Cycle lanes- compulsary to use?

Kaisr Sose

Is it compulsary for cyclists to use a cycle lane where one is provided? Reason I ask is that some of them are dangerous - generally those that are located on footpaths and not on the road. I average about 30kmph and find it safer on the road. Could I be stopped by a Garda for not using a cycle lane?

serendip

There are lots of threads here that discuss the issue.

The bottom line is that, as the law stands currently, they are compulsory.

However, there is some prospect that that legal situation will be changed in the (nearish) future. I'm sure somebody else with more detailed information will jump in soon.

Beasty

Yes...

... but their compulsory use is due to be abolished ..... last year!

They may get round to changing this rule eventually:rolleyes:. Fortunately I hardly ever come across cycle lanes, but I would avoid using any I considered dangerous - in my personal view safety is more important than following the letter of the law in such circumstances

sbailie2002

Where a bike lane is provided you must use

Tonyandthewhale

While it is technically illegal to ignore cycle lanes I know from reading previous threads here that many if not most boardsies (myself included) generally refuse to use any cycle lanes that could prove dangerous (be they on footpaths or simply full of holes and debris). Since they are generally so inadequate and wildly ignored I think it would be highly unlikely to be stopped by a garda for not using one and although I don't like to advise people to break the rules of the road I think in this case safety takes precedence over an unjust law.

Beasty

Another point that is regularly raised here is that a lot of so called "cycle lanes" do not satisfy the legal requirements themselves (either too narrow, or incorrectly marked/signed). In such circumstances it is not a proper cycle lane, and hence its use cannot be legally enforced

Kaisr Sose

Thanks for the replies. Glad that logic prevails. In my experience the lanes I refer to are often
-full of debris
-used by pedestrians
-used by cyclists going the wrong way
-frequented by cars reversing out of their high walled gardens like they were not expecting a cyclist to pass by
And
-resemble a roller coaster ride up and down, over different levels and surfaces
To make matters worse some motorists try to sqeeze me up on to the lane by almost driving on the kerb when there is plenty of space for a cyclist and a motorist to exist in harmony on the road itself.

In summary some of the cycle lanes I have seen are in my view not a safe place for any cyclist. Like the E-voting machines they are a waste of tax payers money.

Bunnyhopper

Have a look here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57778733&postcount=21

IM0

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

In summary some of the cycle lanes I have seen are in my view not a safe place for any cyclist. Like the E-voting machines they are a waste of tax payers money.

the thing is some were only put in by councils as ways to spend the budget surplus and so get the same funding the next year from the eu :mad: total waste
and then you get some PIC honking and pointing at you to get in the 'cycle lane' which is illegal and dangerous anyway :rolleyes: tools...

the rulz of back seat moderating should be applied to the general public, the cops are the only ones who can enforce law so piss off please, especially since you are talking out of yer arse in the first place "no its not show where the blue sign is you twat?"...."yeah thought so...now make yourself 'usefull' and join the neighbourhood watch brigade" :rolleyes:

tomasrojo

Discussed very recently indeed.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66151688&postcount=38

You can see the two signs that make cycle facilities mandatory in that post.

You can safely ignore any facility from the point of view of being bothered by Gardai. They don't care and it doesn't seem as if anyone has ever been stopped for not using them. Certainly, there has been nobody taken to court over not using them.

Although I know that the guards are unlikely to ever stop me for not using a dangerous cycle lane, I wonder what would happen from a liability point of view if one were to have a collision with a motor vehicle when riding on the road next to a cycle lane.

Lumen

Deleted User wrote: »

Although I know that the guards are unlikely to ever stop me for not using a dangerous cycle lane, I wonder what would happen from a liability point of view if one were to have a collision with a motor vehicle when riding on the road next to a cycle lane.

I think it would make no difference. As I see it, it's like running over a jaywalking pedestrian. They are technically breaking the law, but that doesn't necessarily make them liable.

tunney

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Is it compulsary for cyclists to use a cycle lane where one is provided? Reason I ask is that some of them are dangerous - generally those that are located on footpaths and not on the road. I average about 30kmph and find it safer on the road. Could I be stopped by a Garda for not using a cycle lane?

You're meant to stop at red lights too.

rottenhat

tomasrojo wrote: »

You can safely ignore any facility from the point of view of being bothered by Gardai. They don't care and it doesn't seem as if anyone has ever been stopped for not using them. Certainly, there has been nobody taken to court over not using them.

