 2004 Act as per my quote to allow all vehicles including cyclists be covered by ordinary speed limits.

    A huge problem with RTAs is sections regularly get repealed or amended but are kept as per the original inacted wording on the books, a lot of people don't realise that.

    GM228

    I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation of that, I'm afraid. The 2004 act states (my emphasis):
    4.—(1) The Minister may make regulations prescribing a speed limit (“ordinary speed limit”) in respect of all public roads, or all public roads with such exceptions as may be specified in the regulations, for any class of mechanically propelled vehicle.


    (2) Regulations under this section may prescribe different speed limits for any class of vehicle using particular categories of public roads.


    (3) Regulations under this section may make provision for the exemption of a class or classes, including a sub class, of vehicles from a speed limit specified in any such regulations.

    The first paragraph grants the minister powers to impose speed limits. Subsequent paragraphs are typically elaborations on this. Otherwise why include mechanically propelled in the first paragraph at all? Admittedly it may be argued that this is not an elaboration of the first section, but it still stands that unless there is an explicit cycle speed limit specified (as highlighted may be the case in Clontarf), cyclists are not subject to the "ordinary" speed limit.


  • #124
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    cython wrote: »
    I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation of that, I'm afraid. The 2004 act states (my emphasis):


    The first paragraph grants the minister powers to impose speed limits. Subsequent paragraphs are typically elaborations on this. Otherwise why include mechanically propelled in the first paragraph at all? Admittedly it may be argued that this is not an elaboration of the first section, but it still stands that unless there is an explicit cycle speed limit specified (as highlighted may be the case in Clontarf), cyclists are not subject to the "ordinary" speed limit.

    I suppose like many things in law it's not always crystal clear and sometimes creates more questions than it answers. I did state that ordinary speed limits can apply to any vehicle, and it allows speed limits to apply to all vehicles including cyclists, I didn't say that the speed limits do apply to cyclists.
    (2) Regulations under this section may prescribe different speed limits for any class of vehicle using particular categories of public roads.

    (3) Regulations under this section may make provision for the exemption of a class or classes, including a sub class, of vehicles from a speed limit specified in any such regulations.

    I think the words "any class of vehicle" here is important though, and particular categories of public roads, so that gives the ability to apply the speed limits to any vehicle, but to particular categories of roads is not really clear what that means?

    Is a cycle lane in a "public road" I wonder?

    A cycle lane is part of a "road", but not part of a "roadway" according to the various acts, but a "public road” means a road over which a public right of way exists and the responsibility for the maintenance of which lies on a road authority?

    NB-Please no suggestions that you can apply a special speed limit to a cyclist when going the wrong way down a one way street! :)

    GM228


  • #125
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,221 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    GM228 wrote: »
    The thinking was simply equal rights for all road users.

    GM228
    i suppose then the thinking is that the output of equal rights is reached by treating everyone equally as an input.
    as a crude analogy, you can't give someone in a wheelchair equal rights (not that i'm suggesting cyclists are disabled!) by treating them the exact same as someone who can walk.


  • #126
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    i suppose then the thinking is that the output of equal rights is reached by treating everyone equally as an input.
    as a crude analogy, you can't give someone in a wheelchair equal rights (not that i'm suggesting cyclists are disabled!) by treating them the exact same as someone who can walk.

    Excellent point!

    GM228


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    cython
    Registered Users Posts: 4,757 ✭✭✭cython


    GM228 wrote: »
    I suppose like many things in law it's not always crystal clear and sometimes creates more questions than it answers. I did state that ordinary speed limits can apply to any vehicle, and it allows speed limits to apply to all vehicles including cyclists, I didn't say that the speed limits do apply to cyclists.
    But in reality ordinary speed limits can only apply to mechanically propelled vehicles, per the first point in the section. Apologies if that seems like I'm being pedantic, but I do think it's an important point. If a speed limit is going to be imposed on a non-mechanically-propelled vehicle under the second point, then it needs to be in addition to the ordinary speed limit. In most instances this is done in a broad law, e.g. the lower speed limit on HGVs, buses with standing capacity, etc. but no such provision exists for pedal cycles at present.

