Rules of the Road change on cycle lanes based on advice from Department of Transport, says RSA

— “The Rules Of The Road is not the Law” says RSA

Changes to what the Rules of the Road stated about the need for cyclists to use cycle tracks were carried out at the start of this year because of Department of Transport advice, the Road Safety Authority said yesterday.

...I'm sorry to disrupt you while you're reading this article, but without messages like this,'s reader-funded journalism won't survive. With 676k views so-far this year, it's not just "avid cyclists" that this website reaches. But the number of subscribers is around 0.6% of readers. This large gap between readers/subscribers is standard for non-paywall reader-supported journalism, but IrishCycle's journalism needs more support. Don't delay, support monthly or yearly today. Now, back to the article...

Last year the Rules of the Road — a document which is supposed to act as a layman’s guide to Irish road traffic law — indicated that cyclists only had to use cycle tracks on pedestrian streets and areas, and contra flow cycle tracks. This was in line with the widely held view that mandtory use of cycle lanes was revoked in a 2012 law change.

A version of the Rules of the Road downloaded in 2015 states: “REMEMBER Cyclists must use any cycle track provided as part of a pedestrian street or area, or as part of a contra flow cycle track.” In January or February of 2016 a new version was uploaded which stated: “REMEMBER Cyclists must use any cycle track provided.”

The 2015 version of the rules reflected the explanatory note under the most recent legislative change to the law covering cycle tracks — the Department of Transport has claimed that that the explanatory note is incorrect, while cycling campaigners have claimed that the department’s view is a “clear misinterpretation” of the law.

Originally the RSA indicated that the Rules of the Road had not changed in recent years, but after we provided screenshots of two different versions of the rules, the RSA confirmed the change.

Late yesterday afternoon, a spokeswoman for the RSA said: “The Rules Of The Road is not the Law – it is simply an interpretation of the law from a road safety point of view. Readers with queries about the law are urged to check the legislation or to ask a Garda.”

She added: “The 2013 ROTR reflected the advice contained in the explanatory notice for SI332 /2012. The RSA was subsequently advised by DTTAS that the explanatory notice did not reflect the relevant section in SI 332 of 2012  and its most recent edition the RSA sought to clarify the law as it currently stands.”

The advice to “ask a Garda” about legislation is likely to annoy some  cyclists given that individual Garda often give conflicting advice, and some officers try to claim helmets or high-vis (which they are not).

A screenshot from page 190 of the Rules of the Road version downloaded in 2015:

Cycle Track 2015

A screenshot from page 189 of the latest version of the rules, download this year:

Cycle Track 2016



  1. The law clearly backs the old ROTR. The new ‘interpretation’ has to come from someone who has a problem with cyclists, I can’t think of another reason for this change – I truly hope it is not Shane Ross himself.

    As for the RSA suggesting that the ROTR are just an interpretation and that the law itself should be consulted, I very much doubt that there is a single driver in this country that read anything but the ROTR in preparation for a theory test. So it MUST be a precise and reliable document, or nobody in this country can be sure whether they are driving in accordance with the law.

  2. Can we get a question in the Dail about this? This is an important shift and reinterpretation of the law and needs to be clarified.

    Going around asking random Gardai (or even Garda HQ) is a nonsense.

  3. The reality is the laws been made a mess of thanks to ministers that plain and simple didn’t understand the issue or how the law works.

    As for interpretation of the law, only the high court can make a final decision so until a case gets that far, we will be left with different opinions.


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.