I am probably going to get slated for this but anyway

Beasty

more than two pedal cyclists driving abreast [...] and then only

I think the wording is very clear - you can only ride more than 2 abreast when it will endanger ....

ie you can ride 2 abreast at all times

Ash.J.Williams

I was driving home at twilight recently where I just barely saw something on the road going into a bend, when i got to the bend myself i prepared for the inevitable obsticle and it was two darkly dressed cyclists (with every piece of kit available) with their lights off, cycling two abreast ...ffs lads give cars a clue you are on the road...

They were wearing dark black and blue kit and where at pollaphuca, nicely positioned to be dumped in the lake in the off chance i hit them.

DirkVoodoo

cantalach wrote: »

No, it's not. You are mis-reading the sentence. This is understandable because it is clumsily worded. There is a subordinate clause in the middle of it which muddles it up and makes the key qualification at the end get lost. I have replaced the subordinate clause with ellipsis below and this makes the meaning much clearer. I an 100% sure that my reading is correct and I would encourage you to ask a friend with experience in parsing legal language to clarify this if you doubt me.

Why did you leave out some of it? It changes the meaning of the regulation then.

Does it not say "Riding more than two abreast is only allowed when overtaking another bike, making you now 3 abreast, but you can only do this if the two of you overtaking doesn't cause danger or obstruct traffic"? The "exception" is referring to the overtaking maneuver and not to the riding two abreast

I don't see how it says otherwise, unless the legal meaning of "save" is completely different from the english definition.

cantalach

Beasty wrote: »

I think the wording is very clear - you can only ride more than 2 abreast when it will endanger ....

ie you can ride 2 abreast at all times

I see where you're going wrong. You are interpreting the "and then only" as referring to riding more than two abreast. The "and then only" is referring to riding two abreast.

As I said, please ask a lawyer because I have. He's a roadie too.

Here endeth my participation in this argument.

Beasty

cantalach wrote: »

I see where you're going wrong. You are interpreting the "and then only" as referring to riding more than two abreast. The "and then only" is referring to riding two abreast.

As I said, please ask a lawyer because I have. He's a roadie too.

Here endeth my participation in this argument.

I'm sorry, but I must be being a bit dim today

The SI does not refer to riding 2 abreast, it refers to riding more than 2 abreast

niceonetom

cantalach wrote: »

I see where you're going wrong. You are interpreting the "and then only" as referring to riding more than two abreast. The "and then only" is referring to riding two abreast.

As I said, please ask a lawyer because I have. He's a roadie too.

Here endeth my participation in this argument.

Here it is without the more than:

47. (1) A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in ... two pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.

and here it is with it back in

47. (1) A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than two pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.

It's clear why the 'more than' is in there and what it means.

You should get a better lawyer.

Raam

It's not a lawyer that we need, it's a judge. To the courts!

dave.obrien

cantalach wrote: »

I see where you're going wrong. You are interpreting the "and then only" as referring to riding more than two abreast. The "and then only" is referring to riding two abreast.

As I said, please ask a lawyer because I have. He's a roadie too.

Here endeth my participation in this argument.

Cantalach, I have, and I asked a solicitor who is not a cyclist. They were somewhat surprised themselves to read it as DirkVoodoo and Beasty have done above; that 2 abreast it legal at all times, and 3 abreast only in the event of an overtaking maneuvre and then only when safe to do so. There is no ambiguity, and even to interpret the wording as you have, it reads

"A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than two pedal cyclists driving abreast... and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians."

In other words, 2 abreast is fine. Any more than that is the same condition as a car overtaking a cyclist; in other words only when safe to do so in a manner that does not obstruct any other road user.

Your 'lawyer' friend must have been mistaken.

dave.obrien

Raam wrote: »

It's not a lawyer that we need, it's a judge. To the courts!

It's not a lawyer that we need, 'cause in Ireland that profession does not exist!

Yes, I can be that pedantic...

C3PO

cantalach wrote: »

I see where you're going wrong. You are interpreting the "and then only" as referring to riding more than two abreast. The "and then only" is referring to riding two abreast.

As I said, please ask a lawyer because I have. He's a roadie too.

Here endeth my participation in this argument.

