New Rules of the Road - Compulsory use of cycle lanes

Treade

Have any of you guys read the new rules of the road? It states that cyclists MUST use a cycle lane where it is available.
I think this is riduclous. What is a cyclist supposed to do where the cycle lane is

• covered in broken glass
• dangerous to the point of needing a mountain bike to negiotate it
• not suitable for making a right turn

In my opinion this new rule is unreasonable. It think that cyclists should use the cycle in so far as it practicable but it should not be compulsory especially given the condition of our cycle lanes.

vasch_ro

so if you feel so strongly , what have you done to lobby the powers that be to get this rule changed ? Have you ever contacted a local authority about litter (glass etc) in their cycle lanes , contacted any of your local public reps ? By the way it was compulsory prior to the publishing of the new rules of the road ! Its a safety issue.

dalk

Its been compulsory to use cycle lanes since the late 90's afaik...

flickerx

Treade wrote:

Have any of you guys read the new rules of the road? It states that cyclists MUST use a cycle lane where it is available.

Just do what is best for yourself and for others when you're on the road. If the bike lane is covered in glass, bad surface etc then just dont use it. Dont get stressed about it, its highly unlikely the Garda will arrest you and/or charge you if you veer out of the cycle lane.

seamus

Treade wrote:

In my opinion this new rule is unreasonable. It think that cyclists should use the cycle in so far as it practicable but it should not be compulsory especially given the condition of our cycle lanes.

Pretty much. There are numerous points on my route where the compulsory cycle lane is too dangerous to use, so I stay on the road, or use the path beside it. Most of the danger comes from glass or general debris on the track - thankfully the more crazy parts of the track aren't compulsory.
I've complained to SDCC, but apart from what seems like one day where they came out and cleaned the route I use, it's pretty consistently filthy and neglected.

If a Garda ever bothered his ass to challenge me, I'd point out my reasons for not using the lane, and hope he decides to use his discretion. I won't lose the rag if he decides a fine is in order though.

Morgan

The DCC have a campaign to revoke this rule - don't know if it's going anywhere though.

http://home.connect.ie/dcc/submissions/mandatory_use_cullen060223.html

I had a rolling conversation with a motorcycle guard on Amiens St (coming from North Strand) as I rode in the bus lane rather than the (now removed) bike lane. He said I should be on the bike lane, I told him my reasons for not using it and he agreed. He didn't pursue it (or me) any further.

Treade

Yes I saw that. I read the DCC submission. In fact it looks like they ignored what the DCC submitted regarding the use of cycle lanes and changed it further to remove any ambugity.
The law is an arse trying to make cycle lane compulsory considering the state of many of the cycle lanes in this country. On my commute there is a section of cycle lane that is 50 metres long. It is much more dangerous try to remerge with the traffic after 50 metres than just staying on the road for the 50 metres. At least that way you can keep momentum.

In England the use of cycle lanes by cyclists is encouraged but is not compulsory.

blorg

dalk wrote:

Its been compulsory to use cycle lanes since the late 90's afaik...

The law was changed in I think 1998, the rules of the road were just updated recently (the old ones were out of date.)

As others say, use your discretion and it is unlikely you are going to be prosecuted. The main problem as I see it with such a rule (especially if publicised) is that it gives certain vigilante drivers an "justification" to buzz you if you are not on the cycle track.

kmick

To be honest with the level of crackdown on cyclists, motorists and pedestrains alike it is doubtful you would ever get penalised for this. There is no enforcement of road rules in Ireland full stop so do what you like.

Treade

http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/

Check this link out. It seems to draw the conclusion that the introduction of cycle lanes actually reduces the amount of road space available to cyclists.

On a different note I must commend the powers that be on the introduction of the new bus lane on the North Quays. It is now much easier to get down the quays in the morning.

jman0

It's disingenuous to claim mandatory cycle lanes are "for safety" without providing data that actually demonstrates they are safer.
I suspect the real reason to make their use mandatory is to force cyclists off the road and out of motorists way.
It also encourages the attitude that our pubic roads are for motorists only. No doubt this legislation is part of a motorist-centric policy.

