Seamus Quirke roadworks merge

Mrs OBumble

prometheus2012 wrote: »

Correct, and it can only be used by Gardaí in an emergency.

Like being late for your tea-break.

Iwannahurl

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Being unaware of the legislation never held you back before did it.?

Does common courtesy ever come into the frame once one gets 2 wheels down on the tarmac.?

So you have no idea whether such "wrong way" cycling is illegal then. .

I'm all for common courtesy, regardless of the number of wheels. For example, I hate footpath cycling, which is illegal AFAIK as well as annoying, but which is actively endorsed/accommodated by the alleged policy makers and law enforcers.

IF "wrong way" cycling is not illegal, and since cyclists are being invited to do so by failings in road design, should we be surprised that it occurs?

I think it's daft, and it irritates the hell out of me every time I see it, but it doesn't surprise me in the least. Not in this city at any rate.

Iwannahurl

JustMary wrote: »

Like being late for your tea-break.

There must have been tea in grave danger of going cold the other day so, when I saw a squad car doing around 70 on a wet road in a 50 zone not far from the SQR, without flashing blue lights or siren...

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Would those who are claiming that wrong-way cycling on such a "cycle path" is outright illegal please point to the relevant legislation? I'm not saying that legislation doesn't exist, nor am I claiming that such cyclist behaviour is legal, just that I don't know of the relevant legislation.

<rant>
Damn it's hard to find information in the irish laws. I wish they'd repeal all previous versions of a law when making a new version instead of just saying we're going to make this change to this subsection and introduc.....
</rant>

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0181.html#zzsi181y1997

5. (1) Subject to sub-article (3), a mandatory traffic sign shall consist of a blue disc with a white border and appropriate symbols shown in white on the disc, and shall indicate

(a) the direction or route in which traffic must proceed, or
(b) a cycle track.

Now I know you're likely gong to take the contrary position, but I read that as meaning that unless a two way flow (e.g. specifically outlining two way cycling or a contra flow bus +/or bus/cycle lane) is indicated that cycle traffic must move in the same direction as vehicular traffic. Otherwise we could interpret the road laws as we can drive wherever we like if we aren't which side to drive on and require all roads to have directional arrows.

Back to you to prove otherwise.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

... I read that as meaning ...

Back to you to prove otherwise.

Nope. Innocent until proven guilty, I say.

antoobrien wrote: »

Otherwise we could interpret the road laws as we can drive wherever we like

Welcome to Ireland. Been here long?

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Nope. Innocent until proven guilty, I say.

I see this is conspicuously absent:



In the two on the left it is not legal to go against traffic on the other it is.

Besides we only flag the exceptions here - you're expected to know you're not allowed go against the flow.

Guilty m'lord.

Sponge Bob

Ah but a 'contraflow' bus lane only applies on a roadway section Anto which is why I mentioned common courtesy etc. Didn't work that did it.

In a contraflow buslane only buses are allowed where buses and taxis are allowed in a 'with flow lane) Once they are up on the path itself sure God help them why would they do what they do on the road?

1 and 2 indicate a 'with flow' lane and 3 is a contraflow lane.

antoobrien

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Once they are up on the path itself sure God help them why would they do what they do on the road?

I think this might cover it:

“road” includes—

(a) any street, lane, footpath, square, court, alley or passage,


(b) any bridge, viaduct, underpass, subway, tunnel, overpass, overbridge, flyover, carriageway (whether single or multiple), pavement or footway,


(c) any weighbridge or other facility for the weighing or inspection of vehicles, toll plaza or other facility for the collection of tolls, service area, emergency telephone, first aid post, culvert, arch, gulley, railing, fence, wall, barrier, guardrail, margin, kerb, lay-by, hard shoulder, island, pedestrian refuge, median, central reserve, channelliser, roundabout, gantry, pole, ramp, bollard, pipe, wire, cable, sign, signal or lighting forming part of the road, and


(d) any other structure or thing forming part of the road and—


(i) necessary for the safety, convenience or amenity of road users or for the construction, maintenance, operation or management of the road or for the protection of the environment, or

(ii) prescribed by the Minister;

All that means that they are always "on the road" and as such must follow the same rules

N.b. includes is not an exhaustive term

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

I see this is conspicuously absent:

This is the text you quoted earlier:

5. (1) Subject to sub-article (3), a mandatory traffic sign shall consist of a blue disc with a white border and appropriate symbols shown in white on the disc, and shall indicate

(a) the direction or route in which traffic must proceed, or
(b) a cycle track.


disc (noun): any thin, flat, circular plate or object.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

I think this might cover it:

All that means that they are always "on the road" and as such must follow the same rules

N.b. includes is not an exhaustive term

A lot of trawling and fishing going on here. Not surprising SB had to correct you on the contraflow issue.

