Interpretation of this SI please

Spook_ie · 22-04-2021 5:44pm #1

Section 47, S.I. No. 182/1997 - Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997

Quote:
A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than two pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians

I am being told that the use of the words "and then only if to do so" aren't how I would interpret them as a layman, is there a separate or different meaning to it?

mickuhaha · 22-04-2021 5:46pm

Can you provide the alternative interpretation?

Spook_ie · 22-04-2021 6:09pm

The two interpretations are
1 Cyclists can ride 3 abreast when overtaking
2 Cyclists can ride 3 abreast when overtaking but not when " and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians"

Several people are putting the interpretation that endanger etc. probably only applies to traffic coming from the other direction whereas I believe it applies to all traffic in whatever direction they are travelling

mickuhaha · 22-04-2021 6:35pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

The two interpretations are
1 Cyclists can ride 3 abreast when overtaking
2 Cyclists can ride 3 abreast when overtaking but not when " and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians"

Several people are putting the interpretation that endanger etc. probably only applies to traffic coming from the other direction whereas I believe it applies to all traffic in whatever direction they are travelling

It applies to all directions and anyone that the action may endanger.

GM228 · 22-04-2021 9:42pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

The two interpretations are
1 Cyclists can ride 3 abreast when overtaking
2 Cyclists can ride 3 abreast when overtaking but not when " and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians"

Several people are putting the interpretation that endanger etc. probably only applies to traffic coming from the other direction whereas I believe it applies to all traffic in whatever direction they are travelling

There is no "probably", as the previous poster notes applies to any traffic or pedestrians using the place, it is not qualified by those traffic or pedestrians moving in any particular direction (or indeed moving at all).

ohnonotgmail · 22-04-2021 10:29pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

The two interpretations are
1 Cyclists can ride 3 abreast when overtaking
2 Cyclists can ride 3 abreast when overtaking but not when " and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians"

Several people are putting the interpretation that endanger etc. probably only applies to traffic coming from the other direction whereas I believe it applies to all traffic in whatever direction they are travelling

others have already answered that the second interpretation is correct but as a general rule if the danger, inconvenience or obstruction only applied to traffic coming from the other direction then the SI would explicitly say that. absent any such wording it must be assumed to apply to all traffic.

Fighting Tao · 23-04-2021 9:35am

The initial debate surrounded the legality of cycling 3 abreast, then it was fudged for basically because cyclists. Anyway, it was stated by a number of posters that 3 abreast is legal, however only when overtaking.

So the next bit brought in was endangering and obstructing. People on bikes are traffic and if I recall correctly it is specifically mentioned in the RTA. Therefore, if they are travelling in the same direction, how can they be an obstruction, and how can they be endangering people in cars behind them as the driver is in control of their own vehicle and should be driving with care?

ohnonotgmail · 23-04-2021 9:37am

Fighting Tao wrote: »

The initial debate surrounded the legality of cycling 3 abreast, then it was fudged for basically because cyclists. Anyway, it was stated by a number of posters that 3 abreast is legal, however only when overtaking.

So the next bit brought in was endangering and obstructing. People on bikes are traffic and if I recall correctly it is specifically mentioned in the RTA. Therefore, if they are travelling in the same direction, how can they be an obstruction, and how can they be endangering people in cars behind them as the driver is in control of their own vehicle and should be driving with care?

you forgot inconvenience

endanger, inconvenience or obstruct

if you have cyclists travelling three abreast blocking a road and riding slowly then they will be inconveniencing the traffic behind them.

Fighting Tao · 23-04-2021 9:49am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you forgot inconvenience

if you have cyclists travelling three abreast blocking a road and riding slowly then they will be inconveniencing the traffic behind them.

Yes forgot that. Apologies. Working and posting at the same time.

If a person is cycling, and there is a motor vehicle ahead that is travelling slower then the bike can travel, that is an inconvenience. What is the definition of inconvenience? Unless there is an emergency vehicle, or someone being rushed to hospital etc, then inconvenience would be arbitrary.

ohnonotgmail · 23-04-2021 9:52am

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Yes forgot that. Apologies. Working and posting at the same time.

If a person is cycling, and there is a motor vehicle ahead that is travelling slower then the bike can travel, that is an inconvenience. What is the definition of inconvenience? Unless there is an emergency vehicle, or someone being rushed to hospital etc, then inconvenience would be arbitrary.

unless otherwise specified a word takes its ordinary meaning. whether a cyclist is inconveniencing other road users is down to opinion BUT if 3 cyclists are blocking a road and travelling at 20-30KMH on a road with a limit of 60KMH I think a case inconvenience could be easily made.

