Reinstatement of mandatory use?

tomasrojo

... and on the pretext of "clarifying" the law, someone in the Department of Transport and Sport wants Ross to write what is effectively a new law. Nothing is known about the form of this new law, but Ross seems amenable, and the framing of the issue suggests they're going to make at least some cycle tracks currently not compulsory (ambiguity, my arse) compulsory again.

But this hasn't happened yet. Given Ross' sluggardly ways, it may take a while. He also has other things to occupy him.

tomasrojo

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

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.

This is a good idea. He easily topped the poll the last time, but protest politicians often slip in the polls once they're required to do things. He must know that.

2RockMountain

tomasrojo wrote: »

... and on the pretext of "clarifying" the law, someone in the Department of Transport and Sport wants Ross to write what is effectively a new law.

Have they actually stated their intention to write a new law?

tomasrojo

They say there's an ambiguity and they have to resolve it, so in talks with the RSA and AGS. They have to balance the opinion of "some cyclists" with the safety concerns of the RSA and AGS (the first of whom definitely opposed dropping compulsory use). Ross says he's going to do a general review of the law as regards cycling in the autumn. Given he's barely scratched himself in four months, maybe that's rather overambitious, especially given the IOC business.

Hmmzis

Mail sent to the dear minister.

V-man

Yesterday on my commute home around 18:00 I passed a nasty incident involving a cyclist and car on the Dublin road roundabout towards Swords first exit (Naul Road). Luckily the cyclist was sitting and Ambulance personal was giving first aid.
It is already a tricky pint for a cyclist being on the bus lane however using the cycle lane is potential lethal.

A Cyclist on the lane would have to take the first exit to Naul and cross the road walking on a blind spot, a motor vehicle taking the first exit would only see the crossing cyclist at the last moment with no time to respond.
And this is exactly what is wrong about mandatory use.

What surprised me is there was no police at the spot or any media attention afterwards, seems somebody needs to be killed first before there is a reason to investigate.
Let's hope this cyclist will be fine.

Doc07

Hmmzis wrote: »

Mail sent to the dear minister.

Ditto

magicbastarder

on the way home from a spin this evening, i realised another absurdity of the proposed return to mandatory cycle lanes; this was the junction i noticed it at:
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.40551,-6.2651513,235a,47.7y,2.38t/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

i.e. coming from the M50 (or NCT centre) towards ballymun, at the junction you'd swing right at to go to ikea; and there are hundreds of junctions like this, i'd guess.
all four lanes have a bike box - with bike painted in them - at the lights. if they reintroduce the mandatory law, the bike boxes will be places you can sit on your bike waiting for the lights - but you won't have a legal route to get into them. not one that makes sense, anyway, unless you do choose the one box which is the right turning one.

buffalo

IrishCycle.com's persistence is admirable. Nobody in the DoT told Leo that they thought his law was a crock:

http://irishcycle.com/2016/09/30/cycle-lane-mandatory-use-leo-varadkar-was-left-in-the-dark-over-error/

beauf

Well they can't find any documentation, at least.

Seems like someone senior is pursuing an anti cycling agenda in my opinion. Or perhaps doesn't understand the implications for cyclists. Most people don't.

magicbastarder

the RSA were quick to respond to my first mail seeking guidance on how to deal with **** cycle lanes. but they've not responded to the two follow up emails asking for an update (the first response was just to say they were working on an answer).

tomasrojo

I can't help feeling that Ross, by using the word "ambiguity" in his correspondence, has indirectly settled this legally, as there are legal rules for disambiguating statutory instruments, mentioned earlier in the thread; essentially to refer to the intentions of the framer of the legislation, and on that we know exactly what Varadkar intended to do, because he made it very clear. If Ross had said the explanatory note was "an error" or something like that, he'd have firmer ground for the course he appears to be following.

Of course, none of this stops Ross going off to write a new SI anyway.

Leroy42

Slightly OT, but looks like London is going to start banning trucks based on a 'visibility' rating from 2020.

That stas about cyclist death involving trucks against the volume of traffic is pretty damning.

Hopefully it can lead to something like that here

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/30/lorries-face-london-ban-plans-improve-safety-cyclists

deandean

That Guardian article is spot-on about the dangers posed by construction trucks which have big, exposed wheels and poor driver visibility.

Remember that poor cyclist at Harold's cross? Concrete mixer IIRC.

Lemming

deandean wrote: »

That Guardian article is spot-on about the dangers posed by construction trucks which have big, exposed wheels and poor driver visibility.

Remember that poor cyclist at Harold's cross? Concrete mixer IIRC.

Quite a telling comment against that article (was second from the top when I read it) which says much about how some people view cyclists: referring to bicycles as "childrens toys" that should only be used on "private land".

Chuchote

deandean wrote: »

That Guardian article is spot-on about the dangers posed by construction trucks which have big, exposed wheels and poor driver visibility.

Remember that poor cyclist at Harold's cross? Concrete mixer IIRC.

The council took away the white bike there months ago because it was an eyesore, and promised to replace it; nothing's happened, it must be too upsetting for drivers to see it there with flowers regularly added. A really disgraceful thing for the council to do - it must have been a comfort to the poor lad's parents to know that he was remembered and honoured.

check_six

Chuchote wrote: »

The council took away the white bike there months ago because it was an eyesore, and promised to replace it; nothing's happened, it must be too upsetting for drivers to see it there with flowers regularly added. A really disgraceful thing for the council to do - it must have been a comfort to the poor lad's parents to know that he was remembered and honoured.

