Reinstatement of mandatory use?

eeeee

Chuchote wrote: »

In newspapers, there's a trope that one letter to the editor normally works out as 1,000 other people who haven't bothered to take up a pen. Same with politicians: it's the squeaky wheel gets the oil.

Motorists have traditionally squeaked far louder than cyclists in Ireland. If you want the cycle lanes to be a) good and b) there, you have to talk to politicians; if you don't ask, you won't get.

I'd rather I wasn't forced to use dangerous infrastructure. And also bearing the brunt of punishment passes and the like for staying safe. They haven't gotten cycle lanes right in this country yet. Until they do no one should be forced to use them. That's where the focus should be imo. They'll continue to build shyte and pat themselves on the back for it as long as they fail to consult cyclists on the plans they're bringing forth.

Who have they consulted from the cycling world about this change for example? That's what irritates me. They're doing this without expending any understanding of the problems at hand. It's literally just fcuking ignorant.

tomasrojo

nee wrote: »

Who have they consulted from the cycling world about this change for example? That's what irritates me. They're doing this without expending any understanding of the problems at hand.

Exactly. If Ross writes a new SI having only consulted with the RSA and the Gardaí God knows what he'll write. Ross should be at least trying to understand why two governments (and three previous ministers) decided that cycle tracks shouldn't be mandatory (not too difficult, given that the previous two ministers are in his cabinet, and I'm sure Cyclist.ie would be very happy to talk to him).

Instead, he's "consulting" with the only stakeholders who never agreed with revoking mandatory use. I guess that's one way to get the answer you wanted from the beginning.

tomasrojo

Chuchote wrote: »

Motorists have traditionally squeaked far louder than cyclists in Ireland.

It's a lot worse than that. People who habitually drive (or are driven by family members) greatly outnumber people who habitually cycle (or are conveyed by people who cycle). The habit of driving is relentlessly promoted by large multinationals, who have full-time staff and big budgets for this sort of thing. And they're not always that pushed about fairness and objectivity, to say the least.

TonyStark

Crocked wrote: »

I'd read that as, we are bringing in mandatory use but need to pretend to consult on it first. So we'll get the Gards and RSA to come up with some bull**** reasons we can give in a press release to the jurnos. Hey presto motorists, no more pesky cyclists holding you up at lights, I mean "safety" yay.

Just in time for the inevitable early general election.

I've no problem with mandatory use as long as they are of an acceptable standard and designed appropriately.

If they legislate for mandatory use each and every cycle lane must be deemed safe. If an accident happens on such a lane the council will be held liable, akin to people claiming and getting payouts for damage due to potholes etc on their cars.

Making them optional mitigates this risk.

ThisRegard

TonyStark wrote: »

I've no problem with mandatory use as long as they are of an acceptable standard and designed appropriately.

If they legislate for mandatory use each and every cycle lane must be deemed safe. If an accident happens on such a lane the council will be held liable, akin to people claiming and getting payouts for damage due to potholes etc on their cars.

Making them optional mitigates this risk.

But what's the criteria that defines what's safe? What about cycling clubs out for a spin, is it safe for say 20/30 riders to be hitting 40kph on a share cycle/pedestrian lane?

If I'm out on the bike just for a cycle somewhere, shop, park whatever, wearing my civvies and not in a hurry I'm fine with using the decent ones.

But what if someone is out of a training spin where they're pushing themselves hard? Basically such cycling would not be possible within the cities, never mind the state of the lanes themselves, you'd be stopping and starting every hundred metres of so.

Crocked

It seems though that the Minister is quiet happy to bring back in mandatory use once he gets the ok from the hi-viz appreciation authority and the gardai. They will consider the state of bike lanes but as they also say apparently these are only the concerns of some of the cycling community. The phrasing is interesting as it seems to belittle the views of cyclists at the alter of the safety gurus in the RSA/AGS

Why are they even consulting the RSA or Gardai on interpreting the legislation? is that not a job for the civil servants who drafted it or the Attorney General to give advise to them?

