Dotted line cycle-lanes

The Chessplayer

A work colleague is under the impression that cars (such as her enormous, vulgar and over-priced Range Rover) take priority over bicycles when the cycle lane is a broken, rather than continuous, line. Is this the case?

Raam

The Chessplayer wrote: »

A work colleague is under the impression that cars (such as her enormous, vulgar and over-priced Range Rover) take priority over bicycles when the cycle lane is a broken, rather than continuous, line. Is this the case?

"takes priority" What exactly does she mean?

Bicyclegadabout

It doesn't take priority, no.
But cars are allowed use them.
I also am suspicious of the phrase "takes priority". Is that your workmates wording or your own?

If you mean the car needs to cross the cycle track to turn into a junction, as is often the case, then the car must wait for any cyclists to pass.

Other users know more about this, so hold out for their answers.


Don't be upset though, your colleague drives an enormous, vulgar, over-priced Range Rover. The jokes on her.

Chips Lovell

They're allowed drive on them alright. If she means take priority by cyclists having to get out of the lane for motorists, then no, she'd be wrong.

The Chessplayer

Bicyclegadabout wrote: »

It doesn't take priority, no.
But cars are allowed use them.
I also am suspicious of the phrase "takes priority". Is that your workmates wording or your own?

If you mean the car needs to cross the cycle track to turn into a junction, as is often the case, then the car must wait for any cyclists to pass.

Other users know more about this, so hold out for their answers.


Don't be upset though, your colleague drives an enormous, vulgar, over-priced Range Rover. The jokes on her.

I'm not upset, I prefer my car, but as an occasional cyclist I took great umbrage with her point that motorists take precedence over cyclists in these dotted-lined lanes.

She squeezed a cyclist into the path because her car couldn't fit in the car lane. The cyclist then proceeded to bang on her bonnet and shout abuse at her. She claims that the dotted line indicates that motorists take priority.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Set her straight. She shouldn't be on the road if she's doing stuff like that. If there isn't enough room in the lane for her to safely overtake the cyclist, then she has to wait behind until it is safe to do so.

Caroline_ie

The Chessplayer wrote: »

She squeezed a cyclist into the path because her car couldn't fit in the car lane. The cyclist then proceeded to bang on her bonnet and shout abuse at her. She claims that the dotted line indicates that motorists take priority.

sorry I have to say it ... WTF!!!! People driving these types of utility vehicles ( because that's what they are ) really drive me nuts ... how can they think something so idiotic!! ...

But as the saying goes ' Common sense is not very common' ... (sorry for the rant)

blorg

The Chessplayer wrote: »

I'm not upset, I prefer my car, but as an occasional cyclist I took great umbrage with her point that motorists take precedence over cyclists in these dotted-lined lanes.

She squeezed a cyclist into the path because her car couldn't fit in the car lane. The cyclist then proceeded to bang on her bonnet and shout abuse at her. She claims that the dotted line indicates that motorists take priority.

That is just ridiculous- how anyone can have that sort of train of thought is just beyond me.*

*I have had someone admit that what they did was illegal but add that it didn't matter as if they hit me, I'd be dead and they would have a scratch on their bonnet; as such I'd better get the hell out of their way. I imagine this is a similar line of thought.

Bicyclegadabout

The Chessplayer wrote: »

She squeezed a cyclist into the path because her car couldn't fit in the car lane. The cyclist then proceeded to bang on her bonnet and shout abuse at her. She claims that the dotted line indicates that motorists take priority.

Tell her the dotted line indicates she can drive in the cycle track.
It does not indicate that she can threaten or attempt to injure other people because her vehicle is bigger than thiers.

While she is allowed put her wheels inside the dotted line, she should wait behind other road users (even cyclists!) until it is safe to overtake them.

Malari

In Cork cycle lanes are not half as common as in Dublin, but they often have cycle boxes at junctions, allowing cyclists to stop in front of cars. Why are they always filled with cars? Are Dublin motorists any better at staying out of these?

Malari

blorg wrote: »

I have had someone admit that what they did was illegal but add that it didn't matter as if they hit me, I'd be dead and they would have a scratch on their bonnet; as such I'd better get the hell out of their way. I imagine this is a similar line of thought.

I have to admit that I agree there is no point in being dead right, so to speak. A big, metal car trumps my soft, breakable body every time.

blorg

There are two types of cycle track, mandatory (solid white line, RRM022 sign) and non-mandatory (dashed white line, RRM023 sign.)

Cars are utterly prohibited from driving or parking in mandatory cycle tracks unless they need to cross them to access an adjacent place or side road. AFAIK these are the only exceptions- cars cannot stop in a mandatory cycle track even temporarily to load/unload (they can do so for up to 30 minutes in a non-mandatory lane.)

There is little by way of specific rules regarding non-mandatory cycle tracks which appear to be designed primarily to corral cyclists out of the way of motorists- most of the rules concern cyclists' obligation to use them and the few exemptions cyclists have allowing them not to use them (turning right, around a bus, etc.)

Cars are certainly allowed to drive in them but if only if absolutely necessary and there is a basic duty of care to all other road users. (This is from the rules of the road, not the law.)

