Cyclist injured in accident on N4 on Lucan bypass heading west

galwaycyclist

Found it

Roads Act 1993
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1993/en/act/pub/0014/print.html

Road users' duty of care.
67.—(1) It shall be the duty of a person using a public road to take reasonable care for his own safety and for that of any other person using the public road.

(2) It shall be the duty of a person using a public road to take all reasonable measures to avoid—

(a) injury to himself or to any other person using the public road,

(b) damage to property owned or used by him or by any other person using the public road.

I am not qualified to say wether this would provide an adequate defence for someone refusing to use a glass-strewn cycle track, or one that takes you up inside turning traffic, you would need to check with your own legal advisor.

seamus

galwaycyclist wrote: »

I am not qualified to say wether this would provide an adequate defence for someone refusing to use a glass-strewn cycle track, or one that takes you up inside turning traffic, you would need to check with your own legal advisor.

It would be a case-by-case basis really, there's no way of saying a general rule for all scenarios.

Balance of safety is probably the key. On one hand a glass-strewn cycle track poses a danger to your property (which you have a duty to avoid), but if the only alternative is the hard shoulder on a 100km/h stretch of dual carriageway, does that pose a lesser risk than the cycle track?

It's an easier argument when you're comparing a shared-use cycle track against a city street - the street is clearly the better option - but less clear cut in this scenario where you have a well surfaced cycle track versus a well surfaced bus lane.

kenmc

seamus wrote: »

Balance of safety is probably the key. On one hand a glass-strewn cycle track poses a danger to your property (which you have a duty to avoid), but if the only alternative is the hard shoulder on a 100km/h stretch of dual carriageway, does that pose a lesser risk than the cycle track?.

Would disagree entirely. If a cyclist were to get a puncture on this off road cycle track, which cause them to fall unexpectedly into the roadway, it has the potential to cause plenty of damage if a car has to swerve to avoid the falling cyclist.

On the other hand if the cyclist is ALREADY on the road, then the motorist must, by law, overtake with sufficient room to account for an eventuality such as this, or the cyclist swerving to avoid a pothole etc. (the fact that they don't though is another matter entirely).

seven stars

rp wrote: »

if, as a cyclist, you hit a pedestrian on non-legally marked 'cyclepath', you are immediately in the wrong, and any claim that 'sure, I thought that sign meant I could cycle there' isn't likely to get you off the hook.

This puts a different paint job on things. Sounds like it's my duty to keep out of the cycle path on the N4. It'll be interesting to see whether the garda is receptive to this view during our next discussion.

Stark

Pretty sure that's the same guy who passed me out on the Chapelizod bypass before the accident happened.

As for the cycle lane issue, I've used that route and the cycle lane isn't continuous the whole way. Heading up over the flyovers, you do have to come off the cycle lane before the lights into the bus lane, cross at the lights, then rejoin the cycle lane on the other side. (You can see the dashed lines marking this route in rp's photo in post 17). The on-footpath cycle lane that you see in image is for cyclists coming from the Newcastle road, the lowered bit for allowing cyclists from N4 direction to join it is a few metres past the traffic lights. So we don't know that he wasn't using the cycle lane.

seamus

kenmc wrote: »

Would disagree entirely. If a cyclist were to get a puncture on this off road cycle track, which cause them to fall unexpectedly into the roadway, it has the potential to cause plenty of damage if a car has to swerve to avoid the falling cyclist.

My question was an actual one, as opposed to a rhetorical one

The point being that in a court scenario it would be up to you to justify why you're not on the cycle track. I agree that particularly at road bike speeds of 30km/h+, a puncture which instantly deflated the tyre could result in a serious spill into the path of a bus. If it happened in the bus lane, the bus will either be overtaking or will have time/room to avoid you as you fall.
If you're on the cycle track, the bus may be too close or may not even see you falling.

seven stars

Stark wrote: »

So we don't know that he wasn't using the cycle lane.

We can't speculate as to what might have happened of course, but I'd assume it's okay to mention the location of the incident (as jodaw did in an earlier post). Have a look when you're going past tonight - they've marked two spots on the road with yellow paint. There's a 'cycle path' on the footpath at that location. The spots they've marked on the road are not in the bus lane either but are in the left-hand lane of the N4, at the very end of the on-ramp 'merging' dashed line.

monument

Lumen wrote: »

The law on mandatory cycle lane usage is marked for death anyway.

I can't see a prosecution being made on the basis of a law which the government has committed itself to getting rid of.

And the now many times delayed new regulations are also due to back up the no cycling sign, and the with flow bus lane without a bicycle sign!

nomdeboardie

Best wishes for the injured cyclist

---

Re the proposed revocation of the "mandatory use requirement regulation", I'd been trying again for months to get an update from the Dept of Transport, and received the following, for what it's worth, a coupe of days ago:

"... new regulations to amend the Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations 1997-1998, including a revision of the use of cycle track requirements, are under preparation in the Department at present and it is intended that the amending regulations will be available later in 2012."