It's all very strange how this issue has suddenly come up and I'd say there's the square root of fook all chance they are going to pony up the funds to completely overhaul the bike lane network (such as it is) before bringing in mandatory use legislation.

tomasrojo

Crocked wrote: »

Why are they even consulting the RSA or Gardai on interpreting the legislation? is that not a job for the civil servants who drafted it or the Attorney General to give advise to them?

I assume this is a long-held grievance that Varadkar ultimately ignored their advice, and now they've found someone more willing to listen.

Crocked wrote: »

It's all very strange how this issue has suddenly come up and I'd say there's the square root of fook all chance they are going to pony up the funds to completely overhaul the bike lane network (such as it is) before bringing in mandatory use legislation.

It's suddenly come in, I think, because suddenly there's a minister who isn't from the party that revoked the mandatory-use SI.

Carawaystick

theDept/Minister wrote:

Many thanks for your email. You are correct - there is ambiguity with regard to the mandatory use of cycle tracks. Clarification is needed in relation to the issue.

I'd ask for evidence of ambiguity.
How many prosecutions were taken since the mandatory use was revoked. How many judges convicted?

I'd say it's zero, both times.

What evidence is there that there is any increase in health issues since the mandatory use revocation happened?

Why is the minister not consulting with the dept of health regarding the health benefits of increased cycling?

NiallBoo

TonyStark wrote: »

I've no problem with mandatory use as long as they are of an acceptable standard and designed appropriately.

If they legislate for mandatory use each and every cycle lane must be deemed safe. If an accident happens on such a lane the council will be held liable, akin to people claiming and getting payouts for damage due to potholes etc on their cars.

Making them optional mitigates this risk.

If they were of that standard then there would be no reason to force people to use them.

Aside from that, IMO we have no realistic chance of ever getting to that standard - there's just too many big changes that would have to happen. It would require a fundamental change in the way Irish people think about town-planning, future-investment, collaboration...and life in general.

Making lanes mandatory will push us to become more polarised and further away from that ever happening.

HivemindXX

tomasrojo wrote: »

I assume this is a long-held grievance that Varadkar ultimately ignored their advice, and now they've found someone more willing to listen.

It's suddenly come in, I think, because suddenly there's a minister who isn't from the party that revoked the mandatory-use SI.

A minister who is probably minded to stick it to Varadkar. The response from Ross claiming the legislation is ambiguous and the tone of his comment about cyclists really makes him seem petty.

I didn't think the guards were usually in favour of laws which they have no plan to enforce. We've had three years where cyclists are allowed to decide for themselves whether to use the road or not. Is there really any need for a law to force cyclists to use all cycle lanes? Exactly how many cases have their been where this law would have been useful?

How long does this sort of thing usually take? Maybe Enda will resign, Varadkar will tell Ross and the indy ministers to take a hike and we'll have a new election before this ever gets done.

tomasrojo

HivemindXX wrote: »

How long does this sort of thing usually take? Maybe Enda will resign, Varadkar will tell Ross and the indy ministers to take a hike and we'll have a new election before this ever gets done.

Passing SIs doesn't require the Dail in any way, as far as I know. The minister just writes them (well, civil servants write them, I think, and he or she passes them). So, in theory, he could pass something very quickly. The original 1998 SI was written by Bobby Molloy and just appeared one day, from what I can gather. Don't think any cyclist groups were contacted. Of course, the original SI was unsatisfactory in many ways in practice, but it wouldn't take very long to write something along the lines of the original to keep the RSA happy. I doubt anyone will bring down the coalition over a cycling issue.

nomdeboardie

ThisRegard wrote: »

But what's the criteria that defines what's safe? What about cycling clubs out for a spin, is it safe for say 20/30 riders to be hitting 40kph on a share cycle/pedestrian lane?

If I'm out on the bike just for a cycle somewhere, shop, park whatever, wearing my civvies and not in a hurry I'm fine with using the decent ones.

But what if someone is out of a training spin where they're pushing themselves hard? Basically such cycling would not be possible within the cities, never mind the state of the lanes themselves, you'd be stopping and starting every hundred metres of so.

