Reinstatement of mandatory use?

Corca Baiscinn

And in his newspaper column. The overall saving would be tiny in comparison to the Iarnrod Eireann shortfall but does he have a plan to tackle the shortfall?

tomasrojo

Exploring, considering ... Anything rather than make a decision.

However, Mr Troy said the boards should have "full membership so they can carry out their work in an effective manner". He added: "I'd ask Shane Ross to point to one concrete decision related to his brief that he's made since taking office."

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/how-in-the-name-of-god-am-i-meant-to-make-a-selection-transport-minister-refuses-to-fill-36-jobs-as-he-has-too-much-discretion-35231592.html

Be fair, he's only been in his job for half a year.

tomasrojo

As the barman said to Shane Ross, "Why the long farce?"

To avoid releasing records Ross’s department claims law on cycle lanes is not related to cycling
http://irishcycle.com/2016/11/21/to-avoid-releasing-records-rosss-department-claims-law-on-cycle-lanes-is-not-relating-to-cycling/

Annie get your Run

Mandatory use this morning would have caused deaths, I do actually use the cycle lanes in Ongar/Clonsilla as it's easier than dealing with the backlash but this morning they were frozen over while the roads were clear. These people can not be for real Ironically I was almost run down by a van driver who was illegally using the bus lane, he had very strong opinions that I was breaking the law.

Manchegan

tomasrojo wrote: »

Be fair, he's only been in his job for half a year.

No, he is demonstrably ineffectual, even when compared to his peers in office:

RT @ElaineByrne
https://twitter.com/ElaineByrne/status/800689494907174912
"Shane Ross is populist who has lived a charmed life - abdicating his responsibility as a Minister - using the Trump trick of distraction. Ross made 100 references on State Boards in his 288-page book - The Untouchables - published in 2012.
Ross has not made any appointments to State Boards under the remit of his Department since taking office. The only Minister not to. At my last count, he has 40 odd State Boards appointments to make with another 20/30 vacancies to come on stream before end of the year. How many State boards in transport are inquorate or almost inquorate because Shane Ross won't do his job?"

ThisRegard

Manchegan wrote: »

"Shane Ross is populist who has lived a charmed life - abdicating his responsibility as a Minister - using the Trump trick of distraction.

Sums him up to a tee.

tomasrojo

My "be fair" comment was meant to be dripping in sarcasm.

magicbastarder

eyes on the prize, mr. ross.

Meanwhile, The Irish Times understands that the group of judges who met Minister for Justice Frances Fitzgerald last week to discuss the reform of the judicial appointments process were dismayed when they found Mr Ross was attending the meeting. The judges, led by the Supreme Court justice Donal O’Donnell were surprised and angered when Mr Ross sat in on the meeting.

It is understood that having learned of the meeting in advance, Mr Ross insisted on attending.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/row-between-ross-and-judges-shows-no-signs-of-abating-1.2877222

tomasrojo

magicbastarder wrote: »

eyes on the prize, mr. ross.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/row-between-ross-and-judges-shows-no-signs-of-abating-1.2877222

This is pretty abnormal, right? Muscling in on meetings that have nothing to do with your ministerial brief?

mcgratheoin

Shane Ross wrote:

Mr Ross also repeated his view that judges must not continue to lead “charmed lives” where they are unaccountable and impossible to remove from their positions.

Pot - Kettle

magicbastarder

tomasrojo wrote: »

This is pretty abnormal, right? Muscling in on meetings that have nothing to do with your ministerial brief?

i would assume so. more in the sense that you're not stepping on toes of other ministers; i don't tell the guy sitting beside me in work how to do his job, for example.

but it shows he's either deaf to - or panicking about - the claims that he's ineffectual in office. he's picked on a seemingly populist issue and is making more noise about it than any issue in his own brief, possibly as a way of showing he's not a chocolate teapot, but making himself look worse in the process.

