Cycle/footpath on the outer ring road

barneystinson

Does anyone know what is the position, legally, with the big wide cycle/footpaths provided along the ORR - are cyclists & pedestrians obliged to use them..??

Needless to say, pedestrians and runners do use the clearly marked footpath, and some cyclists do too. But of course then there's the other cyclists who wouldn't dream of cycling anywhere but on the actual road, and because there's no hard shoulder to speak of most cars have to change lane to overtake them, which can be dangerous on a dual carriageway.

So basically I'm wondering are they within their rights to be out on the dual carriageway or should they be on the clearly designated path provided? Any experts on the bye-laws around here?

AdMMM

Yup, they're within their right to cycle on all roads with the exception of motorways. As far as I know up until recently they were required to use cycle lanes where provided but due to the state of disrepair of cycle lanes around the country (in many cases they're very dangerous), that law was revoked.

cassette50

The law was changed back in October so the cyclists are perfectly within their rights to use the road.

Slow down and overtake when safe to do so.

Cabaal

Perfectly legal to cycle on the road...unless its a motorway,
Thankfully that law was changed, good thing to as shared cycle lanes like that are a awful idea and extrenely poorly planned.

Whoever thought sharing a footpath with a cyclist on a roadbike that could be doing 30km/hour+ was a smart idea?

Chiparus

The "cycle lane" only goes on one side of the road for most of it , legally it is not even a cycle lane.

wobbles

As mentioned, cyclists are no longer required to use a bike lane where one is provided.

I cycle the outer ring road daily on my road bike and easily reach 30km an hour without much effort. Imagine a pedestrian or child stepping out in front of you at that speed, nobody looks behind them while walking. People walking their dog on a lead is another hazard. Its safer all round to use the road.

Cyclists are road users like any other, so why treat them differently than a slower moving car/tractor etc

barneystinson

Is it legal for me to drive in a cycle lane so? Since we're all just road users.

mike65

No, being so narrow you'd mow over cyclists and pedestrians, cars being notably wider, heavier, faster then the designated users of said lanes.

Chiparus

barneystinson wrote: »

Is it legal for me to drive in a cycle lane so? Since we're all just road users.

If there is a broken line - yes

barneystinson

mike65 wrote: »

No, being so narrow you'd mow over cyclists and pedestrians, cars being notably wider, heavier, faster then the designated users of said lanes.

How/why would I mow them over?!

We're all road users, so if I arrive behind a pedestrian or a cyclist when I'm driving in the cycling lane, surely I'd have to change lane to overtake them. Just the same as I don't currently scythe down cyclists who are on the carriageway.

And what does "designated users" mean anyway, since we're all road users. I'm going to saunter out for a walk along the dual carriageway on the outer ring road one fine evening, and I won't bother with the massive cycle/footpath, since I'm a road user and perfectly entitled to be out on the road.

Chiparus

barneystinson wrote: »

How/why would I mow them over?!

We're all road users, if I arrive behind a pedestrian or a cyclist when I'm driving in the cycling lane, surely I'd have to change lane to overtake them. Just the same as I don't currently scythe down cyclists who are on the carriageway.

The problem is that the "cycle lane"is not a cycle lane it is a footpath, with UK signs indicating that cyclists may use it. As it is a footpath you cannot drive on a footpath.

You may drive on a non mandatory cycle track , but driving on a mandatory cycle track attracts penalty points.

barneystinson

Chiparus wrote: »

The problem is that the "cycle lane"is not a cycle lane it is a footpath, with UK signs indicating that cyclists may use it. As it is a footpath you cannot drive on a footpath.

You may drive on a non mandatory cycle track , but cycling on a mandatory cycle track attracts penalty points.

:rolleyes:

I didn't think I'd have to explain that I wasn't talking about driving on THAT cycling path... (since every time I've referred to it I called it a cycling/footpath).

I'd have thought it was pretty obvious I was talking about an actual cycling lane, like the one they spent a fortune installing the whole way out to Tramore, but half the cyclists still don't bother their arses to use.

And hold on, what's the difference between a mandatory cycling track and a non-mandatory one anyway, since legally cyclists seem to have carte blanche to cycle wherever they like?

Chiparus

barneystinson wrote: »

:rolleyes:

I didn't think I'd have to explain that I wasn't talking about driving on THAT cycling path... (since every time I've referred to it I called it a cycling/footpath).

I'd have thought it was pretty obvious I was talking about an actual cycling lane, like the one they spent a fortune installing the whole way out to Tramore, but half the cyclists still don't bother their arses to use.

And hold on, what's the difference between a mandatory cycling track and a non-mandatory one anyway, since legally cyclists seem to have carte blanche[/I][/I] to cycle wherever they like?

A mandatory cycle tracks a track that is reserved for cyclists, a non mandatory cycle track other vehicles may enter, if you don't know the ROTR perhaps you should not be driving?

jive

barneystinson wrote: »

How/why would I mow them over?!

We're all road users, so if I arrive behind a pedestrian or a cyclist when I'm driving in the cycling lane, surely I'd have to change lane to overtake them. Just the same as I don't currently scythe down cyclists who are on the carriageway.

