Reinstatement of mandatory use?

tomasrojo

It's a very fragile coalition. This is, for nearly everyone, a really minor issue. Varadkar wants to lead FG in the very near future. This isn't worth making waves over, from his point of view, I'm sure.

beauf

Its a house of cards. No one going to be rocking the table.

josip

Varadkar is cut from the same cloth as Micheal Martin.
Better at politicking than most other politicians.
Both do 'empathy' very well and connect well with people.
Both got through Angola without stepping on any landmines.
Varadkar knows that if he bides his time like Micheal, he will end up as leader of his party.
The last thing he will do is get involved in something he doesn't have to in such a precarious government.

magicbastarder

it's not about fragility or leadership or otherwise. varadkar is no longer minister for transport, so it's not his business anymore. any influence he would be wielding - if this is an issue he gives a toss about - would be done behind the scenes.

beauf

They've mastered the art of talking with out saying (or doing) anything anyway.

Chuchote

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's not about fragility or leadership or otherwise. varadkar is no longer minister for transport, so it's not his business anymore. any influence he would be wielding - if this is an issue he gives a toss about - would be done behind the scenes.

Unless, of course, he was willing to say "Yeah, that was what I said when I was minister" plainly like a normal human being, and not default to uisce-faoi-thalamh.

Magicbastader, got a PM from you…?

magicbastarder

waiting to hear back about that. i think my mail fell on deaf ears.

tomasrojo

Mandatory use never went away, and the process by which this was decided, in the teeth of all available evidence, is top secret!
http://irishcycle.com/2016/10/28/department-refuses-to-release-records-from-gardai-and-dpp-supporting-claim-mandatory-use-of-cycle-lanes-never-revoked/

magicbastarder

i was talking to one of the solicitors in work during the week who reckoned an explanatory note would have no effect on the law.
he didn't read the text, but his interpretation, based on my probably ham fisted description, was that the change in 2012 carried no weight in law.

HivemindXX

A solicitor should probably read the law for their opinion to be worth anything to be honest.

As far as I know the explanatory note does nothing unless a court decides the law is ambiguous in which case it is used to determine what the intention was. We won't actually know what this law means until it gets decided by a court.

What do the RSA and various cyclist hating idiots think the new wording was intended to do? Is their attitude "Tried to make life a bit better for cyclists but the wording isn't quite right so you FAILED! Hah!".

If they are to be believed then I think we should be campaigning to get mandatory use removed. For real this time, apparently.

tomasrojo

Yeah, it's true that the explanatory note has no legal effect; the explanatory note even notes (hah!) itself that it has no legal effect. But the 2012 SI itself does state, in a rather algorithmic way, that cycle tracks are mandatory in two scenarios: contraflow bus lanes and pedestrianised zones.

The DTTAS interpretation means that the SI was substantially rewritten to mean exactly the same thing. Which makes no sense. The intention was clearly to change the meaning, and if it didn't do that, it's only on a technicality. (Actually, they could have made the new SI shorter than the 1998 one; they could have removed the few exemptions from mandatory use from the wording, as the new wording, by the DTTAS interpretation means that you must use all cycle tracks at all times.)

If the new wording is ambiguous, then the explanatory note and statements by the minister can be used to resolve the ambiguity. And there again, it's clear what the intention was: to restrict mandatory use to two scenarios.

I think at this stage they're just after a pretext to write a new SI that does make at least some cycle tracks outside the two scenarios mandatory.

tomasrojo

HivemindXX wrote: »

What do the RSA and various cyclist hating idiots think the new wording was intended to do? Is their attitude "Tried to make life a bit better for cyclists but the wording isn't quite right so you FAILED! Hah!".

Yes, that seems about right.

beauf

Seems quite obvious there is an anti cycling agenda somewhere in this.

tomasrojo

My impression (based on nothing more than a few passing comments in the newspapers) of what happened in the few years between the 2009 Cycling framework document that promised revocation of mandatory use and Leo Varadkar writing the 2012 SI, is that the RSA and the Gardaí tried to talk Varadkar out of meeting that commitment, but he went ahead anyway. That may have some bearing in how ludicrous the pro-compulsion people are being now.

buffalo

tomasrojo wrote: »

My impression (based on nothing more than a few passing comments in the newspapers) of what happened in the few years between the 2009 Cycling framework document that promised revocation of mandatory use and Leo Varadkar writing the 2012 SI, is that the RSA and the Gardaí tried to talk Varadkar out of meeting that commitment, but he went ahead anyway. That may have some bearing in how ludicrous the pro-compulsion people are being now.