    GM228 wrote: »
    I think the words "any class of vehicle" here is important though, and particular categories of public roads, so that gives the ability to apply the speed limits to any vehicle, but to particular categories of roads is not really clear what that means?

    Is a cycle lane in a "public road" I wonder?

    A cycle lane is part of a "road", but not part of a "roadway" according to the various acts, but a "public road” means a road over which a public right of way exists and the responsibility for the maintenance of which lies on a road authority?

    GM228
    As above, there is no "universal" law setting a speed limit or limits for pedal cycles at present under the second point, so unless there is an explicit speed limit on a given stretch of road, then bicycles continue to be exempt from the posted speed limit.


  • #128
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,221 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    i was once cycling down knockmaroon hill at the side of the phoenix park; and there was a garda with a speed camera at the bottom. as i passed he punched the air in encouragement - i looked at my cycle computer and i was doing 37mph in a 30mph zone. the cop seemed to enjoy it anyway.


  • #129
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    It's phenomenal the extent to which some people seem incapable of considering that A) Currently existing laws are neither perfect nor the highest moral standard attainable, and that B) We can have conversations about what the law should be instead of what the law is.

    So many posters smugly declaring that contraflow cycling is against the law as if that was the only point worth even considering. Conflating the rules of the road with safety - and any deviation there from as unsafe - is pretty bizarre brain-work as well.


  • #130
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    GM228 wrote: »
    Just to clarify I have not given motorists a free pass with speeding, I'm not sure why you think that?

    I think that because you discounted considering speeding as a measure of the recklessness of motorists when you said:
    That's true, but it doesn't mean that motorists are more reckless than any other group, at a guess I'd say the average speed of a cyclist is about 20 km/h which means they simply can't speed, rather than they don't speed
    GM228 wrote: »
    I don't agree with speeding in the exact same way that I don't agree with a cyclist breaking a red light!
    200 people are killed each year on our roads by motorists and thousands more maimed. Every road safety expert tells us that speed is a major factor in these incidents.

    Zero people are killed each year by cyclists breaking red lights. If anybody is injured by cyclists breaking red lights, it doesn't happen often enough or with enough seriousness to appear in any road safety statistic or news report.

    And you want to treat the two issues EXACTLY the same?
    GM228 wrote: »
    The rules are there for everyone and there should be no exceptions.
    Indeed, in theory you are correct. In practice, we have a limited amount of resources available for enforcement, and we have to prioritise those resources based on risk.

    Or do you want EQUAL resources on both issues, regardless of impact. And if you do, don't forget dropping of chewing gum. That's illegal too, so you might want to put equal resources into that too.


  • #131
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,221 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    the equating of speeding with cyclists breaking red lights (as Zillah mentioned) is purely down to them both being illegal, not to do with the danger involved.
    several cities have passed laws allowing cyclists to break red (usually a 'turn left on red' approach), so obviously the authorities in those cities have decided it's not an issue as serious as speeding.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    RainyDay wrote: »
    I think that because you discounted considering speeding as a measure of the recklessness of motorists when you said

    What I said is that a motorist speeding dosn't automatically make them more reckless than a cyclist, NOT that it isn't or shouldn't be a measure of their recklessness! If a cyclist could actually speed then no doubt plenty would in the same way plenty of motorists do.
    200 people are killed each year on our roads by motorists and thousands more maimed. Every road safety expert tells us that speed is a major factor in these incidents.

    Indeed we all know that, but unfortunately it dosn't seem to deter the idiots who are speeding!
    Zero people are killed each year by cyclists breaking red lights. If anybody is injured by cyclists breaking red lights, it doesn't happen often enough or with enough seriousness to appear in any road safety statistic or news report.

    To be fair part of that is simply because cyclists go slower and are lighter than a car, also cyclists are probably naturally enough more alert to their surroundings.
    And you want to treat the two issues EXACTLY the same?

