Reinstatement of mandatory use?

tomasrojo

radia wrote: »

Section 5 of the Interpretation Act 2005
[...]

It's very clear from the 2012 legislation that the intention was to restrict mandatory use to cycle tracks in pedestrianised areas and contraflows only.
[...]
I worry that seeming to buy into the contention of ambiguity and the possibility that mandatory use was never revoked will become a self-fulfilling prophesy because it will encourage the Dept that people accept their position.

This is excellent stuff. I did think this myself: that ambiguity should be resolved with reference to the intentions of the author of the SI, and there's no ambiguity there whatsoever. The explanatory note gives the intention completely clearly, and Varadkar's statements publicly and privately make his intentions completely clear.

Either Ross is a bit of an innocent being taken for a ride by the Department, or he's deeply cynical and willing to collude in this dishonesty.

This whole business is laughable. If Ross or anyone else in Transport thinks that Varadkar should not have revoked mandatory use, they should just say that and review the decision. Pretending there is an ambiguity and saying "ah sure, we might as well give it a meaning completely at variance to what Varakdar said while we're at it" is deeply cynical.

magicbastarder

yep, the main concern i have in relation to all the recent shenanigans is that it can easily rob a cyclist of their best defence if pulled up by a garda by the side of the road for not using a cycle lane. because that's not the place for furious googling to prove who's right in their interpretation of a law which is now in question.

Chuchote

It's now time for cyclists to begin to become militant about the need for proper infrastructure. When the few cyclists were pootling along at the edge of a road made for drivers it was one thing. With the balance swiftly and rightly tipping to many cyclists needing space, we need proper facilities.

beauf

A worry is that inexperienced cyclists stick to the left when it's not safe to do so. A
compulsory rule may actually cause this to happen more often.

Fian

The text of those replies is really depressing, I agree that they indicate an intention on the part of Dept. of Transport and Sport to reinstate compulsory use of cycle lanes.

I am really angry at that. If it happens I would happily join protests about it, groups of 20 cycling along all lanes of the stillorgan dual carriageway at intervals between 7:30 - 9 am sound like an appropriate protest.

Having said that I don't expect we would see much enforcement of mandatory use tbh.

tomasrojo

Fian wrote: »

Having said that I don't expect we would see much enforcement of mandatory use tbh.

With the central role of transport in climate change, urban management, economics and social development, this is only issue Ross is known to feel much motivation about? Nearly four months in his ministry, this is at the top of his to-do list? Re-instating a completely pointless regulation that, as you say, is unlikely to be enforced much, based on how much it was enforced before.

Chuchote

Populist (or at least pushed by populist journalists) approach?

magicbastarder

tomasrojo wrote: »

With the central role of transport in climate change, urban management, economics and social development, this is only issue Ross is known to feel much motivation about? Nearly four months in his ministry, this is at the top of his to-do list? Re-instating a completely pointless regulation that, as you say, is unlikely to be enforced much, based on how much it was enforced before.

given his inaction, it could also be the actions of a civil servant with an axe to grind, who is following their own agenda in the absence of guidance from ross?

terrydel

I'd like a reinstatement of my Pat Hickey thread from a few days ago hehehe.

tomasrojo

magicbastarder wrote: »

given his inaction, it could also be the actions of a civil servant with an axe to grind, who is following their own agenda in the absence of guidance from ross?

There's a thread about Ross over on thepropertypin.com that mentions the Sir Humphreys in the department playing Ross. Assume that's not someone with insider knowledge though.

Eamonnator

terrydel wrote: »

I'd like a reinstatement of my Pat Hickey thread from a few days ago hehehe.

AH have quite a lively one going, at the moment.

tomasrojo

Ross is learning the hard (and very public) way that practising realpolitik is far more difficult than simply being a political polemicist.

Several of the stances he has taken recently oscillate between nimbyism and populism and have left Ross looking like an urbane Healy-Rae. When it comes to political shrewdness, however, that may be a bit unfair on the Healy-Raes - as Ross has shown little of their political cunning.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/mandy-johnston/ross-talked-the-talk-as-a-td-but-cant-walk-the-walk-as-a-minister-34975394.html

This bit resonates:

Journalists who are seasoned in the art of demanding deadlines seldom appreciate or understand the groaning pace of passing even the simplest piece of legislation

Well, we can hope.

tomasrojo

More today:

He displayed a surprising naivety for one who has worked in media and politics for more than 30 years.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/shane-ross-needs-to-be-better-prepared-to-tackle-rio-ticket-controversy-1.2760918

The "bit of an innocent" narrative seems to be spreading.

fat bloke

<sigh>
Out for a sunny day spin with my two little girls and a nice man pulls alongside in Old Bawn asking why if I realise the danger I'm putting my children in by not using the cycle lane.

I ignored him so he persisted, and then addressed the children directly and called me a forkin earjit.

The very definition of a wanker. Wish I could have told him for sure that I wasn't obliged to use the lane (which is a non-dished footpath at that point).

Anyway, just reported him in Tallaght Garda station.

ThisRegard

WTF, clown. Were in Old Bawn, not that it makes much of a difference really for someone sticking their oar in. At least he didn't tell you to go get a job, you bum, out dossing during the day.

Macy0161

tomasrojo wrote: »

Re-instating a completely pointless regulation that, as you say, is unlikely to be enforced much, based on how much it was enforced before.