I'd go farther, to say that it's not just an issue for those in the process of training for competitive cycling. The attractiveness of cycling even as a form of commuting/utility-transport for many is surely reduced by unneccessary constraints on their ability to happily exert themselves and approach the speed of motorised traffic. This may be more true for the more 'energetic' potential cyclists, but surely it's worth getting/keeping those people in the life-long grip of a self-powered travel addiction I think it would be good to get this idea in first, before mentioning sports cycling per se, when arguing with the 'decision-makers'.

Red Belly

This was my email. Cc'd to my local TDs as well and some specific problem cycle paths were also described,

rb


Dear Minister Ross,

Belated congratulations on your appointment and best wishes for your every success in your new role.

I write with regard to recent speculation regarding the possible implementation of "compulsory use" regulations with regard to cycling lanes: i.e. making it an offence for cyclists to not use cycle lanes/cycle paths when they are available. I wish to argue against such a move, on the basis that cyclists will in a great many cases be much safer by NOT using cycle lanes, which are very often poorly designed, poorly maintained and poorly implemented.

Rather than introduce a regulation the observance of which would entail cyclists increasing the already considerable risks they face as vulnerable road users, I would encourage you and your officials to examine ways of making cycling infrastructure more effective, safer, and to also embark on/continue a campaign, to increase awareness of the vulnerability cyclists experience on the road.

I think it is fair to say, and indeed, sad to say, that a great many drivers on our roads today have no experience of riding a bicycle in traffic, even as children, and in my opinion, this is one factor that has given rise to considerable ignorance-fuelled aggression towards cyclists on our roads. This is not helped by some media commentators who avail of every opportunity to portray all cyclists as law-breaking/red light jumping lunatics and by the victim-blaming culture in which cyclists are always presumed to be somehow at fault in their own injuries.

I would further encourage the government to, as a matter of obvious import, introduce a minimum passing law, requiring drivers to give a minimum of 1.5m clearance when overtaking cyclists or other vulnerable/slower-moving road users

I am a frequent leisure cyclist, and my experience of cycle lanes in the south-east is that they and their use is almost invariably more dangerous for me than remaining in the main traffic lane. I think Minister, a great many drivers feel that compelling cyclists to use cycle lanes would make cyclists safer while also getting them "out of the way". However, I hope you will carefully consider that a significant majority of cyclists, a very vulnerable group of road users, acutely aware of their own vulnerability, are opposed to this move based on their personal experiences of Irish cycle lanes and of Irish roads. If/when we get to the point where adequate safe cycle lanes are the norm, there will be no need to regulate for their compulsory use: cyclists will be happy to use them.



Below I outline some specific examples from my own regular experience but I wish to emphasise that the issues outlined are very typical of MOST cycle paths.

2RockMountain

The Dept Transport Tourism & SPort is currently updating its statement of strategy for 2017-2019 and is open to getting submissions at SoS@DTTAS.ie before tomorrow Friday 5th August close of business, in case any enthusiasts would like to highlight strategic issues around cycling.

Chuchote

2RockMountain wrote: »

The Dept Transport Tourism & SPort is currently updating its statement of strategy for 2017-2019 and is open to getting submissions at SoS@DTTAS.ie before tomorrow Friday 5th August close of business, in case any enthusiasts would like to highlight strategic issues around cycling.

Done.

cdaly_

Chuchote wrote: »

Done.

Can you post your text as a sample please?

Chuchote

cdaly_ wrote: »

Can you post your text as a sample please?

Sure:

Dear Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport — May I request that your strategy for the years up to 2019 take a serious look at the need for suitable cycling infrastructure, and the need to get the increasingly obese and carbon-hungry Irish population out of cars and on to bicycles, and also public transport?
A mile of protected cycle lane to and from every school would be a wonderful first step, so that parents would first cycle with their children, then trust their children’s safety and allow them to cycle to school in groups. You only have to look at the decrease in traffic during school holidays to see what a beneficial effect this would have on Ireland’s carbon footprint.
Cycling is also a golden road to health, and will return average Irish body weight to normal.
Further, may I congratulate you on the suggestion that a cycle trail be built along the Dodder from Kippure to the sea — this is a brilliant idea and I hope it comes about soon! Regards and thanks — Moi

Others might post their (probably better) text too?

