Dotted line cycle-lanes

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Joe Malone wrote: »

You are WRONG and you have been caught out so you use the usual "out" and accuse me of trolling. Pathetic. Good night

I'm right and I know I'm right, its just I can't prove it, but in the land of obbydooby, its right because I say it is!!!

You honestly don't have a clue about the legal system.

Civil matters such as in claims for damages are dealt with based on a balance of probabilities. The fact that a cyclist has broken the law is only a factor in the overall case, and a relatively minor one at that. A more important factor in deciding the liability of the driver is the fact that the car driver has a duty of care to everyone on the road, and if found to be negligent of such, can still end up paying damages, irrespective of where the cyclist was when the accident happened.

Stark

Mucco wrote: »

I have never heard of an Irish cyclist being convicted for not using a mandatory cycle lane. I never used them when I lived in Dublin, and, apart from the occaisonal irate bus driver, had no problems.

I've heard of one guy who was done for it. Funnily enough, he managed to get the garda's mobile number and would since phone up the garda every time there was a parked car asking for permission to leave the cycle lane until eventually the garda changed his number

The only accident involving injury I've ever had cycling was when using an on-footpath cycle lane funnily enough.

cyclopath2001

Joe Malone wrote: »

Thats nonsense, plain and simple. Please do not make statements of fact without having anything but your opinion and wishful thinking to back it up. The law is quite simple and prescriptive. You must use the cycle track. Utter nonsense to suggest some unquoted "law" that requires a cyclist to deem a cycle track is dangerous and thereby exempt him/her from obeying an Act of the Oireachtas

It is true that the law is prescriptive about the use of cycle tracks. One of the main points of this thread is that in the context of designs that are clearly intended to facilitate motorists and not cyclists, and where some tracks were built for no sensible reason, the law is unfair and every possible loophole should be examined.

There is this regulation:

5. (1) These Regulations shall apply save where compliance is not possible as a result of an obstruction to traffic or pedestrians or because of an emergency situation confronting a road user which could not reasonably have been expected or anticipated.

Then, I'd suggest too that you look closely at the on-footpath cycle tracks that you want to force people to use. For the most part, they don't comply with the regulations (not marked in accordance with the regulations) and are not therefore cycle tracks which cyclists must use within the meaning of the regulations. (Let's call them 'cyclepaths').

There's also the ambiguity of the RUS009 signs which use to have RRM023 lines but where the lines have been removed.

Then let's look at the on-road cycle tracks which have parking on the left and no safety gap between them and the cycle track. What distance would you consider to be a safe one to allow while overtaking these parked cars? How wide is a car door? 1,5m perhaps? How wide is a cycle track?

blorg

Joe Malone wrote: »

The act allows you to leave the mandatory cycle track when it is blocked by parked vehicles -

(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.

Joe, you are wrong in your interpretation of the legislation there. That allows you to leave a non-mandatory cycle track only. RRM 023 is a non-mandatory track (broken white line), RRM022 is a mandatory one (continuous white line.) The legislation is very clear that the exceptions above only apply in the case of a non-mandatory track. There are no such exceptions in the case of a mandatory track.

SerialComplaint

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

At which point you smugly point out that there is no such thing as 'road tax' in Ireland.

I usually get unbearably smug when I point out that I've paid more motor tax than they paid, but I've chosen to leave my vehicle in the driveway. It's priceless to watch 'em try to squirm their way out of that one.

cyclopath2001

blorg wrote: »

The legislation is very clear that the exceptions above only apply in the case of a non-mandatory track. There are no such exceptions in the case of a mandatory track.

If the mandatory track is in a left filter lane and you're going straight, it could be argued that no cycle track has been 'provided' within the meaning of the regulations?

Where no track is provided, there is no obligation to use one.