Can anyone tell me what the regulations are regarding those shrines you see sometimes on the sides of roads? Some are just a cross, but others are a bit more involved with polished stone memorials. They do crop up in unusual locations on the side of motorways and the like. Are they placed 'officially', or just planted ad hoc? I'm just curious as I saw a few while I was on a trip to Wexford last week.

josip

check_six wrote: »

Can anyone tell me what the regulations are regarding those shrines you see sometimes on the sides of roads? Some are just a cross, but others are a bit more involved with polished stone memorials. They do crop up in unusual locations on the side of motorways and the like. Are they placed 'officially', or just planted ad hoc? I'm just curious as I saw a few while I was on a trip to Wexford last week.

When the milk lorry drove over my grandfather 30 years ago we were allowed to put up a memorial plaque.
Nothing that would constitute a hazard was permitted, eg, stone cross, but no problem for a plaque embedded in the wall.
Might vary from council to council and be different now

Corca Baiscinn

“I’m not prepared to stand by and let dangerous lorries continue to cause further heartbreak and tragedy on London’s roads,” he said Quote is from London Mayor as per above Guardian article. Wouldn't it be great if Shane Ross would say the same re Irish city roads to the cycle protest at his office next Monday? Next quote is from the response of the CEO of The Road Haulage Association to the plan “Lorries, including construction vehicles, play a vital part in the economic life of London. Without them the capital’s businesses would grind to a standstill. Nobody is suggesting that London ban all lorries, just the ones with zero rated visibility. The stats on cyclist fatalities involving lorries seem to speak for themselves . Minister Ross, you could leave a legacy!

Carawaystick

I saw an articulated 5 axle lorry going down Marrowbone lane this morning...this bit

Chuchote

Carawaystick wrote: »

I saw an articulated 5 axle lorry going down Marrowbone lane this morning...this bit

There's an app you can use to report this; unfortunately, I can't remember what it's called.

HivemindXX

I think we are actually doing quite well in relation to London with the five axle ban. However I do really like the idea of phasing out access to vehicles with very poor visibility.

It seems incredible to me that you can have the RSA saying that these trucks have a three lane wide death zone all round them and their solution is for vulnerable road (and footpath) users to keep well away, not to try to remove such dangerous vehicles from the road.

The idea of giving a star rating for safety is a great one. Perhaps we could do that for cycle tracks as well. "Disappears without warning dumping straight ahead moving cyclists on the inside of left turning cars - 0 stars". "Frequent jouncing due to dishing and requirements to yield to facilitate private driveways - 2 stars"

That second one is the N11 heading North. The first one is countless junctions where the solution to the design getting a bit difficult is to give up.

ThisRegard

Carawaystick wrote: »

I saw an articulated 5 axle lorry going down Marrowbone lane this morning...this bit

5 axle trucks can get a permit to enter the cordon on two conditions, first is when the port tunnel is closed, the other is that they can get a permit when loading or unloading at a construction site, or a premises on a list that can apply for such a permit. Marks and Spencers get, or used to, their deliveries from those super cube trucks.

Chuchote

HivemindXX wrote: »

The idea of giving a star rating for safety is a great one. Perhaps we could do that for cycle tracks as well.

We could even mark cycle tracks as unsafe if they are. While it is illegal to paint graffiti on walls or streets, it is not illegal to bleach using a stencil - guerrilla advertising uses this as standard. So it would be possible to invent a "Deadly - don't use or use with care" symbol like the Mr Yuck poison symbol invented to show children that something would harm them if they ate or drank it -



and spray-bleach it on dangerous cycle paths.

2RockMountain

Chuchote wrote: »

We could even mark cycle tracks as unsafe if they are. While it is illegal to paint graffiti on walls or streets, it is not illegal to bleach using a stencil - guerrilla advertising uses this as standard. So it would be possible to invent a "Deadly - don't use or use with care" symbol like the Mr Yuck poison symbol invented to show children that something would harm them if they ate or drank it -

and spray-bleach it on dangerous cycle paths.

Litter wardens in some areas have issued fines for stencelling / power-washing for commercial guerrilla advertising, so it is a bit of a grey area. I don't think it has ever been tested in court as to whether it meets the definition of litter.

We could just make our own cycle lanes.
http://www.880cities.org/index.php/news-feeds/880-blog/entry/the-power-of-pop-up

Chuchote

2RockMountain wrote: »

Litter wardens in some areas have issued fines for stencelling / power-washing for commercial guerrilla advertising, so it is a bit of a grey area. I don't think it has ever been tested in court as to whether it meets the definition of litter.

We could just make our own cycle lanes.
http://www.880cities.org/index.php/news-feeds/880-blog/entry/the-power-of-pop-up

(snaps fingers) Damn!

Pop-up lanes sound good. How's about making the bike lanes all along Rathmines Road into protected bike lanes, so as to remove the ad hoc parking lane outside Lidl?

NiallBoo

check_six wrote: »

memorials... They do crop up in unusual locations on the side of motorways and the like.

They pop up where fatalities happen.
It's a bit of a myth that they only happen on bad bends.

You often see them on straight stretches, where people over-take, even when it's not on. And well, bad diving can happen anywhere.

tomasrojo

Leo Varadkar says mandatory use of cycle lanes is an issue for Minister Ross
http://irishcycle.com/2016/10/14/leo-varadkar-and-mandatory-use-of-cycle-lanes/

Chuchote

tomasrojo wrote: »

Leo Varadkar says mandatory use of cycle lanes is an issue for Minister Ross
http://irishcycle.com/2016/10/14/leo-varadkar-and-mandatory-use-of-cycle-lanes/

Mature recollection…

magicbastarder

tomasrojo wrote: »

Leo Varadkar says mandatory use of cycle lanes is an issue for Minister Ross
http://irishcycle.com/2016/10/14/leo-varadkar-and-mandatory-use-of-cycle-lanes/

not surprised. he's not in the position now where it's his responsibility, and couldn't publically comment any other way without stepping on toes, i guess.