Fighting Tao · 23-04-2021 9:55am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

unless otherwise specified a word takes its ordinary meaning. whether a cyclist is inconveniencing other road users is down to opinion BUT if 3 cyclists are blocking a road and travelling at 20-30KMH on a road with a limit of 60KMH I think a case inconvenience could be easily made.

One of those is overtaking. So it may take a few seconds. It’s not blocking the road. Unless one or more of the people get off their bike and stand in the middle of the lane.

GM228 · 23-04-2021 9:56am

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Yes forgot that. Apologies. Working and posting at the same time.

If a person is cycling, and there is a motor vehicle ahead that is travelling slower then the bike can travel, that is an inconvenience.

A motor vehicle is not subject to the inconvenience provision (unless it is overtaking), that said they must be driven in a way which gives reasonable consideration for other persons using the place.

Fighting Tao wrote: »

What is the definition of inconvenience? Unless there is an emergency vehicle, or someone being rushed to hospital etc, then inconvenience would be arbitrary.

There is no legal definition, it would very much depend on the facts of each case and be based on the standard of what is inconvenient to the reasonable person.

ohnonotgmail · 23-04-2021 9:57am

Fighting Tao wrote: »

One of those is overtaking. So it may take a few seconds. It’s not blocking the road. Unless one or more of the people get off their bike and stand in the middle of the lane.

I think I have explained it as best I can. I don't think it is that complicated.

GM228 · 23-04-2021 9:57am

Fighting Tao wrote: »

One of those is overtaking. So it may take a few seconds. It’s not blocking the road. Unless one or more of the people get off their bike and stand in the middle of the lane.

You can not overtake if the overtaking itself is an inconvenience to others.

Fighting Tao · 23-04-2021 9:58am

GM228 wrote: »

A motor vehicle is not subject to the inconvenience provision, that said they must be driven in a way which gives reasonable consideration for other persons using the place.

There is no legal definition, it would very much depend on the facts of each case and be based on the standard of what is inconvenient to the reasonable person.

Would a reasonable person consider one bike passing out 2 others for what...10-20 seconds it takes as endangering, inconveniencing, or obstructing?

GM228 · 23-04-2021 10:00am

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Would a reasonable person consider one bike passing out 2 others for what...10-20 seconds it takes as endangering, inconveniencing, or obstructing?

That would be for the judge to decide, but, as I said each case will very much depend on the facts of the case.

Fighting Tao · 23-04-2021 10:07am

GM228 wrote: »

That would be for the judge to decide, but, as I said each case will very much depend on the facts of the case.

I suspected it would be down to the judge, and therefore peoples nullifying peoples opinions and what they constitute as an inconvenience on internet forums.

Maybe not a question that can be answered, but has there been any case where one person on a bike overtaking two others with regard to inconvenience, endangering, or obstructing traffic going in the same direction?

ohnonotgmail · 23-04-2021 10:11am

Fighting Tao wrote: »

I suspected it would be down to the judge, and therefore peoples nullifying peoples opinions and what they constitute as an inconvenience on internet forums.

Maybe not a question that can be answered, but has there been any case where one person on a bike overtaking two others with regard to inconvenience, endangering, or obstructing traffic going in the same direction?

such a case would end up in the district court so unless a newspaper picks it up you won't hear about it.

Calahonda52 · 23-04-2021 10:34am

here is an example of 2 abreast
which could be construed as endangering, inconveniencing, or obstructing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BkwnGq2yaA

Claw Hammer · 23-04-2021 1:42pm

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Would a reasonable person consider one bike passing out 2 others for what...10-20 seconds it takes as endangering, inconveniencing, or obstructing?

It depends on context.
If there is no other traffic and no pedestrian within 500m it would not be inconvenient.
If there was a lot of traffic and it was near a school or busy shopping area with numerous pedestrians, there could well be an inconvenience.
the whole point is, that despite what many cyclists think, cyclists are not alone on the road. It is not a question of saying, it is 10 or 20 seconds, it is about analysing the entire situation before attempting the overtaking manoeuvre.

AndrewJRenko · 23-04-2021 2:43pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

such a case would end up in the district court so unless a newspaper picks it up you won't hear about it.