I asked whether "wrong way" cycling is illegal on the SQR "cycle paths". Still waiting for a definitive answer, with citations/precedent etc.

By the way, if “road” includes "(a) any ... footpath" and (b) "any ... pavement or footway" can we deduce that (1) cycling on a footpath, pavement or footway is legal, and (2) cyclists should only cycle on the footpath, pavement or footway in the same direction as traffic on the road? In which case, what is the legal way for footpath cyclists to traverse the roundabouts at either end of the SQR?

Sponge Bob wrote: »

cycling misdemeanors

Still waiting, and waiting, for any definitive reference showing that "wrong way" cycling, as illustrated earlier, is illegal. Common courtesy is a different issue, and I personally do not like "wrong way" cycling.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

This is the text you quoted earlier:

5. (1) Subject to sub-article (3), a mandatory traffic sign shall consist of a blue disc with a white border and appropriate symbols shown in white on the disc, and shall indicate

(a) the direction or route in which traffic must proceed, or
(b) a cycle track.


disc (noun): any thin, flat, circular plate or object.

Here's an example from Dublin of a bi-directional cycle lane.

As you can see there are markings indicating the direction of travel on the ground. No markings=1 way travel - as exceptions must be indicated.

Here's another example of a cycle lane. No direction noted in the sign - so we must follow the road directions (which are not always marked as you well know).

So given the notations that have appeared elsewhere, can you:
tell us what law that states that signs that do not specify directions are automatically bidirectional (contrary to the examples shown)?
Show us the signs that indicate what you believe to be the bi-directional nature of the lanes.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Here's an example from Dublin of a bi-directional cycle lane.

As you can see there are markings indicating the direction of travel on the ground. No markings=1 way travel - as exceptions must be indicated.

Here's another example of a cycle lane. No direction noted in the sign - so we must follow the road directions (which are not always marked as you well know).

So given the notations that have appeared elsewhere, can you:
tell us what law that states that signs that do not specify directions are automatically bidirectional (contrary to the examples shown)?
Show us the signs that indicate what you believe to be the bi-directional nature of the lanes.

1. Where are those ground markings set out in legislation?

2. What is the legal status of that "bi-directional" cycle track you refer to (a) as compared to the SQR and (b) in its own right?

3. I didn't say the SQR lanes were bi-directional. I didn't say they weren't either.









.

Sponge Bob

Iwannahurl wrote: »

So you have no idea whether such "wrong way" cycling is illegal then. .

.... IF "wrong way" cycling is not illegal, and since cyclists are being invited to do so by failings in road design, should we be surprised that it occurs?

I think it's daft, and it irritates the hell out of me every time I see it, but it doesn't surprise me in the least. Not in this city at any rate.

By the same logic speeding on motorways is encouraged by not having enough bends i suppose.

I have no problem with footpath cycling per say...eg along Loch atalia....only. Again courtesy is required.

Iwannahurl

Sponge Bob wrote: »

By the same logic speeding on motorways is encouraged by not having enough bends i suppose.

I have no problem with footpath cycling per say...eg along Loch atalia....only. Again courtesy is required.

In this context I am more interested in law than in logic. Mind you, both are sorely lacking on Irish roads.

As for footpath cycling, it annoys me even more than alleged "wrong way" cycling.

When I regularly cycled along Lough Atalia Road I never used the footpath, despite being invited to do so on occasion by, er, quick motorists.

This bit always struck me as problematic for footpath cyclists on that route, all the more so given the propensity for motorists to obstruct the footpaths on both sides.

Sponge Bob

NOT A hope in hell the Sq road job will be finished on Monday lunchtime as the most recent Tansey or Hayes utterance to the media promised. Had a good gawk now.

40% chance road will be done Friday 29th and 85% chance by the time the volvo is _over_

yer man!

How much is there left to do?

12 element

Feck all really by the looks of things. It's 99% done.

Iwannahurl

Are the signals at this junction operational?

Sponge Bob

The signals are not sequenced, they were laying fibre to connect them this week. They are all 'lit' which is not the same thing. Deadline for the Connacht Sentinal is 11am Monday so the Corpo are hoping they are not next weeks headline and that the Volvo will dominate the Thursday papers.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

1. Where are those ground markings set out in legislation?

There's nothing in any of the Road Traffic (Signs) Regulations or Amendments to indicate that these lines are legal either. Would you like to take either case up with the judge?