I'm not holding my breath (see last page of The Political Action Thread
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055504073 re Varadkar's "hope" to have it out at the end of last year". Nor
do I know what the outcome of the revision will be; if it's not yet finalised, I wonder if this incident could harm the chances of revocation.

I was thinking of trying to extract more info from "The Dept" (blood from a stone) or going through the motions of emailing Varadkar directly (as in above thread), but perhaps now is not the best timing.

Mycroft H

I saw three cyclists on the same stretch of road in the bus lane. All lycra clad on racing bikes. One with no lights whatsoever (reflectors only :rolleyes:) and the other two with only mediocre lights.

With busy late evening traffic its only time before there is another accident like one a few days ago

seven stars

Was that this evening? What time?

Mycroft H

seven stars wrote: »

Was that this evening? What time?

About 7.45ish. The two with the lights had darkish grey/black colored jerseys. The no light idiot was wearing a dark jersey and was on his own a good while behind the other two.

The no light idiot was in the hard shoulder here and cut across the slip road from the ballyowen/woodies exit. Daft behavior to be honest.

kenmc

BX 19 wrote: »

About 7.45ish. The two with the lights had darkish grey/black colored jerseys. The no light idiot was wearing a dark jersey and was on his own a good while behind the other two.

Did you let them know that they were not particularly visible? Maybe they were unaware that their lights were not bright enough. There's little point in coming on here and describing them and moaning about them, without also telling them so they can learn something.

Mycroft H

kenmc wrote: »

Did you let them know that they were not particularly visible? Maybe they were unaware that their lights were not bright enough. There's little point in coming on here and describing them and moaning about them, without also telling them so they can learn something.

Good point. I was in the overtaking lane at the time and couldn't get to the stop in the bus lane. Also its not the sort of road you can slow down to 25km/h to shout out the windows especially due the large amount of traffic there at the time.

There has been a large garda presence on the road though in the last week more then I've noticed before. Hopefully they'll give these night riders an earful.

Greenman

fatwarren wrote: »

i always avoid using the cycle lanes on the n4. when i used them before i would be guaranteed a flat tyre. nobody cleans the cyclelanes so why use them if there is a perfectly maintained bus lane?

Must say the cyclepath looks like pants.:mad:

rp

BX 19 wrote: »

The no light idiot was in the hard shoulder here and cut across the slip road from the ballyowen/woodies exit. Daft behavior to be honest.

I make that manoeuvre daily - even at peak times, there is maybe max two or three cars coming down the on-ramp, so its easy enough to wait at the end of the hard-shoulder until it's safe to move across ready to rejoin the bus lane.
Alternatively, you can either stay out of the hard-shoulder altogether or move out when safe and rejoin the bus lane after the junction, but I prefer the former approach.

seven stars

Right, I had a look today for those RUS 009 signs, to see whether the cycle path on the Lucan bypass is a proper, legally binding cycle track. Turns out there is one (I think), and quite close to where the gardai stopped me too. You can see it in this shot from Google Street view.

Mycroft H

I saw the same sign this morning shortly after the Leixlip exit eastbound. Its an good cycle lane by Irish standards except for the odd piece of glass on the road.

kenmc

But the bus/bike lane is also usable by cyclists. Is there some sort of order of precendence where that is only true if there is no (legal) cycle track beside it? If that's the case then surely the bus/bike lane sign must be replaced with a bus only sign no?

All very confusing.

Mycroft H

kenmc wrote: »

But the bus/bike lane is also usable by cyclists. Is there some sort of order of precendence where that is only true if there is no (legal) cycle track beside it? If that's the case then surely the bus/bike lane sign must be replaced with a bus only sign no?

All very confusing.

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.


(2) 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.


(3) All pedal cycles must be driven on a cycle track where one is provided.

It seems the sign is present on the stretch of the N4 then the cycle track must be used. Thought cycling along it this morning the shared bus/cycle lane signs were confusing. However, the road traffic act refers to a track and where provided must be used.

monument

BX 19 wrote: »

I saw the same sign this morning shortly after the Leixlip exit eastbound. Its an good cycle lane by Irish standards except for the odd piece of glass on the road.