Chuchote

This is fun!

https://www.amazon.co.uk/1984-George-Orwell-ebook/dp/B01LPRREVO/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1479811290&sr=8-2&keywords=1984

…there were quite a dozen people whom Winston did not even know by name, though he daily saw them hurrying two and fro in the corridors or gesticulating in the Two Minutes Hate.

mcgratheoin

Shane Ross arrives in meeting with Judiciary

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZOYFsWib1Y

monument

Some updates on this story:

RSA maintains it's "inappropriate" to reveal cost of research into cycle track law

Ross admits intent was to revoke mandatory use of cycle tracks

TIMELINE: Mandatory use of cycle tracks

magicbastarder

it'll be gas to hear the reasoning if they do decide to make them mandatory. at what point would you be allowed leave them if turning right, for example?

magicbastarder

are there other jursidictions where they're mandatory (apart from australia, they're nuts there)?

monument

As far as I can tell the minister admitting that the intent was to revoke mandatory use of cycle tracks makes the Department's current position very weak -- ministerial intent at the time of a law is signed should hold more weight than the Department's current view which it is in no hurry to act on.

Beasty

Have recently introduced facilities had the right signage and been set up within the required parameters to allow the "old" legislation to make them mandatory? They seemed to struggle in many cases before the 2012 "changes" and I would wonder even if enforceable would many cycle lanes fall into the definition of those where mandatory use is required.

tomasrojo

magicbastarder wrote: »

are there other jursidictions where they're mandatory (apart from australia, they're nuts there)?

The Netherlands and Germany, I think. But I read that you can contest the "designation" of a cycle facility and if its classification is revoked it's not mandatory anymore. A lot of the ones painted on footways are contested. I get the impression that the Netherlands has minimum standards that would be exacting compared with Irish standards. So quite a different situation.

tomasrojo

Beasty wrote: »

Have recently introduced facilities had the right signage and been set up within the required parameters to allow the "old" legislation to make them mandatory? They seemed to struggle in many cases before the 2012 "changes" and I would wonder even if enforceable would many cycle lanes fall into the definition of those where mandatory use is required.

And you still come back to one of the biggest issues: can you be forced to place yourself on the left side of a left-turn lane when you want to go straight ahead? Can you be forced to place yourself in danger, so the RSA can save face over being overruled by Varadkar?

tomasrojo

monument wrote: »

As far as I can tell the minister admitting that the intent was to revoke mandatory use of cycle tracks makes the Department's current position very weak -- ministerial intent at the time of a law is signed should hold more weight than the Department's current view which it is in no hurry to act on.

Yes, I would think so. I read during the course of this farce that in the event of ambiguity in wording of legislation, the intent of the minister has to be taken into account. Ross now admits that the intention of Varadkar was to revoke mandatory use. So there is no issue as things stand: they are not mandatory to use, except in the two exceptions listed.

Of course, whoever is behind all this might get Ross to sign off on new legislation, based on this mysterious research the RSA is carrying out. Certainly seems to be their intention. Being so secretive might blow up in their face though, and based on their statistical reports, the RSA has no competency in research.

magicbastarder

tomasrojo wrote: »

Ross now admits that the intention of Varadkar was to revoke mandatory use.

regardless of him explicitly admitting this, i was told by a solicitor and a barrister that they couldn't see a reasonable judge standing over a law where an explanatory note contradicted the explicit wording of the law, especially on such a trivial matter.

tomasrojo

magicbastarder wrote: »

regardless of him explicitly admitting this, i was told by a solicitor and a barrister that they couldn't see a reasonable judge standing over a law where an explanatory note contradicted the explicit wording of the law, especially on such a trivial matter.

But the wording isn't explicit. That's the problem. You can quite easily read it as ending mandatory use. In fact, it's quite a stretch to read it the other way. If the judge thinks, well, one party claims this, another that; what did the minister say at the time, what does the explanatory note say? It's not that the note is taking precedence over the law; it helps the reader with the ministerial intention, which does have legal importance.

On the wording in the new SI: it's such a long, long, long way to say: Cycle tracks must be used where provided. And what happened to the exceptions in the previous version? If the mandatory use is revoked, there are no need for the exceptions, so that makes sense; just list the two exceptions that the new SI creates. If the mandatory use is being restated, why in an even longer fashion, and removing all the previous exceptions?

(I know magicbastarder is just quoting knowledgeable opinion, but there are guidelines in how to interpret laws and statutes. They were mentioned during the marriage equality referendum, when it was pointed out that even if the original wording of the constitutional amendment made marriage ONLY possible between two people of the same sex, instead of ALSO possible, it couldn't actually be interpreted that way, because it's absurd. They changed the wording anyway. I can see the point that a judge isn't going to waste too much time over this, but I'm not sure they're going to read the SI on a first and only reading the way that DTTAS and Ross want them to.)

magicbastarder

tomasrojo wrote: »

I know magicbastarder is just quoting knowledgeable opinion, but there are guidelines in how to interpret laws and statutes.

well, i hope they were knowledgeable!
but i don't think it contradicts what you say - their opinion seemed to be that the law itself explicitly says cycle lanes are mandatory - and that the explanatory note in a narrow, strict sense does not change that; but that it leaves the law itself in an unenforceable limbo.

beauf

Hes like the anti transport minister.