If it relates to cycling, you'll hear about it.

2 or 3 people killed by motorists each week barely gets a mention in the news, and maybe a couple of RIPs on the journal.

But prosecute a cyclist on a very minor issue and you'll get hundreds of comments from the outraged.

ohnonotgmail · 23-04-2021 2:44pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If it relates to cycling, you'll hear about it.

2 or 3 people killed by motorists each week barely gets a mention in the news, and maybe a couple of RIPs on the journal.

But prosecute a cyclist on a very minor issue and you'll get hundreds of comments from the outraged.

i think you overestimate how many district court cases get reported.

AndrewJRenko · 23-04-2021 2:59pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

if you have cyclists travelling three abreast blocking a road and riding slowly then they will be inconveniencing the traffic behind them.

So does every driver or cyclist in front of me on the road inconvenience me, when I'm driving and when I'm cycling?

How does it inconvenience the driver behind? Can they not just overtake?

Robbo · 23-04-2021 3:03pm

Moderation: Can we please not have one of the incredibly tiresome motorist v. cyclists threads? You have many other, more suitable, battlegrounds for this.

magicbastarder · 23-04-2021 3:07pm

i would struggle to see how overtaking two slower cyclists could inconvenience someone travelling behind - you would assume that the cyclist immediately behind said two cyclists has priority over someone behind, and also, it would mean that the person behind would not have to overtake all three cyclists in a single go?

to put it purely in a car context, if i am driving, and i'm two cars behind a tractor say; the car in front of me performing an overtake of the tractor is in no way inconveniencing me; surely they're conveniencing me?
unless i'm already in the act of overtaking both, but that's not an inconvenience, that's dangerous.

Fighting Tao · 23-04-2021 3:16pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

i would struggle to see how overtaking two slower cyclists could inconvenience someone travelling behind - you would assume that the cyclist immediately behind said two cyclists has priority over someone behind, and also, it would mean that the person behind would not have to overtake all three cyclists in a single go?

to put it purely in a car context, if i am driving, and i'm two cars behind a tractor say; the car in front of me performing an overtake of the tractor is in no way inconveniencing me; surely they're conveniencing me?
unless i'm already in the act of overtaking both, but that's not an inconvenience, that's dangerous.

I would guess that's where 'a reasonable person' comes in.

micar · 23-04-2021 3:30pm

Calahonda52 wrote: »

here is an example of 2 abreast
which could be construed as endangering, inconveniencing, or obstructing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BkwnGq2yaA

I'm sure many an accident has occurred where bouncing boobies has a distracted a driver

CramCycle · 23-04-2021 3:36pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

The two interpretations are
1 Cyclists can ride 3 abreast when overtaking
2 Cyclists can ride 3 abreast when overtaking but not when " and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians"

Several people are putting the interpretation that endanger etc. probably only applies to traffic coming from the other direction whereas I believe it applies to all traffic in whatever direction they are travelling

I think you are right, but that is covered under other legislation anyway, can't remember the term but I want to say "wreckless cycling".

Long story short, a cyclist putting themselves in danger is covered elsewhere (as is putting anyone else in danger). Realistically, this applies to pedestrians wherever they are and is basically the same as riding with due care and attention, you see a pedestrian on the road, you give them a wide berth, slow down, basically don't act like a c**k. Endangering other drivers is a hard one to do, as they are in a car but presumably the meaning is anything that will force them to take evasive action, and I mean force, if they aren't overtaking when the cyclist starts, then they aren't forced but if they swing out while the car is mid overtake then it's reasonable to assume forced as they have had to deviate from an action that has started for safety reasons. The only interpretation I can see that makes sense is don't do it with oncoming traffic, or if motorised traffic in the same direction is already in the process of an overtake i.e. if the cyclist starts the overtake first, the motorist is wrong and vice versa. The obstruct part follows the same line and is pretty much a variation on the other two, eg if overtaking causes approaching traffic to have to stop or deviate, or prevents overtaking traffic who have already started the overtake.

Long story short, all three words are just a legalistic way of covering any misinterpretation.

beauf · 23-04-2021 4:10pm

I doubt this really about over taking. But more about group rides.

magicbastarder · 23-04-2021 6:39pm

don't forget this was probably written decades ago, FWIW.

ohnonotgmail · 23-04-2021 6:51pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

don't forget this was probably written decades ago, FWIW.

1997. hardly victorian times.

Interpretation of this SI please

Comments