Worthy of its own thread, if the department starts insisting that mandatory use of cycle tracks/lanes was never revoked.
If the explanatory note is incorrect, why did it take them 3.5 years to the point it out... coincidentally just after a new minister without party power or much experience took over.
I'd urge anyone with an interest to get in touch with the Minister or their local TD and ask him that the Department corrects their stance: http://www.shaneross.ie/contact/
Is this a genuine issue or yet another rationale to try to justify cycling on pavements ?
What? This is about cycling on roads and cycle lanes. Nothing about "pavements", unless you mean shared cycling facilities.
I think he means cycle lanes either on or off street.
So what is the current legal position of cycling/not cycling on cycle lanes? Maybe I'm reading the article wrong but it seems that the DOT has taken a view on the law that is contrary to the original basis of the law.
emailed - thanks for bringing this up buffalo.
Nothing about pavements at all. I'm starting to wonder if you just see 'cycling' get the red mist and can't stop yourself.
I emailed Ross as well. Its baffling. Even in his own constituency there are a lot of locations of poor cycling infrastructure.
I guess you don't cycle...
Of course it's a genuine issue and it's about non mandatory use of cycle lanes - not cycling on pavements. Incidentally, some of these cycle lanes are on pavements. Many of these are not safe to cycle on - so why make it mandatory to do something that carries a risk to cyclist and pedestrians alike? Is the whole point of marked cycle lanes to increase safety for cyclists - not reduce it?
On the Stillorgan Carriage way near Cornellscourt, one of these marked lanes takes up the full pavement - where are the pedestrians supposed to walk?
Where proper cycling infrastructure is put in place and maintained, cyclists tend to use it. So, if they build it, they will come!!!
Utterly bizarre. So Leo Varadkar perpetrated an elaborate ruse that kept cycle tracks compulsory to use, while fooling everyone into thinking they were now optional to use. To what purpose?
Email about to be sent.
I have emailed the Minister. I am genuinely angry about this, and if it is not clarified soon then I would be interested in any protest against it.
I have sent Minister Ross an email on this as well this morning. Let's hope this is a renegade call on behalf of an individual departmental staff member or subset group in the Department and they will be brought to task or asked to (re)clarify things.
I cannot see how one can re-interpret that section of the 2012 Road Traffic Regulations and to read it and assume that there was no intent to provide the sort of clarity the explanatory note on the last page of the Statutory Instrument provides, and try and interpret and present it in the way the Department has presented it yesterday and leave the explanatory note hanging, and redundant.
I think I agree with the DoT spokesman and his interpretation:
(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
From a semantics and grammar point of view, to exclude all non-pedestrianized roads, an extra comma is required:
(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
I could be wrong, but that's the way I would understand it. Having said that, I am perfectly ok with the situation as it would appear to be at the moment i.e. non-mandatory use of cycle lanes.
If that's the case, then why "(a)" and "(b)"?
(a) roads, portions of roads
(b) pedestrianised zones
(c) contraflow bus lanes
Any why did Leo Varadkar announce it as a rescinding of the compulsory use? A joke?
If there's an ambiguity in the wording, then the intent of the law maker should be used to resolve the ambiguity.
(You can't put a comma between "to" and "which" either. Not having a go at you; the wording is a bit awkward either way.)
I agree that the wording is very ambiguous. It could have been a lot clearer and leave no room for misinterpretation. I believe Leo Varadkar was genuine in his intention to rescind the compulsory use, but it was bodged somewhere in the writing.
Yeah, I think my comma should have been before the 'to' , but even then I am not 100%. It really is a terribly badly written piece of regulation.
So this all hinges on whether you interpret the text as saying:
A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where
(Can a road have a traffic sign number RUS 021?)