CramCycle A wholly unreasonable man
#481

check_six said:
The muddying of the waters by the DoT with regard to cycle lanes is disgraceful.

Who now knows what the law states?

Readers and contributors to the cycling forum on boards have an interpretation that cycle lanes are not mandatory based on the what's written in the statutes and the minister's note from 2012.

The Guards are working off the DoT's recent nonsensical statement saying that the removal of the mandatory nature of cycle lanes was not intended by the change in 2012, and instead the mandatory clause was made more strict.

How about people outside of those two small groups? How do they know what the rules are? If you are a motorist, or a bus driver, or whatever where do you get the correct interpretation of the law. Do you hear something on the radio, or an article in the paper and assume that it is correct? The constant demonisation of cyclists in the media is not helping anyone. Maybe a bus driver sees a cyclist near but not in a cycle lane and interprets it in the same fashion that he might when seeing a mugger attacking a little old lady: Something bad is happening and I must do my best to stop it.

When you can't report someone menacing you with a bus to the Guards without them saying it was your fault, and the bus driver believing they were doing the state a good turn, you know that something is not quite right with the world.


And here again is my issue, **** what the law is in this scenario. In the case of the mugging, there is a moral guidance, and the person you are attempting to prevent getting away with the crime is clearly causing an issue of moral consequence as well as legal. In the case of the cyclist, there is no moral consequence. No one is getting hurt, no one will die but yet the reaction is similar, somehow a minor inconvenience can be met with severe retaliation for a perceived personal slight.

6 people have thanked this post
AndrewJRenko Registered User
#482

tomasrojo said:
I notice they don't say the DPP said that cycle tracks were mandatory to use. Just that they were trying to bring in FPNs for not using cycle tracks and the DPP communicated with them with regard to this. And then there was no FPN for not using cycle tracks.


tomasrojo said:
This is just absurd.


check_six said:
Clearly this is 'market sensitive' information that can't be revealed as it may effect...
...umm...
...sales of that red stuff they use to make some bad cycle lanes with?


magicbastarder said:
hmm. that wouldn't give me confidence that sense will be seen on this matter.
if they were idiotic enough to propose a fine for not using a cycle lane, ignorant of the change in the law as announced by varadkar, it doesn't bode well.

The strange thing here is that the Dept Transport wouldn't look for legal advice from the DPP. If they want or need legal advice, they go to the AG.

I can only imagine that the feedback from the DPP was something about how easy or difficult or practical it would be to successfully prosecute such cases.

1 person has thanked this post
CramCycle A wholly unreasonable man
#483

AndrewJRenko said:
I can only imagine that the feedback from the DPP was something about how easy or difficult or practical it would be to successfully prosecute such cases.

Long story short, it would not be practical, I imagine the DPP said if you bring it in, we won't push against anyone who kicks up a fuss about it.

2 people have thanked this post

Want to share your thoughts?

Login here to discuss!