Rules of the Road question

robfitz

blorg wrote:

however on the particular one in the photo there is a left-turning filter that goes independently of straight on so you would want to be moving into the ASL box immediately ahead of the right-most lane.

Yes but the ASL isn't correct, it should begin before the traffic lights and not after. See where the white line parellel to the kerb stops that's where the ASL should begin, also it should be 4-5 meters deep and go across to the middle of the roadway.

blorg wrote:

The junction where I was turned into was further back - Roebuck Road.

Yes Roebuck Road juction isn't nice.

cyclopath2001

robfitz wrote:

Here's a clearer photo of that juction on Drummartin Road

That's got a RRM022 marking. Any cyclist who does not stay inside of it would be committing an offence. Even if this means having to traverse a line of left-turning cars. That said, any car that would overtake at that junction could be breaking the law if doing so causes inconvenience or danger to a cyclist.

It would be difficult to prove negligence against the council unless it could be shown that they had either broken the law or ignored codified design standards. AFAIK, the councils operate with unwritten 'best practice' guidelines.

(3) (a) Subject to paragraph (b), a pedal cycle must be driven on a cycle track where one is provided.

b) Paragraph (a) shall not apply in the case of a cycle track on the right-hand edge of which traffic sign number RRM 023 has been provided,

(i) where a person driving a pedal cycle intends to change direction and has indicated that intention, or

10. (1) A driver shall not overtake, or attempt to overtake, if to do so would endanger, or cause inconvenience to, any other person.

(2) A driver shall not overtake, or attempt to overtake, unless the roadway ahead of the driver—

( a ) is free from approaching traffic, pedestrians and any obstruction, and

( b ) is sufficiently long and wide to permit the overtaking to be completed without danger or inconvenience to other traffic or pedestrians.

robfitz

cyclopath2001 wrote:

That's got a RRM022 marking.

Yes but there is no associated RUS009 or RUS009A anywhere along the section of the road marking before the junction.

cyclopath2001 wrote:

It would be difficult to prove negligence against the council unless it could be shown that they had either broken the law or ignored codified design standards. AFAIK, the councils operate with unwritten 'best practice' guidelines.

The current CYCLETRACK DESIGN GUIDELINES MANUAL is available from DTO website.

Also I raised this very juntion as an example of a bad and dangerous design durning a presentation I gave to Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council Transportation Strategic Policy Committee a few meetings ago.

cyclopath2001

robfitz wrote:

Yes but there is no associated RUS009 or RUS009A anywhere along the section of the road marking before the junction.

Shurely shome mishtake? A council ignoring the law?

robfitz wrote:

The current CYCLETRACK DESIGN GUIDELINES MANUAL is available from DTO website.

Not relevant, as I understand that the city council is not bound by the guidelines and prefers to follow 'best practice', whatever that might be.

blorg

robfitz wrote:

The current CYCLETRACK DESIGN GUIDELINES MANUAL is available from DTO website.

I was really quite amazed that such a document exists. Don't know _exactly_ what the point of it is though, I would be surprised if even 1% of Dublin's cycle tracks meet those guidelines. 0.1% even.