Reinstatement of mandatory use?

magicbastarder

monument wrote: »

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.

no, this was based on me describing the situation to them, which is an obvious weak point. i was told though that an explanatory note is not actually part of the law itself, and that it was a rookie mistake not to include the content of the explanatory note in the text of the law.

AndrewJRenko

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.

I recently heard of cases where barristers went as far of checking Ministers' speeches in the Dáil in order to assess intent to resolve some ambiguity.

monument

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I recently heard of cases where barristers went as far of checking Ministers' speeches in the Dáil in order to assess intent to resolve some ambiguity.

What was the case in relation to?

AndrewJRenko

monument wrote: »

What was the case in relation to?

Honestly, not sure - it was someone who deals with Dáil records telling the story, but didn't get into the specifics of the issue.

magicbastarder

makes sense though - if you've a prima facie case that the letter of the law conflicts with the stated intent of the law, it creates a reasonable doubt regarding a mistake in the wording of the law.

Fian

magicbastarder wrote: »

makes sense though - if you've a prima facie case that the letter of the law conflicts with the stated intent of the law, it creates a reasonable doubt regarding a mistake in the wording of the law.

You can't over-ride the written law by relying on evidence of intent, however you can introduce evidence of what was intended in order to resolve an ambiguity in the law.

For penal statues (of which this is one) such ambiguities are required to be resolved in favour of the accused regardless of intent.

I am fine with matters remaining as they are - cycle tracks are not mandatory, I have no concern whatsoever that i might possibly be fined for not using one.

HivemindXX

Fian wrote: »

I am fine with matters remaining as they are - cycle tracks are not mandatory, I have no concern whatsoever that i might possibly be fined for not using one.

I very much doubt that any case would ever go to court over this. If it ever did I would love the opportunity to bring this fiasco up in court and have my say. I'm not particularly happy to take the RSA's word on this and the only way to stop them saying that mandatory use is the law even though this is just their opinion is to have it challenged in court.

However the way this currently is, with the RSA telling everyone mandatory use is still in place based on their secret legal advice, there will be issues with guards throwing their weight around because they didn't like something you did (like being on a bicycle for instance) and motorists who think they are batman assuming you belong in the cycle lane and driving accordingly.

I would much prefer that this was changed to be absolutely clear that cyclists are not legally required to use cycle lanes. My second choice would be, if the powers that be are determined to force cyclists to use lanes where provided, that the law be changed to be absolutely clear and all non-suitable cycle lanes (of which there are very many) be voided.

In light of the current story, which is that Varadkar wanted mandatory use repealed and that the amended law doesn't do that, I have to wonder how this happened. How did a wording that didn't do what it was supposed to get written in to law? Who drafted this? Were they simply incompetent or did they deliberately go against the instructions of the minister. Did the RSA realise this at the time and quietly sit back until such time as Varadkar had moved on so they could subvert his desires (you know, the desires of an elected minister)?

monument

HivemindXX wrote: »

I very much doubt that any case would ever go to court over this. If it ever did I would love the opportunity to bring this fiasco up in court and have my say. I'm not particularly happy to take the RSA's word on this and the only way to stop them saying that mandatory use is the law even though this is just their opinion is to have it challenged in court.

It might or might not come up in a cyclist prosecution any time soon.

But it is very likely to come up in a criminal or civil case, for example saying a cyclist should have been on a cycle path so the motorist is not to or less to blame.

BoardsMember

HivemindXX wrote: »

I very much doubt that any case would ever go to court over this. If it ever did I would love the opportunity to bring this fiasco up in court and have my say. I'm not particularly happy to take the RSA's word on this and the only way to stop them saying that mandatory use is the law even though this is just their opinion is to have it challenged in court.

However the way this currently is, with the RSA telling everyone mandatory use is still in place based on their secret legal advice, there will be issues with guards throwing their weight around because they didn't like something you did (like being on a bicycle for instance) and motorists who think they are batman assuming you belong in the cycle lane and driving accordingly.

I would much prefer that this was changed to be absolutely clear that cyclists are not legally required to use cycle lanes. My second choice would be, if the powers that be are determined to force cyclists to use lanes where provided, that the law be changed to be absolutely clear and all non-suitable cycle lanes (of which there are very many) be voided.

In light of the current story, which is that Varadkar wanted mandatory use repealed and that the amended law doesn't do that, I have to wonder how this happened. How did a wording that didn't do what it was supposed to get written in to law? Who drafted this? Were they simply incompetent or did they deliberately go against the instructions of the minister. Did the RSA realise this at the time and quietly sit back until such time as Varadkar had moved on so they could subvert his desires (you know, the desires of an elected minister)?

Difficult to see how this could ever be practical or applied even in theory.

HivemindXX

BoardsMember wrote: »

Difficult to see how this could ever be practical or applied even in theory.

Really? It seems easy to me. Does this cycle lane meet the guidelines which are quite explicit and measureable? If not then the white paint and blue signs are taken down. If we are going to be legally required to use them then they should be fit for purpose.