Sorry Cantalach but I can't see how any reading of that regulation can be interpreted in the way you have decided it should be! One doesn't need to be a lawyer to read English! It quite clearly says that cyclists shouldn't ride more than two abreast except when overtaking (other cyclists!) and only then when it is safe to do so!

Beasty

I think we are confusing the law and maths.

3>2
QED

Beasty
BSc (Hons) Mathematics

Idleater

cantalach wrote: »

I an [...]0% sure that my reading is correct and I would encourage you to ask a friend with experience in parsing legal language to clarify this if you doubt me.

see what happens when you remove something that you deem inappropriate, but taken in context actually may in fact be?

cantalach

Guys, the key here is the presence of the comma before the "and then only". Commas are added very, very carefully to laws and regulations. In this instance, the comma serves to terminate the subordinate clause. This is crucial because in so doing, it makes clear that the following phrase refers back to the first part of the sentence rather than the subordinate clause.

Dirk asked why I removed part of the sentence. I did this because I could. A key attribute of a subordinate clause is that it can be removed without changing the primary meaning.

Captain Havoc

Idleater wrote: »

see what happens when you remove something that you deem inappropriate, but taken in context actually may in fact be?

Religions have started that way.

dave.obrien

dave.obrien wrote: »

"A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than two pedal cyclists driving abreast... and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians."

I love it when I get to quote myself...

Cantalach, there it is with the subordinate clause removed, and the meaning is clear.

Be honest, and admit that you are on shaky ground, and are far from 100% certain of your original interpretation. Any SOLICITOR in the country will be able to clarify it for you.

niceonetom

cantalach wrote: »

Guys, the key here is the presence of the comma before the "and then only". Commas are added very, very carefully to laws and regulations. In this instance, the comma serves to terminate the subordinate clause. This is crucial because in so doing, it makes clear that the following phrase refers back to the first part of the sentence rather than the subordinate clause.

Dirk asked why I removed part of the sentence. I did this because I could. A key attribute of a subordinate clause is that it can be removed without changing the primary meaning.

Here's your version with the omissions.

A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than two pedal cyclists driving abreast [...] and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.

Even with your omission of sub-clauses it clearly states that only cycling MORE THAN two abreast is prohibited.

ednwireland

RPL1 wrote: »

One doesn't need to be a lawyer to read English! It

thought that was the whole point of the legal profession

cantalach

dave.obrien wrote: »

It's not a lawyer that we need, 'cause in Ireland that profession does not exist!

Oh dear...the word 'lawyer' is commonly used on this side of the Atlantic as a catch-all to mean a solicitor or barrister. It was in this context I used it. Check the OED and you'll find "a person who practises or studies law, especially (in the UK) a solicitor or a barrister or (in the US) an attorney."

Yes, I can be that pedantic...

It's important for pedants to be informed though!

stevie_b

cantalach wrote: »

As I said, please ask a lawyer because I have. He's a roadie too.

Lionel Hutz is a roadie?

cantalach

dave.obrien wrote: »

Any SOLICITOR in the country will be able to clarify it for you.

Or indeed a BARRISTER. Or maybe we could just use shorthand and say a LAWYER.

dave.obrien

cantalach wrote: »

Oh dear...the word 'lawyer' is commonly used on this side of the Atlantic as a catch-all to mean a solicitor or barrister. It was in this context I used it. Check the OED and you'll find "a person who practises or studies law, especially (in the UK) a solicitor or a barrister or (in the US) an attorney."



It's important for pedants to be informed though!

Thanks there Cantalach, out-pedanting me! I am aware that the term lawyer is commonly used, it just annoys me with it's inaccuracy.

And I am informed. A friend, who is a solicitor, and not a cyclist, read and interpreted that particular law exactly as most here have following an altercation my cousin(s wife) got in for cycling beside her young son side by side on a quiet road.

ROK ON

@rpl1. while one does not have to be a lawyer to read English, one does have to be trained in legal drafting to interpret legal documentation.
I have had to utilise the legal profession recently. Interestingly my solicitor and a friend that is a barrister had slightly differing interpretation of a document. It was down to technicalities of language.

I interpret the SI as most people have. However I think that Cantalach has raised an interesting point. But it is a point that a person trained in legal draughting can adjudicate. There is a barrister that frequents this forum. That person could be asked to give an opinion.