And what does "designated users" mean anyway, since we're all road users. I'm going to saunter out for a walk along the dual carriageway on the outer ring road one fine evening, and I won't bother with the massive cycle/footpath, since I'm a road user and perfectly entitled to be out on the road.

your logic wrinkles my brain

Cabaal

barneystinson wrote: »

How/why would I mow them over?!

We're all road users, so if I arrive behind a pedestrian or a cyclist when I'm driving in the cycling lane, surely I'd have to change lane to overtake them. Just the same as I don't currently scythe down cyclists who are on the carriageway.

And what does "designated users" mean anyway, since we're all road users. I'm going to saunter out for a walk along the dual carriageway on the outer ring road one fine evening, and I won't bother with the massive cycle/footpath, since I'm a road user and perfectly entitled to be out on the road.

You clearly fail to understand the rules of the road and laws applied to road usage,

I strongly suggest you throw away your car keys until sense hits you in the head if this is your flippant attitude to laws you don't like when it comes to road usage.

Clearly you are a danger to yourself and others with that sort of attitude,

Its evident that you've likely never cycled a road bike in your life if you don't understand why the cycle lane law was changed,

The vast majority of cycle lanes in Ireland are poorly maintained, poorly designed, full of broken glass etc or shared in a very dangerous manner both for the person walking and cycling.

The shared cycle lane on the ORR is all very fine and well for a young kid out with his parents on a walk, but its unsuitable for somebody on a regular commute or for example somebody out training on a road bike.

The issues with a cycle lane being given less priority to the road means:
- Cyclist needs to stop at each roundabout and legally has to discount to cross the road as a pedestrian (you realise how many roundabouts there is on the ORR right?)
- If there's drive ways or entrances the cyclist is endanger of being hit far more then if they were on a road, often they are required to yield at each entrances (see example in picture from Galway)



You'd have to be either blind or stupid to think that the picture above is in anyway an acceptable cycle path, yet until the law was changed cyclist legally (technically speaking) would have been required to use it.

This and other extremely stupidly designed paths were seen as a model model for the rest of Galway City back in 2010.

Don't give out to the cyclist for these issues, its the county council that won't listen and won't built the cycle lanes that are actually wanted.

On the issue of shared cycle paths, from experience the issues are many:
- Often they included blind turns with very narrow spaces
- People walking/running in the cycle lane
- People walking dogs with leads on the cycle lane (extremely dangerous during the winter).
- Driveways, people getting out of cars, buses etc into the path of a cycle lane
- Footpath completely unsuitable for a road bike operating at what many road bike users would consider their avg or normal speeds
- Footpaths often more poorly maintained then roadways

If you want to complain about the cycle lane that was made on the Tramore then go right ahead, I think it was a total waste of money and I've yet to talk to any cyclist who thought it was a good idea.

Another waste is the cycle lane that was created on the majority of the old Carlow/Kilkenny road this year, there was no need for either as in both cases the roads have a perfectly good hardshoulder!

As a cyclist, motorist and a tax payer in general (remember everyone that pays tax pays towards roads, paths etc), I'd rather see proper planning going into schemes like this.

barneystinson

Chiparus wrote: »

A mandatory cycle tracks a track that is reserved for cyclists, a non mandatory cycle track other vehicles may enter, if you don't know the ROTR perhaps you should not be driving?

I know them well enough to have driven for about 14 years without having ever caused an accident, injury or damage to myself or any other road user.

I presume the distinction is a continuous versus a broken line delineating the cycle lane - so seeing as I know my ROTR well enough not to cross the continuous line barring an emergency, common sense should continue to get me by as it has thus far.

barneystinson

Cabaal wrote: »

You clearly fail to understand the rules of the road and laws applied to road usage,

I strongly suggest you throw away your car keys until sense hits you in the head if this is your flippant attitude to laws you don't like when it comes to road usage.

Clearly you are a danger to yourself and others with that sort of attitude,

Whoa there and get down off your high bicycle for a minute buddy.

What rules of the road have I clearly failed to understand?

What flippant attitude of mine are you talking about?

And how am I a danger to anyone? (And again I await hearing about my attitude before this point can be properly addressed)

Chiparus

barneystinson wrote: »

Does anyone know[/B] what is the position, legally, with the big wide cycle/footpaths provided along the ORR - are cyclists & pedestrians obliged to use them..??

Needless to say, pedestrians and runners do use the clearly marked footpath, and some cyclists do too. But of course then there's the other cyclists who wouldn't dream of cycling anywhere but on the actual road, and because there's no hard shoulder to speak of most cars have to change lane to overtake them, which can be dangerous on a dual carriageway.

So basically I'm wondering are they within their rights to be out on the dual carriageway or should they be on the clearly designated path provided? Any experts on the bye-laws around here?

It is quite obvious you don't know the rules of the road.

barneystinson

Chiparus wrote: »

It is quite obvious you don't know the rules of the road.