HivemindXX

monument wrote: »

It might or might not come up in a cyclist prosecution any time soon.

But it is very likely to come up in a criminal or civil case, for example saying a cyclist should have been on a cycle path so the motorist is not to or less to blame.

That won't decide anything. Judges and lawyers seem to be able to say whatever they like when giving a speech about contributory negligence without being challenged.

rubadub

HivemindXX wrote: »

Does this cycle lane meet the guidelines which are quite explicit and measureable?

I believe a lot of "cycle tracks" have legally inadequate signage and so are therefore footpaths and illegal to cycle on -even if its pretty obvious they are intended to be cycletracks. Sometimes its not obvious.

monument wrote: »

It might or might not come up in a cyclist prosecution any time soon.

I wondered if some martyr type could head into a garda station and say "I've been cycling on a footpath everyday for a years now, I reckon 600 offences." which may force a prosecution, or force a court case which is thrown out and gets media attention -the footpath of course being an inadequately signed cycletrack. I wonder if they do have to formally investigate.

I know several places with such badly worn out white lines that people do wander onto them. In some cases I am genuinely unsure if they are meant to be cycletracks or not, or with some new ones I wonder if legal or not.

Here is an example of a badly worn out cycletrack,

https://goo.gl/maps/L2DqzBvzThC2

you cannot see the new "cycletrack" but on the left side in the link below in blackrock dublin , bit it is a very odd cycletrack. I wondered if it was complying with signage & guidelines..

https://goo.gl/maps/7pEXHYwk6Wk

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

rubadub wrote: »

I believe a lot of "cycle tracks" have legally inadequate signage and so are therefore footpaths and illegal to cycle on -even if its pretty obvious they are intended to be cycletracks. Sometimes its not obvious.


I wondered if some martyr type could head into a garda station and say "I've been cycling on a footpath everyday for a years now, I reckon 600 offences." which may force a prosecution, or force a court case which is thrown out and gets media attention -the footpath of course being an inadequately signed cycletrack. I wonder if they do have to formally investigate.

I know several places with such badly worn out white lines that people do wander onto them. In some cases I am genuinely unsure if they are meant to be cycletracks or not, or with some new ones I wonder if legal or not.

Here is an example of a badly worn out cycletrack,

https://goo.gl/maps/L2DqzBvzThC2

you cannot see the new "cycletrack" but on the left side in the link below in blackrock dublin , bit it is a very odd cycletrack. I wondered if it was complying with signage & guidelines..

https://goo.gl/maps/7pEXHYwk6Wk

I don't want to take away from your points, but "they" added a cycle track along that road about 18 months ago, I believe the work started about 2 years ago. Too late for that poor woman that was killed on her way to work back in 2014/5.

I cycled that road for 4 years and it was horrible competing with other cars and especially buses for room, despite there being 2 lanes. I was very glad to see traffic at that point, as it was much safer (sorry motorists).

AndrewJRenko

Fian wrote: »

I am fine with matters remaining as they are - cycle tracks are not mandatory, I have no concern whatsoever that i might possibly be fined for not using one.

This is a good point. It is probably to our advantage to rely on the general inertia in Dept Transport to keep things as they are.

HivemindXX wrote: »

In light of the current story, which is that Varadkar wanted mandatory use repealed and that the amended law doesn't do that, I have to wonder how this happened. How did a wording that didn't do what it was supposed to get written in to law? Who drafted this? Were they simply incompetent or did they deliberately go against the instructions of the minister. Did the RSA realise this at the time and quietly sit back until such time as Varadkar had moved on so they could subvert his desires (you know, the desires of an elected minister)?

This is another good point. I'm not generally one for conspiracy theories in matters like this, but this one is just so strange. The refusal to release documents under FOI makes it look like something strange happened here. Is it possible that some absolute genius worked out that omitting a comma would get Leo off his back but still not let those pesky cyclists off the hook?

nomdeboardie

Riding on a narrow off-road N11 cycle path today...person walking in the centre of it towards me, seeming oblivious (looking at phone?) or indifferent...I throw up my hand in exasperation, look behind to see if anything is coming on the road (bus lane), see nothing, drop down and continue...shortly thereafter honked at by a taxi. FFS :mad:


I really should get a helmet- handlebar-cam, so that if I were to get challenged by the authoriteh’s I could at least review the footage with them and point out why I were not using the facilities at that point :rolleyes:

tomasrojo

HivemindXX wrote: »

Really? It seems easy to me. Does this cycle lane meet the guidelines which are quite explicit and measureable? If not then the white paint and blue signs are taken down. If we are going to be legally required to use them then they should be fit for purpose.

My understanding is that this does happen in Germany; members of the public can get cycle facilities made non-mandatory by highlighting the ways in which they don't meet standards.

On the other hand, my source is a blog post from some years ago that I may or may not be remembering accurately, if it was accurate itself in the first place. It sounded convincing at the time.