Due to the lack of specific regulation regarding motorists' obligations one can only assume that the legal position of these lanes is the same as any other "lane" on a road excepting that cyclists are obliged to use it. This interpretation would prohibit a car crossing into the cycle lane unless it was clear, but would not put any obligation on a car to keep the lane clear if a cyclist came along after the car was already on the lane.

The relevant legislation, make what you will of it (maybe someone with a legal background would do better than me:)

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/si/0274.html

Note the definition change:

"cycle track" means part of a road, including part of a footway or part of a roadway, which is reserved for the use of pedal cycles and from which all mechanically propelled vehicles, other than mechanically propelled wheelchairs, are prohibited from entering except for the purpose of access;

was modified to

" 'cycle track' means part of a road, including part of a footway or part of a roadway, which is provided primarily for the use of pedal cycles ;",

As far as I am aware article 14 in the 1998 instrument is the law as currently in force relating to cycle lanes.

blorg

Malari wrote: »

I have to admit that I agree there is no point in being dead right, so to speak. A big, metal car trumps my soft, breakable body every time.

Oh I am completely aware and I cycle defensively, I'm not going to push my luck with a SUV because of my "rights," I'll be careful rather than dead. Doesn't excuse the attitude of the motorist though. This particular one overtook me at a junction just as I was about to make a right turn, I was in the middle of the road with hand extended at the time, really wasn't expecting it and just about swerved back in time.

studiorat

A motorist in a Landrover taking priority on the road. Now that's scary.
Tell her she's a twat.

Malari

blorg wrote: »

Oh I am completely aware and I cycle defensively, I'm not going to push my luck with a SUV because of my "rights," I'll be careful rather than dead. Doesn't excuse the attitude of the motorist though. This particular one overtook me at a junction just as I was about to make a right turn, I was in the middle of the road with hand extended at the time, really wasn't expecting it and just about swerved back in time.

Wow, that's scary stuff. I think a lot of motorists have a bicycle-shaped blind spot. Can't believe the driver tried to defend themselves against that kind of behaviour.

subway

blorg wrote: »

...cyclists' obligation to use them ... cyclists are obliged to use it.

im on neither side of the fence in this discussion, but i felt the need to ask a bit more about the points you have raised above...

in terms of cycle lanes (red lane, white line), i was under the impression that it was forbidden for cars to enter them, rather than obligatory for bicyles to be in them.
your interpretation seems to be that bicycles are required to use them.
is there a legal precedent for this?

Bicyclegadabout

Blorg, what’s the situation with continuous white line cycle tracks that are only open during rush hour? Such as the one northbound on Camden St.
Is it that they’re only open when the signs say they are? (which would mean you’d have to amend the interpretation of the law you posted earlier).
Or is it just some planning anomaly by SDCC, and it’s supposed to be a broken line?
Or is it the sort of planning anomaly that means all the cars that park there at night are doing so illegally?

Tough questions, I know. Sorry!


Subway: They’re defo mandatory for cyclists, it’s well established. It’s the main thing the Dublin Cycling Campaign would like changed.

Caroline_ie

Anyway ... I always thought the person who came up with these Half road/Half cycle lane must have been on some kind of medication to think of something like this ...

rp

subway wrote: »

im on neither side of the fence in this discussion, but i felt the need to ask a bit more about the points you have raised above...

in terms of cycle lanes (red lane, white line), i was under the impression that it was forbidden for cars to enter them, rather than obligatory for bicyles to be in them.
your interpretation seems to be that bicycles are required to use them.
is there a legal precedent for this?

Thats the law, from my understanding (except I don't think the color red is mentioned anywhere in the RTA/RTR): if it's a solid white bordered cycle lane (and introduced by sign RUS009 or RUS009a) then it's mandatory for the cyclists to use it, and cars should not enter it. If it's a dashed white line, then it is still for the most part mandatory for cyclist, but cars may feel free to weave in and out as they need to (like, having to answer a phone) - although I would assume (maybe wrongly) that the usual lane-changing rules should apply (i.e., mirror, signal, maneuver if safe to do so)
Sounds crap? It is.

blorg

studiorat wrote: »

A motorist in a Landrover taking priority on the road. Now that's scary.

Worse, a motorist in a Landrover taking priority in a cycle track!

Malari wrote: »

Wow, that's scary stuff. I think a lot of motorists have a bicycle-shaped blind spot. Can't believe the driver tried to defend themselves against that kind of behaviour.

Oh she saw me all right, she said "of course I saw you, what were you doing in the middle of the road, you should have been waiting on the left and walked across the road when it was clear." She just took the line that "cars always have priority as if I hit you you'd be dead." Some people actually believe this, e.g. that cars always have priority.

Hungrycol

This thread makes me feel sad.

Malari

What do you do with that kind of stupidity. Is any of this covered in the theory part of the driving test??

blorg

Bicyclegadabout- As far as I can tell it is perfectly legal to have a mandatory cycle track with restricted periods of operation. The situation is clear as to obligations during those periods, cyclists must use them, cars must not. With regard to outside the period, the legislation just says that a parked car must be moved before the period of operation starts.