Well for me, I wouldn't worry about the cops enforcing it, but I would be worried about an increase in punishment passes. Already happens far too much on the roads, even where there is no (good, bad or indifferent) cycle lane.

Crocked

I was cycling along Scholarstown road a few days ago when a helpful gentleman slowed, lowered his window, and informed me I need to get into the cycle lane. I politely told him to **** off and to look where he was going. I caught up as he got stuck in traffic 200mtrs up the road and went to tell him him ought to be more familiar with the rules of the road seeing as he was a new driver, but for some reason he left his window up this time.

I think he meant I should cycle in the cycle lane the runs along the footpath. But as he apparently is such a good driver he should have clearly seen the two pedestrians on the path, a bloke walking his dog in both of them and two lads about 12 years old cycling one in the bike lane and his mate on the path side both with no hands on their handlebars, sure what could go wrong!!

smacl

fat bloke wrote: »

I ignored him so he persisted, and then addressed the children directly and called me a forkin earjit.

Well done on taking the restrained approach and just reporting him to the Gardaí. I would have let him know that by calling me names in front of my kids and addressing them directly, he was putting his own safety in serious and immediate danger.

2RockMountain

fat bloke wrote: »

<sigh>
Out for a sunny day spin with my two little girls and a nice man pulls alongside in Old Bawn asking why if I realise the danger I'm putting my children in by not using the cycle lane.

I ignored him so he persisted, and then addressed the children directly and called me a forkin earjit.

The very definition of a wanker. Wish I could have told him for sure that I wasn't obliged to use the lane (which is a non-dished footpath at that point).

Anyway, just reported him in Tallaght Garda station.

Similar happened me on Whitechurch Road last year, without the foul language - presumably well-intentioned, but why are so many people who haven't cycled in years so convinced of their expertise in and knowledge of safe cycling?

fat bloke

2RockMountain wrote: »

Similar happened me on Whitechurch Road last year, without the foul language - presumably well-intentioned, but why are so many people who haven't cycled in years so convinced of their expertise in and knowledge of safe cycling?

Course I've thought of a million witty and cutting ripostes since but my overriding reaction is... Y'know, it's beautiful sunny day, midday traffic is light, it's two children out for a little cycle with their Da on their new bikes. What kind of a fcukin aaaas$hole takes it upon himself to find fault with that? He's a middle aged man. He must have kids himself, he's certainly been a kid and most likely had a bike and enjoyed it's simple freedom?

I dunno. Twould drive a man to drink trying to figure it out.

2RockMountain

fat bloke wrote: »

Course I've thought of a million witty and cutting ripostes since but my overriding reaction is... Y'know, it's beautiful sunny day, midday traffic is light, it's two children out for a little cycle with their Da on their new bikes. What kind of a fcukin aaaas$hole takes it upon himself to find fault with that? He's a middle aged man. He must have kids himself, he's certainly been a kid and most likely had a bike and enjoyed it's simple freedom?

I dunno. Twould drive a man to drink trying to figure it out.

I usually think of a great witty and cutting riposte about 6 hours after the bloody thing has happened, but yer man is well gone by then.

Chuchote

2RockMountain wrote: »

Similar happened me on Whitechurch Road last year, without the foul language - presumably well-intentioned, but why are so many people who haven't cycled in years so convinced of their expertise in and knowledge of safe cycling?

Driversplaining.

tomasrojo

2RockMountain wrote: »

I usually think of a great witty and cutting riposte about 6 hours after the bloody thing has happened, but yer man is well gone by then.

"The Jerk Store called. And they're running out of YOU!"

tomasrojo

Some more commentary.
Including this:

By way of background, the original 1997 regulations mandated cyclists to cycle tracks irrespective of their quality. Cycling campaigners in Galway Cycling Campaign, Dublin Cycling Campaign and in Cyclist.ie spent 15 years (no exaggeration!) lobbying to get the regulations changed.

http://www.cyclingireland.ie/cycling-news-item/cyclists-mandated-to-use-cycle-tracks-again-/2177?platform=hootsuite

15 years of work undone by a patsy like Ross. (As he currently appears to be.)

Chuchote

It's interesting, though; we're living in a time when transport is changing, from the norm being a single person driving a car, to the norm being a mixture of cars and bikes. The drivers (still, at the moment, the majority) are kicking back at the change.

Interesting piece in Cycling Ireland ^^

magicbastarder

i never heard back from the RSA after their promise to address my question about mandatory use of absurd cycle lanes. must pop off a reminder this evening.

Chuchote

magicbastarder wrote: »

i never heard back from the RSA after their promise to address my question about mandatory use of absurd cycle lanes. must pop off a reminder this evening.

I've had a whole bunch of form-letter responses, both directly and through TDs.

Chips Lovell

I've just had to write to the minister, warning him of the displeasure of some 650 cyclists in his constituency should the legislation be changed back.

'Tis all very odd. Hopefully its just some civil servant getting the wrong end of the stick, but better to be sure than sorry.

Leroy42

Sorry, bit dim here, but has the revoking of the stat instrument now being put back in?

Chips Lovell

No new legislation has passed.

As far as I can gather, some official in the Dept bizarrely claimed that the legislation revoking mandatory use did not actually revoke it.

This is despite the Dept announcing in 2009 that it would revoke it and confirming in 2012 that it had revoked it.