Iwannahurl wrote: »

2. What is the legal status of that "bi-directional" cycle track you refer to (a) as compared to the SQR and (b) in its own right?

The bidirectional nature is actually indicated in one but there's no bidirectional indication in the other.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I didn't say the SQR lanes were bi-directional. I didn't say they weren't either.

Now I know you're going to claim otherwise, so don't bother rejecting this bit the following says that you believe the lanes on sqr to be birdirectional - simply by questioning the illegality.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

3. If cycling in this manner is strictly illegal

Anyhow that's enough of your freeman nonsense - go prove the signs that don't indicate direction allow for bidirectional travel on the lane governed by the sign (any type of lane) regardless of the direction of the road traffic.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Now I know you're going to claim otherwise, so don't bother rejecting this bit...

Anyhow that's enough of your freeman nonsense

More sophistry and personal abuse. You must have scintillating conversations all the time IRL. I'll leave you to it.

what_traffic

It is actually illegal to currently cycle on the "cycle paths" on SQR/BOD in any direction - unless it has the correct sign - then it is treated as part of the footway.

www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html#zzsi182y1997a14


"Cycle Tracks
14. (1) Where traffic sign numbers RUS 009 or RUS 009A and either RRM 022 or RRM 023 [cycle track] are provided, the part of road to which they relate shall be a cycle track."

This is RUS009:
The RUS009A is similar, with the words Cycle Track under it.

However, these are NOT legal cycle tracks, as they are not RUS009 or RUS009A or RRM 022 or RRM 023.


Therefore legally speaking cyclists should be cycling in the Bus Lane on SQR/BOD- in the direction in which that sign is facing.

Iwannahurl

Someone's going to have to invent a hover bicycle real soon...

NamelessPhil

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Still waiting, and waiting, for any definitive reference showing that "wrong way" cycling, as illustrated earlier, is illegal. Common courtesy is a different issue, and I personally do not like "wrong way" cycling.

what-traffic's post linking to the S.I. above also gives the correct citation for the direction of cycle-tracks.

"Cycle tracks
14. (3)All pedal cycles must be driven on a cycle track where one is provided.
(4) Where a cycle track is one-way, pedal cycles shall be driven in the same direction as traffic on the side of the roadway adjacent to the cycle track is required to travel.
(5) When a cycle track is two-way, pedal cycles shall be driven as near as possible to the left hand side of each lane.

Therefore wrong-way cycling is illegal.

yer man!

Why don't you just ask a guard......?

what_traffic

Therefore legally speaking cyclists should be cycling in the Bus
Lane on SQR/BOD- in the direction in which that sign is facing.

The sign I am referring to here - is the Bus Lane Sign. RUS 028 or RUS 029
See post #967

what_traffic

NamelessPhil wrote: »

Therefore wrong-way cycling is illegal.

You are correct if the sign is in place - but SQR/BOD it is not. Therefore it is illegal to cycle on the "cycle paths" in any direction on SQR/BOD; even though they have the RUS058CL and RUS058RL in place.
See photograph in post #941

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

More sophistry and personal abuse. You must have scintillating conversations all the time IRL. I'll leave you to it.

Pointing out the truth is personal abuse now:(? One thinks that one is annoyed because one blocked one's usual denials.:p

Btw It appears that what_traffic & namelessPhil have found something to back up my reasoning - making it actually (i.e. not superficially) plausible.

Thanks for finding the correct information.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

The signals are not sequenced, they were laying fibre to connect them this week.

Thought that this was supposed to be done last Tuesday?

Council say lights 'syncing' will end Quirke Road traffic jams

June 19, 2012 - 7:00am
Long tailbacks over weekend leaves drivers fuming
By Dara Bradley

Galway City Council has insisted that the traffic lights along the new stretch of the Seamus Quirke Road and Bishop O’Donnell Road will be ‘synced’ later today, avoiding the long tailbacks through Westside that prevailed over the weekend.

Sponge Bob

antoobrien wrote: »

Thought that this was supposed to be done last Tuesday?

Allegedly...but actually not. It was lying on the pavement on Tuesday waiting to be pulled in.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Pointing out the truth is personal abuse now:(? One thinks that one is annoyed because one blocked one's usual denials.:p

No, it's your peevish pettifogging ad hominen style. You've been called on it elsewhere, eg here.

yer man! wrote: »

Why don't you just ask a guard......?

One of these Guards perhaps?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79194915&postcount=914




.