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.

7 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.

2 people have 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
tomasrojo Registered User
#484

Ross' ministerial report card much improved. 0/10 to 2/10

Faced with an increase in transport emissions in the coming years, he has largely ignored alternatives such as cycling and public transport. To be fair, he has pressed for more automatic bans for drunken driving and is introducing drug testing for drivers.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/ministers-report-cards-part-2-who-gets-2-out-of-10-who-gets-8-1.3067820

(In accordance with Muphry's Law, a discussion of Ross's committing a howler while discussing howlers committed by others, contains the word "her's".)

1 person has thanked this post
ED E Registered User
#485




Bray CoCo are trying to kill cyclists.

4 people have thanked this post
CramCycle A wholly unreasonable man
#486

ED E said:

Bray CoCo are trying to kill cyclists.


Placed on purpose as a quick solution to drivers mounting the path and rallying up it, either skipping queues or joyriding.

They have similar in the M50 underpass in Tallaght. Believe me, far from the worst infrastructure for cyclists around Bray. At least you can sort of see them coming.

1 person has thanked this post
seamus Dental Plan!
#487

It's always a toss-up. Big rocks in the middle of the track, or travellers camped all over it?

Stick up bollards and they'll just knock them down and move in.

There's probably a better solution, such as a nice neat wall, but that can't be done in an hour

magicbastarder Registered User
#488

i love the fact that they appear to have been cemented down. is boulder theft a major issue in bray?

5 people have thanked this post
HivemindXX Registered User
#489

That's dreadful. Everyone knows that the yield sign is supposed to be before the huge boulder.

4 people have thanked this post
check_six Registered User
#490

ED E said:
*picture of two huge boulders strewn across a cycle lane in the carefree manner of a giant rock monster who has just loosened his bowels*

Bray CoCo are trying to kill cyclists.


Where is that exactly? Is there a demand for this kind of thing from Trial MTB'ers? What could be the purpose of these two massive rock poohs?

ED E Registered User
#491

CramCycle said:
At least you can sort of see them coming.


During the day. At night they've gotta be lethal.


With bollards there are two reflective strips typically so at least you have some hope of spotting them.

check_six said:
Where is that exactly? Is there a demand for this kind of thing from Trial MTB'ers? What could be the purpose of these two massive rock poohs?


Stolen from twitter, think it said coming off the N11 into Bray.

2 people have thanked this post
Plastik Registered User
#492

They would be along here somewhere https://goo.gl/maps/Rt36N1rRAQ22

amcalester Registered User
#493

Plastik said:
They would be along here somewhere https://goo.gl/maps/Rt36N1rRAQ22


Was thinking the same.

Chuchote Registered User
#494

ED E said:
During the day. At night they've gotta be lethal.


And it's not even wearing hi-viz

1 person has thanked this post
HivemindXX Registered User
#495

There is a similar thing near Citywest. On streetview here:- https://goo.gl/maps/QrGVwTPrRiu

I guess rejoining the road was already sub optimal there so the boulder, which is basically saying "just go around me in the pedestrian area" isn't such a problem. Of course that's not a very well lit area and the boulder isn't exactly highly visible so that's an issue. Just another example where the planners want to do something (stop scumbags driving up on to the path) and when, or if, anyone questions how to make sure the solution doesn't negatively impact cyclists the answer is "screw 'em".

Want to share your thoughts?

Login here to discuss!