Where it matters those are distressful cycle lanes. Having a quick look at Google Street View and from memory, this is what I can remember (I'm open to correction!):

• The paths bring you back on to the road just before the slip-roads in a high-speed environments
• Tiny width of cycle lanes when you return to the road
• Not near enough room on much of the "cycle track" or "cycleways" -- which are marked two-ways at least along some bits -- for overtaking other cyclists or passing people walking on them
• The start at Leixlip signed as shared use but even where there is only the bicycle sign where do they expect pedestrians to go -- they are legally allowed to walk on these roads!
• Distressful marked tiny cycle lanes on some of the overpasses
• The layout and detours for cyclists and pedestrians over the M50 are a sick joke
• There's needlessly sharp turns around some of the gantry posts
• Needlessly getting cyclists to come to a near stop at the bus gate Celbridge road

The NRA were just providing for pedestrians and trying to get cyclists out of the way.

kenmc wrote: »

But the bus/bike lane is also usable by cyclists. Is there some sort of order of precendence where that is only true if there is no (legal) cycle track beside it? If that's the case then surely the bus/bike lane sign must be replaced with a bus only sign no?

All very confusing.

Currently there is no such thing as a bus only sign. But there may be one soon...

BX 19 wrote: »

It seems the sign is present on the stretch of the N4 then the cycle track must be used. Thought cycling along it this morning the shared bus/cycle lane signs were confusing. However, the road traffic act refers to a track and where provided must be used.

Is that a cycle track sign? It looks like it could be a cycleway sign.

Cyclists can also use the bus lane.

rp

seven stars wrote: »

Right, I had a look today for those RUS 009 signs, to see whether the cycle path on the Lucan bypass is a proper, legally binding cycle track. Turns out there is one (I think), and quite close to where the gardai stopped me too. You can see it in this shot from Google Street view.

That is very confusing alright, because up until that point there is only the 'pretend' shared-use sign, and plenty of pedestrians do use that pavement to access the bus stop. There is no easy way to get a bike up at that point (high curb), and within 50m, a bike&bus lane sign is placed - I assume this now takes precedence over the earlier sign, as a 50km sigh would over a prior 80km sign?
The next legal cycle lane sign appears at the Ballyowen turn-off, for those who turn off.

seven stars

monument wrote: »

Cyclists can also use the bus lane.

rp wrote: »

...within 50m, a bike&bus lane sign is placed - I assume this now takes precedence over the earlier sign, as a 50km sigh would over a prior 80km sign?

I don't think so. I think pedal cyclists are legally required to use the cycle track if one is provided (as indicated by the proper signage). See the earlier posts about this. I hope I'm wrong of course.

monument

seven stars wrote: »

I don't think so. I think pedal cyclists are legally required to use the cycle track if one is provided (as indicated by the proper signage). See the earlier posts about this. I hope I'm wrong of course.

There's two major problems here:

Pedestrians have a right to be on these road so marking what were footpaths (and what look like and were mostly designs as updated footpaths) is highly questionable.

Currently there is only one cycle track sign designs allow for within regulations and this includes the words cycle track. Maybe I'm wrong, but currently the round sign with only the bicycle logo is not a legal cycle track sign. This is the sign prescribed by law:



And unless they changed most of the signs, this sign only is used a small amount along the road in question.

seven stars

This is true. That sign is definitely the one at the bus stop just before the M50 interchange, which, presumably, makes it illegal to cross the M50 interchange on the road (when you're heading East at least).

I think, from memory, it might also be the one rp mentioned at the Ballyowen turn-off. And I spotted another one this morning, at the point where the Leixlip/Celbridge sliproad meets the N4.

I suppose you could get into arguments about exactly which parts of the road these signs are valid for and whether a missing caption can render the signs null and void, but from a practical point of view, it looks like I'll be on fairly shaky ground should the Dibble stop me in the bus lane.

monument

seven stars wrote: »

This is true. That sign is definitely the one at the bus stop just before the M50 interchange, which, presumably, makes it illegal to cross the M50 interchange on the road (when you're heading East at least).

Highly unlikely.

The path and the traffic lanes could easily be treated as septate roadways. There's no ramp from the main carriageway to the cycle/footpath and the path goes off in a different direction and different ending point to the main flyover.

rp

monument wrote: »

Highly unlikely.
The path and the traffic lanes could easily be treated as septate roadways. There's no ramp from the main carriageway to the cycle/footpath and the path goes off in a different direction and different ending point to the main flyover.

My understanding too, I think the mandatory use law is qualified so that, to apply, the cycle path has to run parallel to the road, and that M50 bridge certainly does not (i.e., you cannot be required to make a detour from your route just to be on a cycle path).

seven stars

Aye, makes sense I suppose.

galwaycyclist

rp wrote: »

My understanding too, I think the mandatory use law is qualified so that, to apply, the cycle path has to run parallel to the road, and that M50 bridge certainly does not (i.e., you cannot be required to make a detour from your route just to be on a cycle path).

I believe there has been a court case on this and a judge held that a cyclist was not required to use a cycle track that does not bring them in their intended direction.