What do the pro-compulsion people think 2012/332 was all about? Are they admitting that the intention was to revoke mandatory use, but claiming that it technically wasn't accomplished?

Carawaystick

I know Roger Casement was hanged on a comma, but

si332/2012 wrote:

a cycle track is provided on a road, a portion of a road, or an area at the entrance to which traffic sign number RUS 021 (pedestrianised street or area) is provided

clearly means
a cycle track provided
on a road or a portion of a road or an area
where rus021 is provided

The SI gets its power from the Road Traffic Act 1993, and ammends SI182/1997 which defines a road as

“road” includes—

(a) any street, lane, footpath, square, court, alley or passage,

(b) any bridge, viaduct, underpass, subway, tunnel, overpass, overbridge, flyover, carriageway (whether single or multiple), pavement or footway,

(c) any weighbridge or other facility for the weighing or inspection of vehicles, toll plaza or other facility for the collection of tolls, service area, emergency telephone, first aid post, culvert, arch, gulley, railing, fence, wall, barrier, guardrail, margin, kerb, lay-by, hard shoulder, island, pedestrian refuge, median, central reserve, channelliser, roundabout, gantry, pole, ramp, bollard, pipe, wire, cable, sign, signal or lighting forming part of the road, and

(d) any other structure or thing forming part of the road and—

(i) necessary for the safety, convenience or amenity of road users or for the construction, maintenance, operation or management of the road or for the protection of the environment, or

(ii) prescribed by the Minister;

“footway” means that portion of any road associated with a roadway which is provided primarily for use by pedestrians;

And would include any subsequent thing after the first comma meaning there's no need to mention it.
Unless they meant to only include cycle tracks on pedestrian areas or roads or contraflow cycle tracks.

Which I believe they did.

tomasrojo

buffalo wrote: »

What do the pro-compulsion people think 2012/332 was all about? Are they admitting that the intention was to revoke mandatory use, but claiming that it technically wasn't accomplished?

Based on irishcycle.com's coverage, they haven't addressed intention at all. They're restricting themselves largely to something along the lines of: the new SI retained mandatory use, and the explanatory note is an error. (They did slip up once and say the new SI was "ambiguous", but they haven't done that again, as far as I know. Dangerously close to having to discuss intent, I guess.)

Coupled with their refusal to release anything but the most perfunctory information about how this remarkable legal fossicking was performed, I think they know very well what Varadkar was doing, but don't care. They're going to put it back the way they think it should have remained.

Given that the RSA started the "we have a secret-decoder ring" rubbish, I suspect their hand in this.

Chuchote

a) If mandatory lanes are instituted, I would imagine a bunch of cyclists will apply for compensation every time they're bruised from going over a pothole or slip on a manhole cover and take a tumble, and will claim on the driver's insurance every time they're in any slight accident. No more being nice and saying ah sure 'twas an honest mistake…

b) Casement was hanged on a comma? How so?

magicbastarder

the RSA never responded to my question about circumstances where using a cycle lane would eventually mean you'd fall foul of the very law they claim applies, as cycle lanes frequently lead you into situations where staying in them would result in you breaking the law.

i must send a reminder. the silence implies one of two things as far as i am concerned, neither of which flatters the RSA.

HivemindXX

Sure, you can always get off your bike if the cycle lane is blocked by a parked car, or suddenly ends, or gets to dangerous to use, or turns down a side road you don't want to go down. Once your off your bike why not stay off it? Get in a nice car.

tomasrojo

Chuchote wrote: »

If mandatory lanes are instituted, I would imagine a bunch of cyclists will apply for compensation every time they're bruised from going over a pothole or slip on a manhole cover and take a tumble, and will claim on the driver's insurance every time they're in any slight accident. No more being nice and saying ah sure 'twas an honest mistake…

Well, mandatory use was the case (though ignored to a large extent by both people on bikes and law enforcement) from the late 90s until 2012, and I don't think there was a lot of claims for compensation.