Ghost Rider

More worryingly, I'd say it has less to do with safety and everything to do with legal indemnity. In other words, the main reason is to limit the liability of the State if someone has an accident anywhere near a cycle path and decides to go looking for compensation.

jman0 wrote:

It's disingenuous to claim mandatory cycle lanes are "for safety" without providing data that actually demonstrates they are safer.
I suspect the real reason to make their use mandatory is to force cyclists off the road and out of motorists way.
It also encourages the attitude that our pubic roads are for motorists only. No doubt this legislation is part of a motorist-centric policy.

Pherekydes

I routinely ignore cycle lanes.

If I'm ever challenged, then I'll simply ask if it's safer for me to be riding on what is essentially a footpath, with pedestrians mixed in, or the road.

Riding past pedestrians at 25km/hr is insane, IMHO.

Safer for the pedestrians if I ride on the road, and probably for me, too.

kenmc

agreed.

Civilian_Target

Treade wrote:

In England the use of cycle lanes by cyclists is encouraged but is not compulsory.

They've tried to make it so on a number of occasions, but every time have backed down in the face of London's better-organised cycling lobby who ganged up on them with environmentalists and TFL AFAIK.

skidpatches

Civilian_Target wrote:

They've tried to make it so on a number of occasions, but every time have backed down in the face of London's better-organised cycling lobby who ganged up on them with environmentalists and TFL AFAIK.

It was the CTC that successfully lobbied to have the mandatory use of cycle lanes revoked.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4789146.stm
http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4568

Pity there is no body in Ireland as well organised and mobilised to stand up for our rights.

rubadub

Most gardai are ignorant of the laws they are supposed to enforce. There are no cycle lanes, so if a garda called it a lane you could justifiable say it is not a cycle lane and not tell him what it actually is.

Many cycletracks and cycleways are not signed correctly and so are footpaths- end of story.

If ever I was stopped by a garda on the road alongside a (alleged) cycletrack I would tell them another garda stopped me 3 months before and told me it was illegal to cycle on it since it was technically a footpath, then I would point out all the pedestrians walking on it (and there always is) and say it is pretty obvious it is a footpath and totally unsafe to cycle on.

Treade

That is all well and good.

The problem is that from a legal point of view we cyclists should not be on the road if there is a cycle lane available. Hence if we get hit by a car and are injured the drivers insurance company could argue in court that the cyclist was in the wrong for being on the road in the first place.

rubadub

Treade wrote:

That is all well and good.

The problem is that from a legal point of view we cyclists should not be on the road if there is a cycle lane available. Hence if we get hit by a car and are injured the drivers insurance company could argue in court that the cyclist was in the wrong for being on the road in the first place.

possibly, pedestrians shouldnt be jaywalking on the road either, dunno what happens in court in those cases. Many of the cycle tracls/ways are illegal so you could be in the right to be on the road. I cycle on the road when I am more likely to be injured cycling on compulsory tracks.

has anybody a link to the new rules, to see the actual wording? EDIT: this might be up to date
http://www.drivingschoolireland.com/pedal-cyclist.html#5

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/si/0274.html

6. The following shall be substituted for article 14 of the Principal Regulations:—

"14. (1) A cycle track shall be indicated by traffic sign number RUS 009 or RUS 009A provided in association with traffic sign number RRM 022 (continuous white line) or RRM023 (broken white line) which latter signs may be marked on the right-hand edge of the cycle track or on the right-hand and left-hand edges of the cycle track.

(2) The periods of operation of a cycle track may be indicated on an information plate which may be provided in association with traffic sign number RUS 009 or RUS 009A.

(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

(ii) where a bus is stopped in the cycle track at a point where traffic sign RUS 031 (bus stop) is provided, or

(iii) where a vehicle is parked in the cycle track for the purpose of loading or unloading.

Could you possibly just claim you intend on changing direction? What if a car is parked completely on a proper cycletrack.

Itsfixed

skidpatches wrote:

It was the CTC that successfully lobbied to have the mandatory use of cycle lanes revoked.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4789146.stm
http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4568

Pity there is no body in Ireland as well organised and mobilised to stand up for our rights.

