Reinstatement of mandatory use?

AndrewJRenko

tomasrojo wrote: »

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 wrote: »

This is just absurd.

check_six wrote: »

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 wrote: »

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.

CramCycle

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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.

tomasrojo

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".)

ED E

Bray CoCo are trying to kill cyclists.

CramCycle

ED E wrote: »

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.

seamus

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

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

HivemindXX

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

check_six

ED E wrote: »

*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

CramCycle wrote: »

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 wrote: »

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.

Plastik

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

amcalester

Plastik wrote: »

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

Was thinking the same.

Chuchote

ED E wrote: »

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

And it's not even wearing hi-viz :eek:

HivemindXX

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".

V-man

ED E wrote: »

Bray CoCo are trying to kill cyclists.

Missing the "Cyclist Dismount" sign

check_six

Chuchote wrote: »

And it's not even wearing hi-viz :eek:

We all know that the only thing that is *not* visible at night is a cyclist with no dayglo accoutrements. The cyclists with no dayglo trap light much like a black hole. No light reflects from them and no light can escape the massive gravitational effects they exert over their bikes and attached lamps.

These rocks will stand out at night no problem in the gloom and darkness, and that's a scientific FACT-oid (as sponsored by the RSA).

Grassey

After watching a jeep reverse into the same bollard 3 times this afternoon at speed I will be recommending to the rsa that everything is high vis to prevent poor motor vehicles from being attacked by random road furniture.

Chiparus

seamus wrote: »

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

At night a cyclist may not see it until it is too late. An acquaintance of mine was seriously injured when he cycled into a sign post in the middle of an unlit cycle lane.

Carawaystick

ED E wrote: »

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

Why? Proper lights and going at a speed you can see the way ahead to be clear would present no issue.

HivemindXX

Carawaystick wrote: »

Why? Proper lights and going at a speed you can see the way ahead to be clear would present no issue.

You are not required to have anything more than blinky LEDs and they are as good as proper lights for being seen by motorists. You don't really need lights that will allow you to see in the city since every road is well lit. However if you get directed up on to a cycle track that is no well lit and then has obstructions deliberately placed in the middle you can easily be surprised.

Telling people they need to use the cycle lane and then that they should get better lights and go more slowly to be safe is making it a little too obvious that some (a lot) of these things are worse than staying on the road.

Chiparus

Carawaystick wrote: »

ED E wrote: »

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

Why? Proper lights and going at a speed you can see the way ahead to be clear would present no issue.

Put that rock in the middle of the road, see what happens, you think proper lights there would be no issue?

Chuchote

Carawaystick wrote: »

ED E wrote: »

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

Why? Proper lights and going at a speed you can see the way ahead to be clear would present no issue.

It's on a bend and concealed by the rock beside it, as is clear from the photo. You only see it as you have to steer around it. Totally nuts.

nomdeboardie

“Shane Ross hasn’t really put his shoulder to the bicycle wheel” :pac:

Ciaran Cuffe on Pat Kenny show (Newstalk radio)

ETA: He was then asked via listener’s message about whether cycle lanes were mandatory…
“There is a little bit of confusion about that...”
going on to briefly summarise the situation ending with “Shane Ross and his department now say you do” [have to use cycle lanes]

JRant

nomdeboardie wrote: »

“Shane Ross hasn’t really put his shoulder to the bicycle wheel” :pac:

Ciaran Cuffe on Pat Kenny show (Newstalk radio)

ETA: He was then asked via listener’s message about whether cycle lanes were mandatory…
“There is a little bit of confusion about that...”
going on to briefly summarise the situation ending with “Shane Ross and his department now say you do” [have to use cycle lanes]

At this stage I sincerely doubt that Ross even knows what portfolio he is supposed to be in charge of.

tomasrojo

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ac86d7c6-4c99-11e7-8b46-aeb9dec90269

Cyclists may soon be confined to bike lanes under new rules being considered by the government. The proposals would force cyclists off the road anywhere that a cycle lane is available.

I guess they've given up the pretence that they're still mandatory use, and are just making them mandatory use again.

I can't see the whole article but Moyagh Murdock of the RSA says that cycling groups "may not be convinced" at this point that rule changes would be in their favour. Yes, well, they did campaign for 15 years to get the mandatory-use requirement overturned, and then the RSA pretended that the requirement hadn't been overturned, so maybe they are a tiny bit vexed by this.

tomasrojo

I wonder whether the RSA's report will address any of the points we all know about (being forced up the inside of left-turning traffic, not being able to make right turns on certain streets, no maintenance requirement, no minimum standards, etc), and were already addressed in the National Cycling Framework document.

amcalester

'Tis all a bit of a farce.

magicbastarder

what if you've a bike lane that ends in the middle of a footpath? you can't use it legally without dismounting.
and what if there's glass in the cycle lane? no one would expect a motorist to drive over tacks.

tomasrojo

I suspect they've done a search and found recent studies that show well-designed separated infrastructure is safer (there is some, however contested) and will omit the part about "well-designed".

magicbastarder

though the article is saying 'the government is considering it', it's a bit of a stretch in phrasing - at the moment - as the RSA is a public body but hardly part of 'the government'.

i'm amazed the RSA don't have any cyclists working for them who are screaming at them about this.