DirkVoodoo

Order! Order!

cantalach

ROK ON wrote: »

There is a barrister that frequents this forum. That person could be asked to give an opinion.

Now that would be useful. Can he or she be PM'd?

thebullkf

ROK ON wrote: »

@rpl1. while one does not have to be a lawyer to read English, one does have to be trained in legal drafting to interpret legal documentation.
I have had to utilise the legal profession recently. Interestingly my solicitor and a friend that is a barrister had slightly differing interpretation of a document. It was down to technicalities of language.

I interpret the SI as most people have. However I think that Cantalach has raised an interesting point. But it is a point that a person trained in legal draughting can adjudicate. There is a barrister that frequents this forum. That person could be asked to give an opinion.

would it matter?

Are cyclists suddenly gonna stop cycling two abreast?
Who decides if cyclists are a hindrance?

Interesting intepretation by cantalach all the same.

Same ol' replies from the usual pro-cyclist brigades.;)

C3PO

ROK ON wrote: »

@rpl1. while one does not have to be a lawyer to read English, one does have to be trained in legal drafting to interpret legal documentation.
I have had to utilise the legal profession recently. Interestingly my solicitor and a friend that is a barrister had slightly differing interpretation of a document. It was down to technicalities of language.

I interpret the SI as most people have. However I think that Cantalach has raised an interesting point. But it is a point that a person trained in legal draughting can adjudicate. There is a barrister that frequents this forum. That person could be asked to give an opinion.

This is great ...... I will bow to the opinion of a barrister if he agrees with Cantalach's interpretation but that will only reinforce my opinion that "the law" is indeed an ass!!!

Undercover Elephant

cantalach wrote: »

Guys, the key here is the presence of the comma before the "and then only". Commas are added very, very carefully to laws and regulations. In this instance, the comma serves to terminate the subordinate clause. This is crucial because in so doing, it makes clear that the following phrase refers back to the first part of the sentence rather than the subordinate clause.

That's a misreading of Rogers v. Aliant aka the "million dollar comma case". The commas there were the only things that gave any indication as to the way in which the subclauses had to be read.

But that doesn't work here.

47. (1) A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than two pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.

The sentence that remains doesn't make sense, because the words "and then only" refer to an exception that doesn't exist. So they must refer to the subclause.

In long:

- You can ride 2 abreast
- You can't generally ride more than 2 abreast
- It's ok to ride more than 2 abreast if you're overtaking other cyclists
- Except that it's not ok if you're endangering, inconveniencing or obstructing.

My fee may be discharged in CRC vouchers, thanks.;)

ROK ON

I don't want to divulge peoples personal info. But Dirk and NOT will know this individual, and could direct attention to this thread.

DirkVoodoo

ROK ON wrote: »

I don't want to divulge peoples personal info. But Dirk and NOT will know this individual, and could direct attention to this thread.

It's Matt Murdock, isn't it? Let me don my costume and go find him!

Idleater

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

But that doesn't work here.

The sentence that remains doesn't make sense, because the words "and then only" refer to an exception that doesn't exist. So they must refer to the subclause.

Interesting, I was having a browse of sub-clause grammar and the use of commas in the use of Save For/When, and generally the save for clause can be read at the beginning of the sentence too without changing its meaning.

S.I. No. 182/1997 — Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997

47. (1) Save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, a pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than two pedal cyclists driving abreast, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.

This in conjunction with the (now explained) comma before the "and then only" reads the same to me inferring that the "Save when overtaking other pedal cyclists" clause is not the primary sub-clause in the sentence therefore is an exception to the second sub-clause (overtaking obstruction) than the first (riding two abreast) primary clause (i.e. the SI is written from the PoV of the pedal cyclist not the potentially inconvenienced traffic or pedestrians.

macnab

S.I. No. 182/1997 — Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997

47. (1) A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than two pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.

By my understanding this means,

You are allowed to cycle 2 abreast, do not cycle more than two abreast unless overtaking another cyclist, if passing a 3rd cyclist then do so in a safe and considerate manner.