I actually sent an email a couple of weeks ago to the CTC asking if they ever had or were considering setting up an irish branch besides NI. They offer services to uk members such as third party insurance. Apparently they have some ROI members, but they cannot qualify for the insurance.

This is the reply i got. Would be good to try set up a branch if we could.

Hi John

We used to have branches in both Northern Ireland and the Republic but currently only the Northern Ireland branch is active due to insurance issues in the Republic which means that members resident there are not covered by our third party insurance. This is the link to our Northern Ireland branch

http://www.ctc-ni.com/ We would welcome expressions of interest from any body interested in re-activating a Dublin/Republic of Ireland branch – all enquiries should be addressed to Local Groups Officer alex.geen@ctc.org.uk in the first instance.


Kind regards


Julie Rand

Information Officer

CTC - the UK's national cyclists' organisation

robfitz

Ok, lets clarify a few things. In Irish legislation there is no such thing as a cycle lane, what we do have is cycleways and cycle tracks.

A cycleway is a public road exclusively provided for the use of cyclists and pedestrians. This is covered by Act 14 of 1993, Section 68. So essentially cycleways don't matter for this discussion, they would mostly be recreational routes or connecting routes through parks, etc.

A cycle track is a section of the public road primarily for the use of cyclists, this includes on-roadway and off-roadway types. The most recent regulations covering cycle tracks are S.I. 273 of 1998 and S.I. 274 of 1998, though the concept of mandatory use has existed since S.I. 294 of 1964, Article 28 with a small reprieve (oversight?) in the 1997 regulations.


Now the thing about the 1998 regulations are they are fairly specific about what constitutes a cycle track and it's period of operation. So some cycle facilities provided by the road authority will be illegal for a cyclist to use, because they have not been implemented correctly.

Another point is that on-roadway cycle tracks with broken white lines or on-roadway cycle tracks outside there period of operation offer absolutely no benefit to cyclists. Motorist are required to drive in them and if the don't the are committing an offence.


It is a myth that cycle tracks are required for safe cycling, though a cycle track might provide a faster or more comfortable journey, the safety aspect is very very exaggerated. A lot of international research has shown that some types of cycle factuality actuality increase the danger for cyclists that use them, with little showing a benefit. Most of the research talks about segregated types, but the on-roadway types have there own problems (close overtaking, etc).

The duty of care for a road authority who provides a cycle track is very high because of cyclist mandatory use, they need to be designed, constructed and maintains to extremely high standards. As is clear to almost every cyclist, all (most?) road authorities have failed this duty-of-care in there current provisions, and as such are operating negligently. I don't know why this hasn't been brought before the courts.


To quickly comment on the Dublin Cycling Campaign which I'm an active member of. We tend to be stretched a bit on the ground, unfortunately there is too much to be done and not enough active members. For me repealing the mandatory use regulation is our highest goal, though some times it doesn't show in our activities.

We meet with the previous transport minister and discussed this topic, we've plans in the works to meet the current minister which I hope to be able to attend. We had meetings with the DTO, RSA, HSA, RPA, Dublin CoCo's, on various cycling topics. I'm also coordinating a working group to investigate possible legal remedies to the problems facing cyclists.


Finally as a possible work around to the mandatory use regulation we have:

Act 14 of 1993, Section 67

Road users' duty of care.

67.—(1) It shall be the duty of a person using a public road to take reasonable care for his own safety and for that of any other person using the public road.
(2) It shall be the duty of a person using a public road to take all reasonable measures to avoid—
( a ) injury to himself or to any other person using the public road,
( b ) damage to property owned or used by him or by any other person using the public road.

If you believe that cycling on cycle tracks is more dangerous then cycling on the roadway, you have a duty of care to yourself not to use them. Comments?

Treade

I wonder would the Dublin Cycling Campaign consider becoming a member of the CTC. It might help increase their profile and provide them with a wealth of experience.

By the way does anyone know who I contact to complain about the condition of the cycle paths in Lucan, Liffey Valley and Ballyfermot?

Treade

robfitz wrote:

Finally as a possible work around to the mandatory use regulation we have:

Act 14 of 1993, Section 67

Road users' duty of care.