Unfortunately I have never been able to find it. I believe it may have involved the LUAS in some fashion.

Mycroft H

And to throw the cat among the pigeons, fingal county council seems to have changed the shared bus lane sign near the site of the accident has been changed. Previously it was a bus/cycle lane but now the cycle end of the sign has been painted over with blue paint to make it a bus only lane sign similar to this one.



This is what it looked like before



Google street view link of location


Seems clear enough to me that your not permitted to use the bus lane from that point on.

rich.d.berry

BX 19 wrote: »

And to throw the cat among the pigeons, fingal county council seems to have changed the shared bus lane sign near the site of the accident has been changed. Previously it was a bus/cycle lane but now the cycle end of the sign has been painted over with blue paint to make it a bus only lane sign similar to this one.

That would appear that the council acknowledges some culpability for poor and confusing signage.

I can't help wondering what they will change the signage to if in the next few weeks there is a serious collision between a pedestrian and a cyclist on that cycle path.

nomdeboardie

BX 19 wrote: »

And to throw the cat among the pigeons, fingal county council seems to have changed the shared bus lane sign near the site of the accident has been changed. Previously it was a bus/cycle lane but now the cycle end of the sign has been painted over with blue paint to make it a bus only lane sign similar to this one. ...

Interesting (you think they did this since the accident?)...
Hope the cyclists lawers (if it does go to court) think to consut Google StreeView if necessary. Perhaps I should save some screenshots now in case they have Google censor the existing images (as done for car reg plates and faces etc)! (I'm nothing if not paranoid )

rich.d.berry wrote: »

That would appear that the council acknowledges some culpability for poor and confusing signage.

I can't help wondering what they will change the signage to if in the next few weeks there is a serious collision between a pedestrian and a cyclist on that cycle path.

They're gonna have to get creative...:cool:

rp

BX 19 wrote: »

Seems clear enough to me that your not permitted to use the bus lane from that point on.

As the sign above is not a legal Irish road sign, how can it be clear that cyclist cannot use the bus lane?

rich.d.berry

rp wrote: »

As the sign above is not a legal Irish road sign, how can it be clear that cyclist cannot use the bus lane?

A sure, 'twill be grand! We'll make it up as we go along!

Chips Lovell

If there's no taxi on the sign, does this mean taxis can't use it either?

Lumen

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

If there's no taxi on the sign, does this mean taxis can't use it either?

And what about TDs? I want to see a cartoon representation of Varadkar's ugly pug.

rp

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

If there's no taxi on the sign, does this mean taxis can't use it either?

That's a tough one, as taxis can only use the lane whilst working, so how do you depict that? Showing the driver's mouth open holding forth to a passenger?

mp31

BX 19 wrote: »

And to throw the cat among the pigeons, fingal county council seems to have changed the shared bus lane sign near the site of the accident has been changed. Previously it was a bus/cycle lane but now the cycle end of the sign has been painted over with blue paint to make it a bus only lane sign similar to this one.

rp wrote: »

As the sign above is not a legal Irish road sign, how can it be clear that cyclist cannot use the bus lane?

Also as there aren't any RUS 009 or RUS 009A signs present, can we assume that cyclists do not have to use the footpath with the white painted cycle signs?

rp

mp31 wrote: »

Also as there aren't any RUS 009 or RUS 009A signs present, can we assume that cyclists do not have to use the footpath with the white painted cycle signs?

I'd go further: cyclist must not use the footpath with white painted bicycles on it, as they would be cycling on the pavement, an offence.

Mycroft H

rp wrote: »

I'd go further: cyclist must not use the footpath with white painted bicycles on it, as they would be cycling on the pavement, an offence.

If its ever brought to court I can imagine that the judge would just deem it to be a cycle track if its marked as such and segregated from the main road.

Is there any case law on the matter?

endacl

Any word on the cyclist in question?

seven stars

mp31 wrote: »

Also as there aren't any RUS 009 or RUS 009A signs present, can we assume that cyclists do not have to use the footpath with the white painted cycle signs?

rp wrote: »

I'd go further: cyclist must not use the footpath with white painted bicycles on it, as they would be cycling on the pavement, an offence.

If it's illegal to use the cycle track and they don't want us to use the bus lane, then that only leaves the main carriageways. Which is a pretty bizarre outcome given that the accident in the op appears to have occurred in the main (left-hand) carriageway.

rp

BX 19 wrote: »

Is there any case law on the matter?

From Road Traffic Law, Robert Pierse (p.837):

Legality
The mere erection of an authorised sign and its disobedience is not sufficient to create an offence. An erection of a sign must have a legal base. Thus in DPP v.Clancy...
Conformance
Signs must normally be strictly of the type provided for by ministerial regulation under section 95(2)...