Red Belly

Here is mine:


To whom it may concern,

I urge the department to give all due consideration to the role cycling can play across all of the department's areas: Transport, tourism and sport.

As a participant sport, cycling is far more likely than competitive team sports to become a lifelong pursuit, and thereby can be most beneficial to the health and well-being of the citizenry.

As a commuting option, we have seen growth in recent years but unfortunately we have also seen a huge fall-off in commuting by bicycle for school children. In most secondary schools now more students drive themselves to school than cycle.

As a tourist attraction we have some of the most beautiful and easily accessed roads and routes for cycling in Europe, although road conditions are rarely up to European standards. Projects like the Dublin-Galway cycle way, the Dungarvan Greenway etc should be developed and expanded around the country.

While there is no doubt that some great strides have been made in the uptake of recreational and commuting cycling, there are many factors that restrict cycling in Ireland.

Among these are:

Poorly designed, implemented and maintained cycling infrastructure, (cycle lanes are often more dangerous to use than main traffic lanes): please endeavour to have engineers knowledgeable of cyclists' needs and concerns involved in the planning and construction of cycling infrastructure.

Driver behaviour: speeding, mobile phone usage, reckless overtaking and generally aggressive behaviour towards cyclists is very common. Awareness campaigns should continue (some excellent tv ads have been broadcast recently). Please support the introduction of a law requiring a minimum of 1.5m clearance when overtaking slower moving road users including pedestrians and cyclists. More stringent enforcement of penalties for obstructing cycling infrastructure (parking in cycling lanes for example) and other offences that pose increased risk to cyclists would be welcome. Poor and/or aggressive driver behaviour is the reason most often cited by non-cyclists for a) not cycling themselves and b) for not permitting their children to cycle on our roads.

Road conditions: the generally poor condition of many parts of our secondary and tertiary road network would appear to be a hangover of the economic crisis. There were, at the outset of the crisis two particularly extreme winters and while improvements have been seen in recent years, many secondary roads are still in very poor repair. Many of these roads are of incredible scenic beauty and particularly attractive options for cyclists and for cyclo-tourists. However poor road surfaces are a major disincentive to their use as the enjoyment to be had in exploring our countryside is diminished and of course, such road surfaces are dangerous for cyclists. The upgrading of our secondary road network must be a big priority. For foreigners visiting our shores and travelling on such roads whether by car or on bicycles, these poor roads create a very poor image of Ireland as a backward under-developed country rather than the modern vibrant image we should seek to portray and embrace.

I urge your department to continue to support the roll-out of well-designed and implemented cycling specific infrastructure, to maintain or perhaps even enhance the tax benefits available on the cycle to work scheme, and to put the needs of cycling and cyclists at the centre of planning, legislative and developmental decision-making.

With kind regards
Etc.

Chuchote

Red Belly wrote: »

Here is mine:


To whom it may concern,

I urge the department to give all due consideration to the role cycling can play across all of the department's areas: Transport, tourism and sport.

As a participant sport, cycling is far more likely than competitive team sports to become a lifelong pursuit, and thereby can be most beneficial to the health and well-being of the citizenry.

As a commuting option, we have seen growth in recent years but unfortunately we have also seen a huge fall-off in commuting by bicycle for school children. In most secondary schools now more students drive themselves to school than cycle.

As a tourist attraction we have some of the most beautiful and easily accessed roads and routes for cycling in Europe, although road conditions are rarely up to European standards. Projects like the Dublin-Galway cycle way, the Dungarvan Greenway etc should be developed and expanded around the country.

While there is no doubt that some great strides have been made in the uptake of recreational and commuting cycling, there are many factors that restrict cycling in Ireland.

Among these are:

Poorly designed, implemented and maintained cycling infrastructure, (cycle lanes are often more dangerous to use than main traffic lanes): please endeavour to have engineers knowledgeable of cyclists' needs and concerns involved in the planning and construction of cycling infrastructure.