The DTTAS aren't exactly afraid of cyclists, and I suspect, despite looming complete gridlock in Dublin at certain hours, they wouldn't shed any tears if numbers declined. Dublin City Council, who have to deal with the consequences of gridlock, I get the impression that they do care whether numbers drop or not.

Bizarrely, Galway City Council, who have to deal with awful congestion, seem, from what little I know, rather biased against people using bikes.

Chuchote

Will this killer bike lane be mandatory, with its railings preventing cyclists from hopping off and escaping when a truck turns and crushes them?

boardbeer

I'm collating a lot of what has been said on this thread (and the many others) about the problems of cycle paths, esp. in Ireland, but with reference to international research, regulations and experiences.
The aim is to have a short presentation that can explain why many cyclists are against mandatory use, without wading through a lot of posts.
If anyone would like to collaborate in this, please PM me with an email address, and I'll share the Google Sheet.

tomasrojo

Carawaystick wrote: »

And would include any subsequent thing after the first comma meaning there's no need to mention it.

I didn't get your meaning at first. Basically the definition in the statute book of "road" already includes all the rest of the stuff in the 2012 SI, if the DTTAS interpretation is correct. So the DTTAS interpretation would only require:
"A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where a cycle track is provided on a road"

Is that it?

Carawaystick

tomasrojo wrote: »

I didn't get your meaning at first. Basically the definition in the statute book of "road" already includes all the rest of the stuff in the 2012 SI. So the DTTAS interpretation would only require:
A cycle track must be used when a cycle track is provided on a road.

Is that it?

Yeah, road means the whole space from boundary to boundary across the road, so the entire space from the gpo doors across O Connell st to Ann Summers in Dublin.



Another nail in the mandatory use coffin is that the law would suggest that if there's a cycle lane on a road going one direction, you've to use it even if you want to go the opposite direction. Which is perverse and unreasonable.

tomasrojo

I'm treating this as a "Shane Ross and cycling" thread for a minute.

http://www.dublingalwaygreenway.com/2016/11/minister-ross-says-he-is-determined-to.html

Minister Shane Ross, says the Dublin Galway Greeway "may have been paused but it has not been halted" and that he remains committed to achieving the delivery of the Dublin Galway greenway. Speaking in the Dail in response to Robert Troy, Fianna Fail TD for Longford-Westmeath, Minister Ross said he believes the greenway will help to position Ireland as a destination for cycling holidays.

However, as in the bus and Luas disputes, he remains committed to his policy of personally doing nothing:

Minister was positive but said he was not " inclined to get involved in a local dispute if I think it will not do any good".

ThisRegard

He has turned out to be a pretty awful minister, can be held up as a model as to what can happen to the most vocal of hurlers in the ditch when they're given the opportunity to follow up on all their rhetoric over the years.

tomasrojo

Seems as if, again, the best option for Minister Ross is to do nothing:

But Minister Ross said he had no plans for legislation. He highlighted the idea of promoting cyclists visibility using high visibility clothing.

“I have no plans at present to bring forward specific road traffic legislation regarding cycling safety. In my view, safety for cyclists is best addressed by way of educational and publicity campaigns, such as those undertaken by the Road Safety Authority (RSA),” said Minister Ross in a written parliamentary reply.

http://irishcycle.com/2016/11/07/cyclists-safety-best-addressed-by-educational-campaigns-ross/

Give how in thrall he is to the RSA, maybe it's as well that he is reluctant to write any legislation. But this sitting on his hands is becoming quite a hallmark of his tenure. Contrast it with his 2008 speechifying in that link.

tomasrojo

Note that the DTTAS is promising to review the National Cycling Policy shortly. Expect it will be gutted like a fish.

buffalo

tomasrojo wrote: »

Seems as if, again, the best option for Minister Ross is to do nothing:

He seems fond of it alright...

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/shane-ross-has-failed-to-fill-35-state-board-vacancies-1.2855244

That includes the board of the RSA.