Is it compulsory for a cyclist use a cycle lane or a cycle path?

Leo said:

In the end, the only places cyclists must use marked tracks is where they are provided in pedestrianised areas or where they are running contra-flow on a one-way street.

Click to expand...

Leo, that's not 100% correct. Cycle tracks (as defined in the legislation) are always compulsary. They are not just limited to those two examples you gave - they can also be provided on a "road or a portion of a road" and will be indicated by a combination of signs such as RUS009, RUS022 or RUS023.

Páid said:

Leo, that's not 100% correct. Cycle tracks (as defined in the legislation) are always compulsary.

Click to expand...

When talking about the current situation it helps to reference current legislation

As above, the plan was to enforce mandatory use of Cycle Tracks, but it was quickly decided they wouldn't act on that out of fear of drivers getting upset with the enforcement of parking legislation that would be required. Now, it took until the 2012 Act for that amendment to be formalised, but they were very clear from the outset that mandatory use was not expected and would not be enforced.

Part 3 of the Regulations amend, from 1 October 2012, provisions of the Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations 1997 to 2011. The main amendments include <snip>and amended requirements for use of cycle tracks (only use of contraflow cycle track and of any cycle track in pedestrianised area is mandatory); <snip>

Click to expand...

Páid said:

Cycle tracks (as defined in the legislation) are always compulsary

Click to expand...

No, they are not. "RUS 021" is a sign for pedestrianised streets according to the law (https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2024/si/222/made/en/print) and it would be a specific circumstance where there is RUS 021 to indicate a pedestrianised area AND there is also a cycling lane for cyclists. If there is only RUS 021 and no cycle infrastructure accompanying it, it is a pedestian zone, and similar to a footpath, cyclists, L1e-A e-moped and e-scooters must dismount.

Páid said:

Cycle tracks are always mandatory - they are defined in the legislation.

Cycle lanes and paths are not mandatory.

We are all saying the same thing.

Click to expand...

You're not. You've misinterpreted it a number of times now, even after quoting it correctly.

Considering the vast amount (like 99.9%) are not mandatory just assume they all aren't, and drive accordingly.

Leo, you are quoting from the Explanatory note which is not legally binding. I explained this already. Originally in the 2012 S.I. (not Act) the Dept. of Transport were going to remove the mandatory use of cycle tracks on roads but decided not to at the last minute. They left in the section of the paragraph that makes it mandatory to use them where they are provided but they forgot to remove the text from the explanatory note.

This is from the same 2012 S.I. that you quoted from.


In other words, a cycle track in mandatory where;

1. One is provided on a road
2. One is provided on a portion of a road
3. One is provided in a pedestrianised street or area (with a RUS021 sign)
4. One is provided in a contra-flow cycle track with sign RUS059

The 2024 S.I. has the same language but includes mopeds and scooters;

If you look at the Explanatory Note, just under the heading it will say;

"This note is not part of the Instrument and does not purport to be a legal interpretation)"

"...the known public misreading of the legislation covering cycle tracks. The regulations, S.I. No. 222/2024 – Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) (Amendment)...

is that the clauses of section 4(a) are three separate things and mention of “RUS 021 (pedestrianised street or area)” only applies to the third cause. It’s unclear at this point if this misreading has been made at any official level within the Gardaí...."

"...The law was only changed last year to allow L1e-A and electric scooter devices to use cycle tracks, and so the law was also changed to make it a requirement for such users to use cycle tracks in pedestrianised areas such as squares or when going the contra-flow direction using contra-flow cycle tracks..."

That amendment is saying who can use those tracks. Not that they are mandatory.

Why can't you take it as given that they aren't mandatory. You'll have less conflict if you do.
Indeed why not just give cyclists right of way.

My own personal view is that cycle tracks/paths/lanes should not be mandatory and that a degree of common sense should prevail. Like when you approach a green light in a car your right of way is not absolute and you should proceed with caution. For example, you should be prepared to stop in order to prevent an accident or to avoid a pedestrian. Similarly, in cycle paths/tracks/lanes (including mandatory ones) a cyclist should be allowed to leave the cycle lane where it would be dangerous to use it or to avoid a parked car, people walking, etc. i.e. being mandatory is not absolute.