Driver behaviour: speeding, mobile phone usage, reckless overtaking and generally aggressive behaviour towards cyclists is very common. Awareness campaigns should continue (some excellent tv ads have been broadcast recently). Please support the introduction of a law requiring a minimum of 1.5m clearance when overtaking slower moving road users including pedestrians and cyclists. More stringent enforcement of penalties for obstructing cycling infrastructure (parking in cycling lanes for example) and other offences that pose increased risk to cyclists would be welcome. Poor and/or aggressive driver behaviour is the reason most often cited by non-cyclists for a) not cycling themselves and b) for not permitting their children to cycle on our roads.

Road conditions: the generally poor condition of many parts of our secondary and tertiary road network would appear to be a hangover of the economic crisis. There were, at the outset of the crisis two particularly extreme winters and while improvements have been seen in recent years, many secondary roads are still in very poor repair. Many of these roads are of incredible scenic beauty and particularly attractive options for cyclists and for cyclo-tourists. However poor road surfaces are a major disincentive to their use as the enjoyment to be had in exploring our countryside is diminished and of course, such road surfaces are dangerous for cyclists. The upgrading of our secondary road network must be a big priority. For foreigners visiting our shores and travelling on such roads whether by car or on bicycles, these poor roads create a very poor image of Ireland as a backward under-developed country rather than the modern vibrant image we should seek to portray and embrace.

I urge your department to continue to support the roll-out of well-designed and implemented cycling specific infrastructure, to maintain or perhaps even enhance the tax benefits available on the cycle to work scheme, and to put the needs of cycling and cyclists at the centre of planning, legislative and developmental decision-making.

With kind regards
Etc.

Ah, now that's good.

tomasrojo

Cabinet score card.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/cabinet-scorecards-so-which-minister-gets-zero-out-of-10-1.2751910


Ross gets 0/10 for being slothful and disengaged.

If things carry on as they are, it is Ross who will become the cadaver.

This in the Indo yesterday too, about his allowing constituency issues to cloud his judgement on an issue related to cabinet policy and his ministerial brief.
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/shane-coleman/rosss-risible-objection-to-badly-needed-new-homes-undermines-the-promises-of-independent-alliance-34953601.html

magicbastarder

i sent this to the RSA earlier - if they're the ones helping to decide that cycle lanes should be mandatory, perhaps they could help in explaining how to deal with bizarre lane design and remain within the bosom of the law.


I am contacting you in relation to some recent information regarding the new Rules of the Road, in that cycle lanes appear to be mandatory for cyclists to use again.
Can you advise if the Gardai will be prosecuting cyclists for violating this rule, assuming it is a legal offence once again? One reason I ask is out of concern for the fact that there is no minimum statutory standard to which cycle lanes are constructed, resulting in inconsistent and haphazard lane designs, which would result in impossible situations for cyclists trying to adhere to the ROTR.

One example I would cite - I live near Glasnevin in Dublin, and the below is the road layout on Mobhi Road near me. The direction of travel in the Street View link below (assuming it opens correctly) is northbound and uphill, with Home Farm Road off the junction on the right.
Further back downhill, northbound cyclists are diverted from the left hand side of the road, onto a pedestrian crossing, which channels them onto the cycle lane seen to the *right* - on the footpath - in the link. This crossing can be seen in the second link provided, which shows a cyclist beginning to cross at this crossing point.
I can only assume this is because the single lane provided northbound, which has to carry buses, is too narrow to safely allow cyclists share this lane with other traffic (southbound/downhill cyclists are able to use the bus lane pictured).
However, as can be seen in the first link, the cycle lane provided ends at the junction with Home Farm Road (which in itself is going to be hazardous, as motorists will not be expecting cyclists approaching from the left). This begs an obvious question - should the cyclist continue on the footpath, and break the new rules, or should they cross the road to rejoin the northbound lane - which they were diverted out of to begin with (and do so with no controlled road crossing to facilitate this)?

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.37598...2!8i6656?hl=en
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.37285...2!8i6656?hl=en

I cannot see how - if cycle lanes are once again mandatory - a cyclist would be able to use this cycle lane without reaching a legal dead end, unless he or she were to dismount from the bike and become a pedestrian for a not inconsiderable period - which surely negates the point of taking the bike in the first place.