67.—(1) It shall be the duty of a person using a public road to take reasonable care for his own safety and for that of any other person using the public road.
(2) It shall be the duty of a person using a public road to take all reasonable measures to avoid—
( a ) injury to himself or to any other person using the public road,
( b ) damage to property owned or used by him or by any other person using the public road.



If you believe that cycling on cycle tracks is more dangerous then cycling on the roadway, you have a duty of care to yourself not to use them. Comments?

Thanks Rob Fitz for your very informative and constructive posting. That is very interesting - so basically I can legally use the road where I consider the cycle lane too dangerous to use.

Ghost Rider

That clarifies things. Thanks, Rob.

robfitz wrote:

Ok, lets clarify a few things. In Irish legislation there is no such thing as a cycle lane, what we do have is cycleways and cycle tracks.

A cycleway is a public road exclusively provided for the use of cyclists and pedestrians. This is covered by Act 14 of 1993, Section 68. So essentially cycleways don't matter for this discussion, they would mostly be recreational routes or connecting routes through parks, etc.

A cycle track is a section of the public road primarily for the use of cyclists, this includes on-roadway and off-roadway types. The most recent regulations covering cycle tracks are S.I. 273 of 1998 and S.I. 274 of 1998, though the concept of mandatory use has existed since S.I. 294 of 1964, Article 28 with a small reprieve (oversight?) in the 1997 regulations.


Now the thing about the 1998 regulations are they are fairly specific about what constitutes a cycle track and it's period of operation. So some cycle facilities provided by the road authority will be illegal for a cyclist to use, because they have not been implemented correctly.

Another point is that on-roadway cycle tracks with broken white lines or on-roadway cycle tracks outside there period of operation offer absolutely no benefit to cyclists. Motorist are required to drive in them and if the don't the are committing an offence.


It is a myth that cycle tracks are required for safe cycling, though a cycle track might provide a faster or more comfortable journey, the safety aspect is very very exaggerated. A lot of international research has shown that some types of cycle factuality actuality increase the danger for cyclists that use them, with little showing a benefit. Most of the research talks about segregated types, but the on-roadway types have there own problems (close overtaking, etc).

The duty of care for a road authority who provides a cycle track is very high because of cyclist mandatory use, they need to be designed, constructed and maintains to extremely high standards. As is clear to almost every cyclist, all (most?) road authorities have failed this duty-of-care in there current provisions, and as such are operating negligently. I don't know why this hasn't been brought before the courts.


To quickly comment on the Dublin Cycling Campaign which I'm an active member of. We tend to be stretched a bit on the ground, unfortunately there is too much to be done and not enough active members. For me repealing the mandatory use regulation is our highest goal, though some times it doesn't show in our activities.

We meet with the previous transport minister and discussed this topic, we've plans in the works to meet the current minister which I hope to be able to attend. We had meetings with the DTO, RSA, HSA, RPA, Dublin CoCo's, on various cycling topics. I'm also coordinating a working group to investigate possible legal remedies to the problems facing cyclists.


Finally as a possible work around to the mandatory use regulation we have:



If you believe that cycling on cycle tracks is more dangerous then cycling on the roadway, you have a duty of care to yourself not to use them. Comments?

rubadub

robfitz wrote:

If you believe that cycling on cycle tracks is more dangerous then cycling on the roadway, you have a duty of care to yourself not to use them. Comments?

I was waiting for you to chime in! always love your posts

robfitz wrote:

The duty of care for a road authority who provides a cycle track is very high because of cyclist mandatory use, they need to be designed, constructed and maintains to extremely high standards. As is clear to almost every cyclist, all (most?) road authorities have failed this duty-of-care in there current provisions, and as such are operating negligently. I don't know why this hasn't been brought before the courts.

If the gardai started bringing people to court then it probably would be brought forward by the cyclists solicitors. I do not know of any figures for fines etc for not cycling on cycletracks.
If a cycletrack is unfit to use a motorcycle on then it is unfit for a bicycle, many are travelling at the speed limit, many are not simply because the lanes are unfit to travel at that speed on. A motorbike will have better suspension so actually a cyclelane should have an even better surface, upkeep and layout than a motorcycle would require.