Nowhere in the rules of the road does it say that people in a hurry have more rights than people who are enjoying themselves.
In fact the rules of the road are designed for SAFETY and not convenience.
I am a car driver, a motorcyclist, a cyclist and a pedestrian. In each of these activities I have been stuck behind a stationary or slow moving animal or vehicle. Yes I have felt frustration, I have even wondered did the other road user realise that they were causing an obstruction. But I have never felt the need to put their lives in danger by overtaking them in an unsafe manner. There is no pecking order on the roads, they are there to be used by everyone for whatever pursuit they please to undertake. The problem here is not a legal issue, it is a human issue. Some people are under the misguided idea that they are more important than others.
And the moral of todays sermon: Life is a journey, not a destination.

cantalach

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

The sentence that remains doesn't make sense, because the words "and then only" refer to an exception that doesn't exist.

But I would have thought that the right to ride two abreast is itself the exception. After all, other classes of vehicles are not ordinarily permitted to do this. The whole reason for #47 is effectively to define and regulate an exceptional right afforded to the 'drivers of pedal cycles' but not the drivers of other vehicles. No?

If you're the lawyer to whom ROK ON refers, then I'm coming around to accepting your 'ruling' and admitting to all and sundry that I am incorrect. That said, if somebody could point to an actual ruling it would really seal it.

blorg

cantalach wrote: »

That said, if somebody could point to an actual ruling it would really seal it.

I don't think you will get a ruling as I don't think this has come up in court.

cantalach

blorg wrote: »

I don't think you will get a ruling as I don't think this has come up in court.

Hey maybe I should force the issue by not asking my group to single out next time we find ourselves riding in front of a Garda car on a narrow road!

tomasrojo

I was finding cantalach's argument very plausible, but m'learned colleague Undercover Elephant has convinced me now. "and then only" is to qualify the "save" clause.

Whoever drafted the sentence seems to have used a comma to indicate a slight pause or break, or something like that; the commas don't appear to be parenthetical, because as Undercover Elephant pointed out, the sentence has less logical sense if they are treated as such. If they are treated as parenthetical, you end up with a sentence that is analogous to: "I shall not get out of bed before nine, and then only if I have something important to do".

Dermot Illogical

The critical part of the sub section is "more than".

47. (1) A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than two pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.

Only if you read it without those two words do you get the scenario that Cantalach describes. Read with and without and it becomes obvious imho.

Stark

cram1971 wrote: »

Guys,

I live in Howth a place that needs tourists and visitors, but it is getting crazy with the amount of cyclists, cycling 2 and 3 abreast at 20kmph (if even for some of the newbies) going up the hill. the roads around the hill are tight and windy with not a lot of overtaking spots.

When a car comes up behind you please pull in as tight as possible to let us locals get by.

Thanks and happy cycling ...

Is it really such a long journey up the hill that it necessitates aggressive driving? It's all of 2km from the harbour to the summit of Howth. Worst case scenario, you're 3 or 4 minutes late home assuming of course that you don't find a chance to overtake in that time which I find highly unlikely. Average case scenario, you're probably losing about 30 seconds. Hardly worth damaging Howth's tourism initiative by running visitors into the kerb for.

macnab

OK lets look at the grammar.

Main clause: A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than two pedal cyclists driving abreast,

That is an Independent clause, it stands on its own and makes sense as a sentence.
It states: do not cycle more than 2 abreast

First dependent clause (subordinate clause): save when overtaking other pedal cyclists,
Second dependent clause: and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.

The 2 dependent clauses do not make sense on their own. Their job is to augment the main clause, not to negate it.

Undercover Elephant

cantalach wrote: »

But I would have thought that the right to ride two abreast is itself the exception. After all, other classes of vehicles are not ordinarily permitted to do this. The whole reason for #47 is effectively to define and regulate an exceptional right afforded to the 'drivers of pedal cycles' but not the drivers of other vehicles. No?

I see where you are coming from, but the reg begins "A pedal cyclist shall not ...". Which suggests you would otherwise be allowed to.

If you look at regulation 9, for example:

Save where otherwise required by these Regulations, a vehicle shall be driven on the left hand side of the roadway in such a manner so as to allow, without danger or inconvenience to traffic or pedestrians, approaching traffic to pass on the right and overtaking traffic to overtake on the right.

it doesn't say anything about single file, only about the manner in which you should take up the roadway.