I don't understand the lack of interest and fear of promoting cycling in this country.,

tomasrojo

magicbastarder wrote: »

well, i hope they were knowledgeable!
but i don't think it contradicts what you say - their opinion seemed to be that the law itself explicitly says cycle lanes are mandatory - and that the explanatory note in a narrow, strict sense does not change that; but that it leaves the law itself in an unenforceable limbo.

On the other hand, Irishcycle.com does say that legal opinion was sought and concluded that it rescinded mandatory use, but maybe the best way to solve it is to rewrite the SI. Unfortunately, with Ross at the helm, it's not going to be rewritten to match Varadkar's intent. Set against that, he's the least dynamic individual ever to occupy a ministerial post, so it may not be signed before he's gone.

monument

Beasty wrote: »

Have recently introduced facilities had the right signage and been set up within the required parameters to allow the "old" legislation to make them mandatory? They seemed to struggle in many cases before the 2012 "changes" and I would wonder even if enforceable would many cycle lanes fall into the definition of those where mandatory use is required.

The 2012 regulations intended to remove mandatory use for all cycle tracks expected those in pedestrian areas and contra-flow cycle tracks.

At the same time it removed all exceptions -- because they were not needed in pedestrian areas and apparently too dangerous and/or not needed with contra-flow tracks.

It also broadened the meaning of cycle tracks to include:

Cycle tracks
14. (1) A cycle track shall be indicated by—
(a) traffic sign number RUS 009 (with-flow cycle track) provided in association with traffic sign number RRM 022 (continuous white line) or RRM 023 (broken white line) which latter signs may be marked on the right hand edge of the cycle track or on the right hand and left hand edges of the cycle track,
(b) traffic sign number RUS 059 (contra-flow cycle track) pro- vided in association with traffic sign number RRM 022 (continuous white line) which may be marked on the right hand edge of the cycle track or on the left hand edge of the cycle track or on both sides, or
(c) traffic sign number RUS 058 (shared track for pedal cycles and pedestrians).

So, it removed the written turning allowance, it removed the section which excluded broken-lined cycle lanes and it added shared paths (which were previously not legally backed)

4) A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where—

(a) 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, or
(b) a cycle track is a contra-flow cycle track where traffic sign number RUS 059 is provided and pedal cycles shall only be driven in a contra-flow direction on such track.

magicbastarder

either way - if the review concludes that they should not be made mandatory, great.
the interesting part will start if they *do* decide to make them mandatory, and whether they'll decide whether cycle lanes which meet an enforceable standard are included, or what exceptions will be entertained. obviously someone parking in the cycle lane would allow you to leave, but what about potholes? or glass? or water?
would the gardai even be arsed enforcing it?

monument

magicbastarder wrote: »

regardless of him explicitly admitting this, i was told by a solicitor and a barrister that they couldn't see a reasonable judge standing over a law where an explanatory note contradicted the explicit wording of the law, especially on such a trivial matter.

They they actually look at the regulations in questions?

Directly or indirectly I've heard from two solicitor and two barristers who all think the department is stretching things to view the regulations the way they are.

magicbastarder wrote: »

well, i hope they were knowledgeable!
but i don't think it contradicts what you say - their opinion seemed to be that the law itself explicitly says cycle lanes are mandatory - and that the explanatory note in a narrow, strict sense does not change that; but that it leaves the law itself in an unenforceable limbo.

Yes, I'm told that's the way the Gardai at a policy level are viewing things but that's second hand and nothing written down.

tomasrojo wrote: »

I can see the point that a judge isn't going to waste too much time over this, but I'm not sure they're going to read the SI on a first and only reading the way that DTTAS and Ross want them to.)

Judges will now be weary of putting blame on anybody in a civil or criminal case -- they will likely refer points of law to a higher court or a member of the public involved could ask for leave do the same.

ED E

magicbastarder wrote: »

would the gardai even be arsed enforcing it?

Not a hope.