    Or do you want EQUAL resources on both issues, regardless of impact. And if you do, don't forget dropping of chewing gum. That's illegal too, so you might want to put equal resources into that too.

    I didn't say both issues should be treated or dealth with in the same manner either, just that I equally disagree with them both, my opinions of disagreement are different to any opinions of how issues should be dealth with and I never stated those opinions!

    Apologies if I gave the wrong impression but I certainly never meant to give any impression that speeding was ok, I don't agree with it and I know speed is the killer!

    Oh and incase there's any doubt I don't agree with people throwing chewing gum on the ground either! :)

    GM228


  • #133
    dubscottie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 854 ✭✭✭dubscottie


    RainyDay wrote: »

    200 people are killed each year on our roads by motorists and thousands more maimed. Every road safety expert tells us that speed is a major factor in these incidents.

    Zero people are killed each year by cyclists breaking red lights. If anybody is injured by cyclists breaking red lights, it doesn't happen often enough or with enough seriousness to appear in any road safety statistic or news report.


    Got any proof that motorists are the cause of all these deaths? Have you been to every inquest and know the exact cause of death in road accidents?

    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.


  • #134
    roverrules
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 331 ✭✭roverrules


    cython wrote: »
    I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation of that, I'm afraid. The 2004 act states (my emphasis):


    The first paragraph grants the minister powers to impose speed limits. Subsequent paragraphs are typically elaborations on this. Otherwise why include mechanically propelled in the first paragraph at all? Admittedly it may be argued that this is not an elaboration of the first section, but it still stands that unless there is an explicit cycle speed limit specified (as highlighted may be the case in Clontarf), cyclists are not subject to the "ordinary" speed limit.


    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?


  • #135
    roverrules
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 331 ✭✭roverrules


    Zillah wrote: »
    It's phenomenal the extent to which some people seem incapable of considering that A) Currently existing laws are neither perfect nor the highest moral standard attainable, and that B) We can have conversations about what the law should be instead of what the law is.

    So many posters smugly declaring that contraflow cycling is against the law as if that was the only point worth even considering. Conflating the rules of the road with safety - and any deviation there from as unsafe - is pretty bizarre brain-work as well.


    But the OP specifically asks if it's legal, it isn't.
    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?


  • #136
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    roverrules wrote: »
    But the OP specifically asks if it's legal, it isn't.

    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.


  • #137
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    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?

    No, a mechanically propelled vehicle is already defined in law, only includes a bicyle if adapted as follows:-

    RTA 1961:-
    “mechanically propelled vehicle” means, subject to subsection (2) of this section, a vehicle intended or adapted for propulsion by mechanical means, including—

    (a) a bicycle or tricycle with an attachment for propelling it by mechanical power, whether or not the attachment is being used,

    (b) a vehicle the means of propulsion of which is electrical or partly electrical and partly mechanical

    Going by part (a) an electric bicycle even if in use as a conventional bike would be subject to observing speed limits.

    GM228


  • #138
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    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.

    Indeed it can be legal, but under certain conditions/provisions.

    You are obviously misguided, authorities are required to provide them legally, they are otherwise already illegal without any authorities help, they don't make them illegal, however they do provide some which are not provided for legally such as Leinster Street North, Royal Canal Bank, Hannaville Park and Terenure Park and I'm sure a few more.

    GM228


  • #139
    trellheim
    Registered Users Posts: 5,854 ✭✭✭trellheim


    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.
    GC - get out and stop trolling. You are advocating illegal action and have a hobbyhorse on this which is inciting others. What you are talking about has the potential to badly injure people - can you not see this ? Are you that thick ?


  • #140
    roverrules
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 331 ✭✭roverrules


    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.