Would you be able to provide guidance, or would you know of the correct body who would be able to advise, on what options are open to cyclists in such scenarios?
Another issue which is caused not by poorly thought out design, but by inadequate maintenance, would be cycles lanes which end up with glass in them, rendering them nearly unusable for cyclists; what is the advice on how a cyclist would proceed in such circumstances?

Thank you!

Chuchote

Good letter. Keep us posted on any reply, if you'd be so kind.

tomasrojo

I suspect they would plump for your (not serious) suggestion, and say that you should walk. We don't have a mountain of "CYCLISTS DISMOUNT" in storage for nothing!

Interesting to see that Ross is not popular with FG generally, on account of his not being a team player (or, so far, even showing any interest in togging out). Going against the ethos of two previous ministers, both of whom are in your cabinet, probably won't help matters. A straw to clutch, maybe.

magicbastarder

tomasrojo wrote: »

I suspect they would plump for your (not serious) suggestion, and say that you should walk.

in a way i'm kinda half hoping that they respond with that, as it's such a cop out and an admission that the cycling infrastructure is not fit to allow people to cycle continuously. which means it's not fit for purpose.

Chuchote

magicbastarder wrote: »

in a way i'm kinda half hoping that they respond with that, as it's such a cop out and an admission that the cycling infrastructure is not fit to allow people to cycle continuously. which means it's not fit for purpose.

What a Daily Mail headline…!

tomasrojo

Incidentally the standard RSA response to queries such as this is "Contact your local authority".

Yes, another cop-out. The RSA have no policy for active travel (except maybe a sibilant hiss: "This must be suppressed ...")

radia

magicbastarder wrote: »

in a way i'm kinda half hoping that they respond with that, as it's such a cop out and an admission that the cycling infrastructure is not fit to allow people to cycle continuously. which means it's not fit for purpose.

Ugh. I'm torn. But I think the pleasure of squeezing out such an admission would soon be overpowered by the ridiculous inconvenience of the stop-start cycling that would result.

Plus I do feel that buying into their concept that cycle tracks are mandatory again is dangerous; it will encourage them to run with this as though it's true - and it's not.

Even if the terminology in the legislation were ambiguous (and I don't believe it is), Section 5 of the Interpretation Act 2005 states that:

(2) In construing a provision of a statutory instrument (other than a provision that relates to the imposition of a penal or other sanction)—

(a) that is obscure or ambiguous, or

(b) that on a literal interpretation would be absurd or would fail to reflect the plain intention of the instrument as a whole in the context of the enactment (including the Act) under which it was made,

the provision shall be given a construction that reflects the plain intention of the maker of the instrument where that intention can be ascertained from the instrument as a whole in the context of that enactment.

It's very clear from the 2012 legislation that the intention was to restrict mandatory use to cycle tracks in pedestrianised areas and contraflows only. Quite apart from the explanatory note which explicitly says so, the 2012 legislation removed the provision in the previous 1997 legislation that simply said ""All pedal cycles must be driven on a cycle track where one is provided." If the intention was to keep all cycle tracks mandatory, that provision would have been retained. It wasn't.

I worry that seeming to buy into the contention of ambiguity and the possibility that mandatory use was never revoked will become a self-fulfilling prophesy because it will encourage the Dept that people accept their position.

Chuchote

radia wrote: »

It's very clear from the 2012 legislation that the intention was to restrict mandatory use to cycle tracks in pedestrianised areas and contraflows only.

That sounds sensible, conditional of course on the cycle lanes being properly separated and kerbed, and in a good state to use.

magicbastarder

i am still wondering how we could have offroad cycle lanes and deal with bikes merging with traffic at junctions, without a complete rethink/redesign on the junctions themselves - unless we as mentioned, treat cyclists like pedestrians.

magicbastarder

tomasrojo wrote: »

Incidentally the standard RSA response to queries such as this is "Contact your local authority".

the initial response was an acknowledgement of receipt, and that a full response is being worked on; with a question as to whether the response would be used for publication (i had sent it to their media department, seemed the closest match from the list of contacts available). i confirmed that i would probably share it on an internet forum, as several members of that forum also live near the cycle lane specified, or are concerned about the supposed reversion of the law.