If you're the lawyer to whom ROK ON refers, then I'm coming around to accepting your 'ruling' and admitting to all and sundry that I am incorrect.

I'm not! I'm a completely different solicitor barrister attorney semi-housetrained lawyer, and that is worth what you paid for it.

cantalach

tomasrojo wrote: »

Whoever drafted the sentence seems to have used a comma to indicate a slight pause or break, or something like that; the commas don't appear to be parenthetical

Well that would certainly explain it. But what continues to bother me is the fact that, as I understand it, commas should only ever be used for parenthetical purposes in a legal context and never to make something easier to read out loud. My legal buddy explained that this is the reason why commas are so scarce in contracts and the like. He said that after years in English class at school learning how to punctuate prose correctly, they then beat it out of you at law school.

tomasrojo

macnab wrote: »

OK lets look at the grammar.

Main clause: A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than two pedal cyclists driving abreast,

That is an Independent clause, it stands on its own and makes sense as a sentence.
It states: do not cycle more than 2 abreast

First dependent clause (subordinate clause): save when overtaking other pedal cyclists,
Second dependent clause: and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.

The 2 dependent clauses do not make sense on their own. Their job is to augment the main clause, not to negate it.

There's no argument about whether the second and third clause can stand alone,, because they can't but the argument is whether the second dependent clause is to qualify the first dependent clause or the main clause. I'm reasonably certain now that the second dependent clause is to qualify the first dependent clause: "you can have more than two abreast if someone is overtaking, but you must ensure that no-one is incovenienced when you are overtaking".

tomasrojo

cantalach wrote: »

Well that would certainly explain it. But what continues to bother me is the fact that, as I understand it, commas should only ever be used for parenthetical purposes in a legal context and never to make something easier to read out loud. My legal buddy explained that this is the reason why commas are so scarce in contracts and the like. He said that after years in English class at school learning how to punctuate prose correctly, they then beat it out of you at law school.

I'd heard that too, which is why I found your argument so persuasive.

Undercover Elephant

cantalach wrote: »

Well that would certainly explain it. But what continues to bother me is the fact that, as I understand it, commas should only ever be used for parenthetical purposes in a legal context and never to make something easier to read out loud. My legal buddy explained that this is the reason why commas are so scarce in contracts and the like. He said that after years in English class at school learning how to punctuate prose correctly, they then beat it out of you at law school.

I trained elsewhere, but the version I heard was that legalese developed in order to avoid using punctuation. In the days before photocopiers, you had to have legal documents transcribed by hand, and punctuation was the easiest thing to get wrong. So you wrote stuff with lots of hereunders and foregoings and hereinafters in it. This had the beneficial side effect that it made it almost completely incomprehensible to muggles, thus providing a guaranteed stream of work. You didn't use much punctuation because it shouldn't be necessary.

It's hard to know what the draftsman was up to here. Maybe it got faffed around with by politicians on the way to approval?

Another thing worth bearing in mind is that this is effectively criminal law, which means that it has to be clearly against you in order to get a successful prosecution. Given that most of us have read it the other way, I don't think the OP is going to manage to persuade the guards to haul us all off to court for riding 2 abreast.

cantalach

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

Another thing worth bearing in mind is that this is effectively criminal law, which means that it has to be clearly against you in order to get a successful prosecution. Given that most of us have read it the other way, I don't think the OP is going to manage to persuade the guards to haul us all off to court for riding 2 abreast.

That's actually very good to know!

rflynnr

Since the gist of the original post was "cyclists are slowing down other traffic" let me address this in a manner that I think should be applied every time this HOC ("hoary old chestnut") comes up: even at commuting speeds (say 15-20kph) I can cycle through an Irish city significantly quicker (as opposed to faster) that the average traffic speed. However I am constantly prevented from doing so. What's holding up my progress? Why, it's motorists. By the logic of the original poster, shouldn't they pull aside as soon as I hove into view in their rear view mirror? Are such motorists being inconsiderate in not allowing me room to pass?

No one would think so (and I don't expect anyone to do so for my benefit as a cyclist) but it is revealing about our (by which I mean Irish society at large) attitudes to bikes that these kinds of question simply never come up.