So in other words what I was asking, without knowing the correct terminology, was whether the cycling path provided constituted a mandatory cycling lane. What's the big deal.

I know how to drive, and I know how to drive when there's a cyclist on the road (or a pedestrian, or a cow, or an elephant, or a dinosaur). What I was asking was whether what they were doing was in accordance with the ROTR - since I don't cycle I don't really need to know the rules FOR cyclists.

Do you know ALL the rules of the road Chiparus?

longshanks

barneystinson wrote: »

So in other words what I was asking, without knowing the correct terminology, was whether the cycling path provided constituted a mandatory cycling lane. What's the big deal.

I know how to drive, and I know how to drive when there's a cyclist on the road (or a pedestrian, or a cow, or an elephant, or a dinosaur). What I was asking was whether what they were doing was in accordance with the ROTR - since I don't cycle I don't really need to know the rules FOR cyclists.

Do you know ALL the rules of the road Chiparus?

There's just the one set of rules son, you either know them or you don't.

barneystinson

longshanks wrote: »

There's just the one set of rules son, you either know them or you don't.

So do YOU know ALL the rules of the road, Dad?

Strange how they've divided up their website, Dad - http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-for-driving/index.html
http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-for-pedestrians-cyclists-motorcyclists/index.html

longshanks

barneystinson wrote: »

So do YOU know ALL the rules of the road, Dad?

Strange how they've divided up their website, Dad - http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-for-driving/index.html
http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-for-pedestrians-cyclists-motorcyclists/index.html

It all comes under the rules of the road son. What part of that is hard to understand?

barneystinson

longshanks wrote: »

It all comes under the rules of the road son. What part of that is hard to understand?

And yet, in order to pass a DRIVING test to be competent to DRIVE on the roads, one doesn't have to have any knowledge of the rules as they pertain to cyclists...

So I can quite happily say no, I don't know all the rules of the road - but I'm pretty sure I'm not a danger to myself or anyone else out there. And quite importantly I feel, I did pass a test to prove my competence (and knowledge of the relevant rules) to drive on the road.

Remind me what knowledge of the rules of the road a cyclist is required to demonstrate before being allowed out on their road bike?

I'll try one more time - Do you know ALL the rules Dad?

Or are you just stalling as you furiously read the ROTR?!

longshanks

barneystinson wrote: »

And yet, in order to pass a DRIVING test to be competent to DRIVE on the roads, one doesn't have to have any knowledge of the rules as they pertain to cyclists...
!

Well that's wrong for a start. You're supposed to be aware of other road users, ie. pedestrians, cyclists etc.
A knowledge of the rules as they pertain to cyclists might come in handy there son.

barneystinson

longshanks wrote: »

Well that's wrong for a start. You're supposed to be aware of other road users, ie. pedestrians, cyclists etc.
A knowledge of the rules as they pertain to cyclists might come in handy there son.

Have you actually done your driving test? Being aware of other road users is tested, that's why they get you to drive while they tick boxes, so they can see how aware you are. I passed. What they didn't ask me to do was get out and cycle/walk anywhere, so the rules as they pertain to cyclists weren't examined. But that was 14 years ago, maybe the driving test involves cycling nowadays?

I find that what comes in handy is a piece of advice my real father gave me, Dad. Assume that everyone else is a complete idiot when you're driving.

So for example, Cabaal posted a pic of a cycle lane in Galway which stupidly gives right of way to motor traffic at every junction, a recipe for disaster. If I was going to turn off that road and could see a cyclist coming up the cycling lane, regardless of my knowledge of any rules/markings they're supposed to adhere to I'm not going to assume they'll yield to me unless/until it becomes obvious they're slowing to a stop. Likewise if I was cycling up any road, cycle lane or not, marked or not, I'd be wary of cars turning in across me at junctions. (And just as I type that, the RSA ad is on the radio with the tag line "Always expect the unexpected".)

I think I'm getting a raw deal here - I asked a straightforward question, and it's been answered.

Chiparus

barneystinson wrote: »

Is it legal for me to drive in a cycle lane so? Since we're all just road users.

Very straightforward question there.

Max Powers

barneystinson wrote: »

Does anyone know what is the position, legally, with the big wide cycle/footpaths provided along the ORR - are cyclists & pedestrians obliged to use them..??

Needless to say, pedestrians and runners do use the clearly marked footpath, and some cyclists do too. But of course then there's the other cyclists who wouldn't dream of cycling anywhere but on the actual road, and because there's no hard shoulder to speak of most cars have to change lane to overtake them, which can be dangerous on a dual carriageway.

So basically I'm wondering are they within their rights to be out on the dual carriageway or should they be on the clearly designated path provided? Any experts on the bye-laws around here?

never mind cyclists, what about joggers who run on the road when there is a footpath, unbelievably silly

kaef

Max Powers wrote: »

never mind cyclists, what about joggers who run on the road when there is a footpath, unbelievably silly

Nevermind cyclists and joggers, what abour drivers who never use turn-signal on the roundabout?

EDIT: And ofc drivers who park their cars on double yellow lines, especially in the middle of crossroads.