ED E

We know the Dept are of the opinion that mandatory use applies, but do the gardai?

RobertFoster wrote: »

Just got the call from the Garda telling me his Traffic Corps colleague claims I'm in the wrong. They're adamant that if they'd witnessed the incident, the cyclist would've been issued with a ?40 FCPN for cycling without due care and attention because there's a cycle track on the path. If one is provided, one must be used. What the bus driver did was "cheeky", but not against the law. Since it's not a Garda matter, it won't be pursued (more-or-less read as lest you want a FCPN, young man). The Garda recommended I make a complaint directly with the company.

This post suggests so. A friend and I were discussing it, he claims the absence of enforcement of the rule says AGS know its invalid, Im of the opinion that cycling related laws just aren't enforced wholesale.

Solve the debate for us if ya would.

Chuchote

ED E wrote: »

This post suggests so. A friend and I were discussing it, he claims the absence of enforcement of the rule says AGS know its invalid, Im of the opinion that cycling related laws just aren't enforced wholesale.

Solve the debate for us if ya would.

FYP

ednwireland

tomasrojo wrote: »

My understanding is that this does happen in Germany; members of the public can get cycle facilities made non-mandatory by highlighting the ways in which they don't meet standards.

would you stop throwing some logical solution around

the one thing about Ireland seems to be that ministers bring in laws to say they've done something knowing full well they will never be enforced but they then spend the rest of there political careers saying they did something even though enforcing the existing law would probably deliver more effective results.

rant over

Chuchote

ednwireland wrote: »

would you stop throwing some logical solution around

the one thing about Ireland seems to be that ministers bring in laws to say they've done something knowing full well they will never be enforced but they then spend the rest of there political careers saying they did something even though enforcing the existing law would probably deliver more effective results.

rant over

Ah, now, be fair: Mary Harney and clean air. (The one and only reason the PDs can't be utterly written off as a total waste of space, though it's a reason drowned under a sea of harm, imho.)

seamus

ED E wrote: »

We know the Dept are of the opinion that mandatory use applies, but do the gardai?

This post suggests so. A friend and I were discussing it, he claims the absence of enforcement of the rule says AGS know its invalid, Im of the opinion that cycling related laws just aren't enforced wholesale.

Solve the debate for us if ya would.

That will change from member to member. A shickaloney, exasperated by me using the bus lane and not hugging the kerb pulled me over a few years back. In the course of the discussion, he noted that I wasn't using the cycle lane, but then also noted with a sigh that I was under no obligation to do so.

Ultimately neither the dept of transport nor the Gardai decide what the actual law is.

One member can say you're required to use the lanes and another can say you're not.
It's only when the former brings you to court and the judge agrees that mandatory use is not required that a definite judgement is made.

Ultimately all of the information and legislation right now says that the DoT is wrong and their interpretation is incorrect.

And as a private individual you are free to disagree with their interpretation of the law. The Gardai do not take direction from the DoT and if one stops you, you can discuss your interpretation with him/her. If he disagree with you, then you'll have to go to court to have them uphold your interpretation.

In short, there is no mandatory use until a court says so. What the DoT and the Gardai think is irrelevant.

Chuchote

Shickaloney

CramCycle

nomdeboardie wrote: »

I really should get a helmet- handlebar-cam, so that if I were to get challenged by the authoriteh?s I could at least review the footage with them and point out why I were not using the facilities at that point :rolleyes:

It really should not be necessary though. Imagine a car was in the bus lane for whatever reason and a Bus decided to take umbrage, so honked the horn a few times and then decided to either tailgate or skim it.

Does the behaviour of the car driver before somehow make the bus drivers reaction legal. No.

Originally Posted by RobertFoster
Just got the call from the Garda telling me his Traffic Corps colleague claims I'm in the wrong. They're adamant that if they'd witnessed the incident, the cyclist would've been issued with a ?40 FCPN for cycling without due care and attention because there's a cycle track on the path. If one is provided, one must be used. What the bus driver did was "cheeky", but not against the law. Since it's not a Garda matter, it won't be pursued (more-or-less read as lest you want a FCPN, young man). The Garda recommended I make a complaint directly with the company.

It was against the law, they just cannot be arsed for something that will probably not come to pass.

check_six

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.

ED E

http://irishcycle.com/2017/04/21/claimed-mandatory-use-of-cycle-track-law-flaw-was-found-when-fines-were-introduced/

magicbastarder

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.

check_six

ED E wrote: »

http://irishcycle.com/2017/04/21/claimed-mandatory-use-of-cycle-track-law-flaw-was-found-when-fines-were-introduced/

The communications is that which the department refuses to release under freedom of information legislation.

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?

tomasrojo

This is just absurd.

tomasrojo

“The Garda National Roads Policing Bureau (GNRPB) communicated with my Department in May 2015 in relation to SI 332 of 2012. This communication referenced advice received by the GNRPB from the Director of Public Prosecutions.”

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.

CramCycle

check_six wrote: »

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.