One could only imagine that outside the period of operation both cyclists and cars are to behave as if the track did not exist and there is no obligation on cyclists to use them, beyond the general rule to keep left (most such lanes will be occupied by parked cars outside the period of operation making them unusable in any case.)

S.I. No. 274/1998 wrote:

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) ... 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. ... [save for a few minor exemptions] a pedal cycle must be driven on a cycle track where one is provided.

As for the idea of priority, the law does define a cycle track as "provided primarily for the use of pedal cycles" so I presume on that basis it is ridiculous that a motorist could claim "priority" in them. But the law is quite light on specific rules regarding non-mandatory cycle tracks: the only provisions are that (1) cyclists have to use them with only a few exemptions and (2) cars can only park in them when actively loading/unloading and for a max of 30 minutes.

As regards the theory test I am not sure but the rules of the road make clear that no type of vehicle has "priority" over any other. Many drivers don't seem to get this and operate on a sort of "might is right" system (e.g. will yield to a HGV but not a cyclist.)

Rules of the Road wrote:

The vehicle does not have greater right-of-way than any other road user, so, for safety reasons, you should drive defensively. This means expecting the unexpected and making way for other road users when necessary.

unionman

Hungrycol wrote: »

This thread makes me feel sad.

If it helps any, I made an SUV driver very embarassed today. I wasn't on my bike and I won't go into detail, but I can assure you he realised just how ridiculous his vehicle of choice is.

It was sweet.

Shouldn't we just scrap cycle lanes? I think they give a lot of motorists the impression that 'we' need to stay in them unless 'they' want to use them.

I should point out that I think most motorists are ok with cyclists. I'd estimate, based on my own experiences, that the 'ignorants' make up only about 5% of the driving population. But any percentage is problematic and even genuine mistakes can cause serious accidents.

Was interested to note that while cycling in very heavy rain on Tuesday evening, drivers were giving me loads of space, very patient, slowing on the overtaking and generally being very nice.

I've noticed it before, has anyone else?

Maybe I look especially pathetic in wet weather.:D

blorg

unionman wrote: »

Shouldn't we just scrap cycle lanes? I think they give a lot of motorists the impression that 'we' need to stay in them unless 'they' want to use them.

In almost all cases, yes, I think we should. Most motorists are actually very careful with leaving enough room while overtaking, it is only the fraction of 1% that don't you remember!

The only benefit I can see from a cycle lane to a competent adult cyclist is that they tend to keep a space down the left during certain roads at rush-hour which might not be there otherwise.

The negative of compulsory cycle lanes is that it gives certain motorists the idea they have a license to try to kill you if you choose not to use an unsuitable one.

I can see that there may be a benefit for children but the flip side is that children who only use cycle tracks don't develop road skills.

My ideal would be that they are kept for those who feel more comfortable in them but are non-compulsory (and the latter fact be instilled clearly in the minds of motorists - in the UK they are _not_ compulsory but many motorists, and even judges, believe that they are.)

rp

Have faith in the free market economy: when oil hits 250 bucks a barrel, the M50 will be the worlds widest cycle lane. I have spoken.

Traumadoc

Is it illegal to overtake on the inside? Say a car or bicycle turning left across a cycle lane and they are being overtaken on the inside, who has the priority?

Stark

blorg wrote:

The only benefit I can see from a cycle lane to a competent adult cyclist is that they tend to keep a space down the left during certain roads at rush-hour which might not be there otherwise.

Yup. I've heard them referred to as "cycle feeder lanes" in England.

unionman wrote:

Was interested to note that while cycling in very heavy rain on Tuesday evening, drivers were giving me loads of space, very patient, slowing on the overtaking and generally being very nice.

I've noticed it before, has anyone else?

Maybe I look especially pathetic in wet weather.

I think people just tend to drive really slowly anyway in wet weather.

crotalus667

Traumadoc wrote: »

Is it illegal to overtake on the inside?

No providing the person in the right hand side of you is going slower that you or is stoped to turn right

IRLConor

Bicyclegadabout wrote: »

They’re defo mandatory for cyclists, it’s well established. It’s the main thing the Dublin Cycling Campaign would like changed.

I think the... em.. "logic" behind this rule is:

"If we're building a lane which is reserved solely for cyclists and they're not going to use it then why should we bother making it in the first place? Therefore, if we're making it, they're going to have to use it so it's not wasted road space."

cyclopath2001

Traumadoc wrote: »

Is it illegal to overtake on the inside? Say a car or bicycle turning left across a cycle lane and they are being overtaken on the inside, who has the priority?

It's not illegal to pass slow-moving or right-turning traffic on the inside.

It is be unsafe, stupid & illegal to attempt to pass a moving left-turning vehicle on the inside.

A stopped vehicle must give way to moving traffic (e.g. cyclists riding in a cycle lane). AND, overtaking on the right and then turning left, obstructing traffic (i.e. passing cyclists and then cutting across and forcing them to slow down or stop) is a breach of the overtaking regulations.