You have to consider the sources of information - one is a biased article and the other is the legislation. I know which source I would believe.

This thread is about whether cycle lanes/paths/tracks are compulsory and my view is that they are only mandatory where the three signs are provided and this may or may not be contra-flow or pedestrian areas. It could for example be on a road. Saying that the only mandatory cycle tracks are in pedestrian areas or contra-flow lanes is not correct.

This is the consolidated Act which contains all of the Amendments made by S.I.s over the years - https://revisedacts.lawreform.ie/eli/1997/si/182/revised/en/pdf?annotations=true

The definition of a cycle track in paragraph 14(1) of this Act states that a cycle track is indicated by signs RUS009, RUS058 and RUS059. In paragraph 14(4) it states that a cycle track may be on a road, portion of a road, pedestrian area or contra-flow lane. That's how I have reasoned it and come to my conclusions.

Examples of the signs are available in section 5 of this document - https://assets.gov.ie/21645/e375ca5571bd4a5a8009c57b57411e33.PDF

I'm glad to see that the RSA (an agency of the Dept. of Transport) have finally changed the Rules of the Road to say that "Cyclists should wherever possible use any cycle track provided." at the top of page 201. Previously it stated that cyclists must use any cycle track provided.

https://www.rsa.ie/docs/default-source/road-safety/r1---rules-of-the-road/ruleoftheroad_book-for-web.pdf?sfvrsn=b5d57830_7

Thus far you've disagreed with at least 3 ministers, the department of transport, the legislation itself, to only take your own interpretation of one amendment whose primary purpose was to enable non bicycles.

If that's not bias I'm not sure what is. Even if unintentional.

Consider the legislation has been redrafted numerous times, reversing previous legislation, and for clarity. Suggests it's not been well thought out or worded, or error free. To ignore all that history and context to hang everything on an interpretation of a tiny part of it, is I would suggest is confirmation bias. It's completely at odds with any claimed belief.

If there is any undeniable logical reason for not being in a cycle track, then it invalidates any sweeping rule of compulsory use, or stay left. Anyone with 5 mins of experience will know it's not possible to stay entirely within cycle tracks. For a multitude of reasons.

The dogma of compulsory cycle tracks or stay left only comes from one place and that to give priority to cars. When really you want cars to give way to other road uses.

The 2024 amendment was to enable non-bicycles. Apart from that section 14(4) has remained mostly the same. The Dept. of Transport have said different things about that same section over the years, their interpretation has changed.

Read this from the same source as your article;

This is what I have been saying elsewhere in this thread about the explanatory note.

“The explanatory note attached to the 2012 regulation is incorrect in stating that only use of contraflow cycle track and of any cycle track in pedestrianised areas is mandatory. As stated in the explanatory note, this note is not part of the instrument and does not purport to be a legal interpretation. As it is not a legal instrument, the explanatory note cannot be amended in itself,” a spokesman for the Department of Transport said yesterday.

Click to expand...

Later the Dept. say this but I think this interpretation is not correct. You have to also look at how a cycle track is defined.

The spokesman then said: “To set it out as clearly as possible, paragraph 4(a) should be read as ‘A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where a cycle track is provided on a road. A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where a cycle track is provided on a portion of a road. A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where a cycle track is provided on an area at the entrance to which traffic sign number RUS 021 (pedestrianised street or area) is provided’. It is not to be read as ‘A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where traffic sign number RUS 021 (pedestrianised street or area) is provided’.”

Click to expand...

The Dept. of Transport could have removed 4(a) (i) and (ii) of the paragraph if they wanted to remove the ambiguity and only make pedestrianised areas and contra-flow lanes mandatory but they haven't done so despite having the opportunity to do so multiple times in the 2012, 2018 and 2024 S.I.s. The question you should be asking is why not?

This is only my opinion but considering the other ridiculous things the dept does, and ridiculous resistance to change in the public sector I assume this is culture within that dept to stubbornly resist making changes. Then writing it in obtuse legalise that even the dept that created it can't either explain or understand it.