I've been stopped a couple of times, but it's usually around Christmas when they're doing the Operation Freeflow nonsense. Usually the conversation goes something along the lines of:

Me: these cycle lanes are a danger to cyclists and the minister for Transport has publicly accepted that.

Guard: I don't care, get back on the path.

So I get back on the path.

I see them nicking and ticketing many more car drivers for using the bus lane than I ever see them stopping cyclists for offenses of any description.

manwithaplan

me@ucd wrote: »

the rulz of back seat moderating should be applied to the general public, the cops are the only ones who can enforce law so piss off please, especially since you are talking out of yer arse in the first place "no its not show where the blue sign is you twat?"...."yeah thought so...now make yourself 'usefull' and join the neighbourhood watch brigade" :rolleyes:

I agree. However, this attitude has gotten me into trouble. I once broke a red light by crossing with the pedestrians. A car caught up to me, the window was rolled down and the lady in the passenger seat asked me if I understood the rules of the road. I replied by thanking her for her amateur interest and asking her did she have a website. "Yes", she replied. "It's garda.ie."

Served my smart arse right.

monument

PLEASE NOTE: I am not a lawyer, and in any case a garda may disagree with the following. I'm also fully open to correction.


Above are Cycle Track signs with and without time and information plates (I'm not 100% sure about the last one on right). Mandatory use applies.



Above is also a Cycle Track sign, but just of an old design. In a way, it's a poor design as elsewhere it means no cycling.



Above are Bus Lane signs. Cyclists and taxis are allowed to use all bus lanes other than contra-flow bus lanes.



The design on the left is a contra-flow bus lane.



This is a Cycleway sign. Mandatory use does not apply. These seem to be miss used on foot paths, because a Cycleway signs is designed to define a road for cyclists (ie in parks, on abandoned rail line etc). A strict reading of legislation (it reads: "'cycleway' means a public road or proposed public road reserved for the exclusive use of pedal cyclists or pedal cyclists and pedestrians") could be seen that these define a whole road as a Cycleway.



There seems to be no legislation to back these designs. Cyclists are only excluded from contra-flow Bus Lanes.



These signs (the right one, with or without arrow) also seem to have no backing in legislation. If these are not in legislation than how on earth can mandatory use apply? It seems where these are put on footpaths cyclists could be accused of cycling on footpaths (ie breaking the law).

tomasrojo

That my interpretation too, @monument. I talked to a few people with a legal background and an interest in cycling and that's what they said too.

They also said that if a cyclist was ever done for not using a cycle track, the cyclist then have locus standi to seek a judicial review of SI 274/1998, which could end up with it being thrown out. Or not. It would depend on the judge on the day.

It seems academic now, if, as someone said here recently, the amendment to rescind mandatory use is in draft stage now.

tomasrojo

As for Gardai disagreeing, I really doubt many Gardai have any notion of this rat's nest of contradictory standards and loopholes.

trellheim

Oh I'd say they do, that's why they stay well away.

Doctor Bob

trellheim wrote: »

Oh I'd say they do, that's why they stay well away.

Certainly the ones Traffic Corps do. They're the only Guards I've encountered when in the saddle, so I can't comment on the non-Traffic ones.

I once even had a Traffic Guard tell me that there's no law against using a mobile phone on your bike (in response to the @$$hole taxi driver who accused me of cycling into the back of his car because I was on the phone. I wasn't. He just pulled directly across me.). He did point out that you can be done for cycling without due care and attention if using the mobile is a distraction, but there's no specific phone law for cyclists equivalent to that for drivers.

Doctor Bob

tomasrojo wrote: »

They also said that if a cyclist was ever done for not using a cycle track, the cyclist then have locus standi to seek a judicial review of SI 274/1998, which could end up with it being thrown out. Or not. It would depend on the judge on the day.

Could you elaborate on this a bit if you have a chance?

I'm no legal expert, and the phrase locus standi is new to me- is the argument something along the lines of non-compliance with the law is safer than compliance?

tomasrojo

The legal person who used the phrase in correspondence with me used it as a synonym of "legal standing". I think that you have to stand to lose in some way from the current law to challenge it -- so if you've been brought to court for non-compliance with the law, you would have the right to challenge the law. I imagine the challenge would be more likely to be entertained if the law has never been tested in court before, which is the case for SI 274/1998, to the best of my knowledge.

concussion

I think, in this instance, if you could show that you are put at more risk by obeying the law than you are in ignoring it and cycling on the road you could have locus standi to bring a change in the law.

BostonB

You can't turn right from the cycle lane.