I can legally use the road where I consider the cycle lane too dangerous to use.

Possibly a grey area, if you quoted it to a garda it would probably shut them up, just as I mentioned just saying a garda informed you 3 months ago it is technically a footpath due to incorrect signage- but that is presuming the garda is ignorant of the law (very good chance he/she is). But I would love to quote that line to a garda. Might print it out for my wallet

Civilian_Target

Treade wrote:

That is all well and good.

The problem is that from a legal point of view we cyclists should not be on the road if there is a cycle lane available. Hence if we get hit by a car and are injured the drivers insurance company could argue in court that the cyclist was in the wrong for being on the road in the first place.

Here you're relying on the judge's evaluation and good common sense. You could probably claim that the cycle lane was unsafe. Chances are, if you take pictures of bits of the same cycle lane in the vicinity, it mounts pavements at random angles or disappears in some impossible manner. If its a pavement cycle lane, you can cite the dutch study that says it's 12 times less safe than the road. If it's an onroad cycle lane and it's less than 2m wide, you can cite the Warwick cycling campaign article. You're just relying on a good case!

Membrane

robfitz wrote:

If you believe that cycling on cycle tracks is more dangerous then cycling on the roadway, you have a duty of care to yourself not to use them. Comments?

I don't think that it can be claimed that the use of a poorly engineered, constructed and maintained cycle track in itself results in danger to a cyclist or other persons using the track. If we elect to avoid cycle tracks, it is because the road allows us to make better progress (on the cycle track we may have to slow down considerably to deal with the risks).

Membrane

Treade wrote:

That is all well and good.

The problem is that from a legal point of view we cyclists should not be on the road if there is a cycle lane available. Hence if we get hit by a car and are injured the drivers insurance company could argue in court that the cyclist was in the wrong for being on the road in the first place.

I don't think that would matter. For example afaik jaywalking is against the law here, but that doesn't give motorists the right to knock them down, nor would afaik jaywalking be seen as contributary negligence.

A lawyer might try to argue such in court, but I think that a judge would ignore such an argument (if he's vaguely competent).

robfitz

Treade wrote:

Thanks Rob Fitz for your very informative and constructive posting. That is very interesting - so basically I can legally use the road where I consider the cycle lane too dangerous to use.

Well that's a hard question to answer, I'm not a solicitor so I'm only giving a personal option. You should only do it if your willing to go in front of a judge and argue the legal points. Another problem is you have to deal with motorist who think the own the road and will try to intimidate or injury you (this is far more likely). It may also effect any claim you might have in the case of an accident.

tampopo

here, from DCC themselves

BALLYFERMOT :

5. Councillor Michael Conaghan, 33 Lally Road, Ballyfermot Road, Dublin 10 (Lab.)
Tel. _______(H), Mobile 086 175 3747
E-mail : cllr_michael.conaghan@dublincity.ie

6. Councillor Vincent Jackson, 38 Drumfinn Avenue, Ballyfermot, Dublin 10 (Comm.)
Tel. __(H) after 7.00pm, 459 46 66 (W), Mobile 086 812 63 30, Fax 459 35 23
E-mail : cllr_vincent.jackson@dublincity.ie

7. Councillor Tony Smithers, 347 Ballyfermot Road, Ballyfermot, Dublin 10 (S.F.)
Mobile 086 819 13 76, Tel. 625 93 20, Fax 6203931
E-mail : cllr_tony.smithers@dublincity.ie

I deleted phone numbers marked Home, where applicable.Good luck. The road by the Ranch to the church is very littered with glass etc isn't it?

Treade

Yes - has anyone noticed that the better quality cycle lanes are located in the middle class areas? The quality of the cycles lanes in donnybrook, ranelagh, clonskeagh, stillorgan etc while having some faults are far superior to anything in poorer areas such as Neilstown and Ballyfermot. I live in Lucan and any cycle lanes located there are of a relatively good quality.
It is just like the 46A bus route gets all the brand new buses while the Tallaght routes get the oldest stuffiest smelliest buses
Thanks for giving me the councillers names.