Look at the glacial progress on getting eScooters and eBike legalised and the legislation clearly written. How often has new legislation been created that is utterly pointless, or enforceable. Then the road markings, or infrastructure created are not even legal or to any known standard.

They are consistent with this behaviour.


This might not even be about the legislation. It might simply by about avoiding enforcing the law. Who knows. Cyclists struggling to get action on road incidents is not unusual.

Páid said:

My own personal view is that cycle tracks/paths/lanes should not be mandatory and that a degree of common sense should prevail.

Click to expand...

While I don't disagree due to the conditions and design of many cycle routes in the country, it really does beg belief why we allocate as much as 20m to create modest routes (Fairview to Amiens St cost) if cyclists are going to go, "well thank you for spending 20m on me, now I'm just not going to use it as its not mandatory". Its really hard to argue for continued infrastructure spending given this.

lff12 said:

Its really hard to argue for continued infrastructure spending given this

Click to expand...

I think that's a bit overly simplistic. The vast majority will use the cycle lane. It's only the minority of situations where they won't. It's not like we can gain more capacity on the route by adding 8 more car lanes. But you could get that capacity via cycling. That's a modal cultural shift that after a century of car use isn't going to happen overnight.

lff12 said:

it really does beg belief why we allocate as much as 20m to create modest routes (Fairview to Amiens St cost) if cyclists are going to go, "well thank you for spending 20m on me, now I'm just not going to use it as its not mandatory".

Click to expand...

That's probably an example of a decent design where the majority of cyclists will choose to use it. It's a far cry from the majority of poorly designed lanes which are generally best avoided by cyclists moving at any speed due to unacceptable risks to themselves and other road users. Of course you'll still have cars and other motorists parking in and blocking those lanes, and so mandatory use is unworkable unless the authorities decide to do some proper enforcement.

It's also a misnomer to suggest that sum is being spent on cycling infrastructure, the cycle lanes themselves are far from the majority of the scope of works there. The plan includes more pedestrian than cycle infrastructure.

I think the range of differences in opinions and interpretation of bad or ambiguous legislation as illustrated in this thread alone is indicative of the entire issue of attitudes to cycling policy and cycle lanes in particular. I suspect there may have been something of a hidden agenda in the OP's original question which seemed to rhetorically suggest that use of cycle lanes should be compulsory as if the presence of cyclists sharing roads with motorists was a source of considerable irritation.

Of course the reality is that our cycling network is still so disjointed and inadequate and tokenistic and frequently so poorly maintained as to make the practicality of getting from A to B without having at some point share the road with motor traffic almost an impossibility.


Equally much of the existing legislation is so ambiguous or convoluted that it's frequently even a challenge for the Gardai to interpret or enforce it.

And finally, even if there were adequate resources to police or enforce it (which there aren't -we can't even field a transport police or a decently resourced traffic corps let alone a separate bicycle legislation enforcement corps) the question arises would it be better in the interests of public safety applying those resources to motor traffic enforcement which,proportionately causes a lot more injury and damage to life?


With regard to the point made that because €x has been spent on dedicated resources for cyclist then they should be mandatory - a few observations


1. These resources are rarely exclusively for cyclists, they (bar non segregated cycle lanes adjoining motor traffic) are invariably shared by pedestrians.

2. Whatever the expenditure on cycle facilities it is still proportionately minuscule compared to the years of neglect and relative to the expenditure on facilities exclusively for motor traffic.


3. Transport policy over the past 60years has effectively and progressively forced people off bicycles into cars and onto public transport - in the concept of "build it and they will come" the provision of facilities will entice many back to cycling, admittedly some of these will feel secure or brave enough to eventually eschew cycle lanes in preference to a frequently more direct and better maintained road to get from A to B.


Until such time as cycle lanes network provide and equal realistic alternative to the road network for practically getting from one place to another in a level playing pitch then it is inevitable that cyclist will still continue to use the roads - and we still have a long way to go to achieving that parity.

These thread are usually prefixed, I'm a cyclist but ...I think they should have... (insert dogma).

But I agree with Mayo here, the legislation and why it needed so many revisions, is shambolic to be indecipherable.
Its hard to be that consistently bad so often by accident. You'd think they'd have got it right by accident at some point.