    It isn't legal in the context that unless it's signed etc. it's illegal


  • #141
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    GM228 wrote: »
    No, a mechanically propelled vehicle is already defined in law, only includes a bicyle if adapted as follows:-
    RTA 1961:- wrote:

    “mechanically propelled vehicle” means, subject to subsection (2) of this section, a vehicle intended or adapted for propulsion by mechanical means, including—

    (a) a bicycle or tricycle with an attachment for propelling it by mechanical power, whether or not the attachment is being used,

    (b) a vehicle the means of propulsion of which is electrical or partly electrical and partly mechanical

    GM228

    Strictly the bolded part includes all human powered bikes, as all muscle movement is under electrical control. Unless electrical is defined as badly as mechanical propulsion in the laws.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    Carawaystick wrote: »
    Strictly the bolded part includes all human powered bikes, as all muscle movement is under electrical control. Unless electrical is defined as badly as mechanical propulsion in the laws.

    Indeed it is, most recent definition is from the RTA 2014 (Car Clubs and Electrically Powered Vehicle Act):-
    ‘electrically powered vehicle’ means a mechanically propelled vehicle that is powered—

    (a) solely by means of a re-chargeable battery, or

    (b) by means of a re-chargeable battery and an internal combustion engine where either power source may be used to propel the vehicle;

    GM228


  • #143
    ceannair06
    Closed Accounts Posts: 205 ✭✭ceannair06


    If cyclists spent a tenth of the time actually obeying the rules of normal civilised behaviour that they do trying to find obscure tangential reasons why they "might" be able to go the wrong way down the Quays, or through a pedestrianised area - we'd all be better off.


  • #144
    ceannair06
    Closed Accounts Posts: 205 ✭✭ceannair06


    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.

    Utter garbage. And part of the reason why cyclists are hated.


  • #145
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    GM228 wrote: »
    Indeed it is, most recent definition is from the RTA 2014 (Car Clubs and Electrically Powered Vehicle Act):-



    GM228

    Class, so a solar powered car wouldn't be electrically powered...:eek:


  • #146
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    Carawaystick wrote: »
    Class, so a solar powered car wouldn't be electrically powered...:eek:

    I don't think I'd agree with that, solar cars are powered by a bettery, the solar power feeds the battery, not the car AFAIK.

    GM228


  • #147
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    ceannair06 wrote: »
    If cyclists all road users spent a tenth of the time actually obeying the rules of normal civilised behaviour that they do trying to find obscure tangential reasons why they "might" be able to go the wrong way down the Quays, or through a pedestrianised areato allow them to break the law - we'd all be better off.


    FYP

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/hundreds-of-drivers-avoid-penalty-points-due-to-poor-box-1.2405672

    http://www.joe.ie/news/over-80000-drivers-escape-penalty-points-in-ireland-due-to-loophole/33597


  • #148
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    roverrules wrote: »
    But the OP specifically asks if it's legal, it isn't.

    Shockingly, after ten pages we've managed to stretch the conversation a little bit wider than the one simple question that was asked in the OP.


  • #149
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    Zillah wrote: »
    Shockingly, after ten pages we've managed to stretch the conversation a little bit wider than the one simple question that was asked in the OP.

    There's probably a different answer on every page! :)

    GM228


  • #150
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    GM228 wrote: »
    There's probably a different answer on every page! :)

    GM228

    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."


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    Snickers Man
    Registered Users Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭Snickers Man


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    The problem is the merits of the law. This is a similar issue to what used to go on in this country regarding adults getting access contraception. The Irish ban on contraception set us apart as a country that was wilfully backward and as a country that existed outside what was considered perfectly normal in other European countries.

    Thousands, most likely the vast majority, of Irish adults ignored the law and got hold of contraception by various means. Most of these people would have been otherwise law abiding. The key point was not that they were inherently law breaking. It was that the Irish state had chosen to place what was considered perfectly normal elsewhere outside the law.

    It is the same with one-way streets. The general Irish ban on contraflow cycling sets us apart as a country that is wilfully backward and as a country that exists outside what is considered perfectly normal in other European countries.

    What a dumb analogy!!!

    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.


Advertisement