Reinstatement of mandatory use?

magicbastarder

how much does DCC earn from on-street parking?

Chips Lovell

?37 million in 2016

Annie get your Run

magicbastarder wrote: »

how much does DCC earn from on-street parking?

A quick google gives this https://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0120/498896-parking-incomes-councils/which says €30m for Dublin in 2013... unlikely that they would give that up.

Edit Jep got in before me!

ED E

Thats why the NTA need to take over the reigns from DCC.

what_traffic

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

?37 million in 2016

Galway City Council make about a 10% of this figure.
Car parking is a big independent revenue stream for most Councils now.
Good document from the Galway Cycling Campaign about this topic.
"
Addicted to cars; the role of car
parking revenue for Irish local
authorities and implications for
state policy.
Pre-Budget 2016 discussion document
"
http://www.galwaycycling.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/GCC_PreBudget2016_Submission_Discussion_Paper_Parking_Levy.pdf

AndrewJRenko

Chuchote wrote: »

I reported several patches of broken glass on the Grand Canal cycle path (clearly deliberately broken in the centre of the track in two places, near the Barge and further towards Rathmines, though I didn't say this) using this site

http://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-services-roads-and-traffic-road-maintenance-and-street-repair/repair-road-or-footpath

and it was swept away next time I passed.

I reported that broken glass about a week ago, but I swear that the remains of it were still there yesterday morning. The Barge and the hotel at Portobello have a lot to answer for.

tomasrojo

And, with any luck, this two-years-long farce is now over:
http://irishcycle.com/2017/11/21/cyclists-dont-have-to-use-cycle-lanes-ross-to-clear-confusion/

magicbastarder

ooh, i can't wait for the howls of outrage.
still, it'll be good for newstalk's share price.

Lumen

Goddamnit, does this mean Shane is off the hook?

tomasrojo

https://twitter.com/Cyclistie/status/1030924825592823808

I *think* Ross has tidied up the SI.

amcalester

Wonder how long it’ll take the RSA to update the ROTR.

magicbastarder

i'm thick and i don't understand. this stipulates use in pedestrianised areas, and contra flow cycle tracks.

though i guess if the law is silent about cycling on a road, that means there's no restriction on it.

monument

tomasrojo wrote: »

https://twitter.com/Cyclistie/status/1030924825592823808

I *think* Ross has tidied up the SI.

Yes: http://irishcycle.com/2018/08/18/cyclists-dont-have-to-use-cycle-lanes-new-legislation-confirms/

monument

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm thick and i don't understand. this stipulates use in pedestrianised areas, and contra flow cycle tracks.

though i guess if the law is silent about cycling on a road, that means there's no restriction on it.

It means mandatory use only applies in:

1. pedestrianised areas with pedestrian street signs -- red circle, blank white centre
   
2. contra flow cycle tracks in the contra-flow direction -- the wording of this is messed up, people cycling contra-flow can't see the sign they refer to and the sign isn't used in all examples of streets with contra-flow lanes.

tomasrojo

monument wrote: »

contra flow cycle tracks in the contra-flow direction -- the wording of this is messed up, people cycling contra-flow can't see the sign they refer to and the sign isn't used in all examples of streets with contra-flow lanes.

The direction is indicated by the cycle track itself in the wording. Does that improve things? I mean, the sign they mention is, I'm guessing from what you've said, to tell road users at the far end from the cyclist to expect cyclists, while the on-road or on-footpath markings tell the cyclist it's a cycle track and which direction to go in?

tomasrojo

This is RUS 059?

monument

tomasrojo wrote: »

The direction is indicated by the cycle track itself in the wording. Does that improve things? I mean, the sign they mention is, I'm guessing from what you've said, to tell road users at the far end from the cyclist to expect cyclists, while the on-road or on-footpath markings tell the cyclist it's a cycle track and which direction to go in?

tomasrojo wrote: »

This is RUS 059?

Yes, RUS 059:



If anything it might just say that people cycling who face RUS 059 should use the cycle track and should only use it in the direction of the cycle track. :pac:

tomasrojo

Ha!

I think even if the new wording isn't 100% unambiguous, it's close enough. As should have been done from the start, it can be disambiguated using stated ministerial intent.

That's maybe a dangerous assumption, given we're 42 pp into a thread about the bleeding obvious already.

monument

tomasrojo wrote: »

...it can be disambiguated using stated ministerial intent.

If anything, the Department, the DPP etc have argued against ministerial intent so much that they have invalided any arguments they might use on ministerial intent to say a cyclist was wrong for leaving a contra-flow cycle lane.

That's not to say I disagree with the use of ministerial intent -- it's to say that they would be using double standards to rely on it themselves without first admitting they were wrong about the 2012 SI.

Lambay island

https://twitter.com/newsfromftai/status/1031168839130783746

FTA Ireland or Waterford Whispers ?

tomasrojo

Funnily enough, despite what our learned friends in the FTA say, the situation hasn't really changed. It's just making clear what was always the case: Varadkar rescinded the mandatory use of most cycle tracks in 2012.

CramCycle

monument wrote: »

It means mandatory use only applies in:

1. pedestrianised areas with pedestrian street signs -- red circle, blank white centre
   
2. contra flow cycle tracks in the contra-flow direction -- the wording of this is messed up, people cycling contra-flow can't see the sign they refer to and the sign isn't used in all examples of streets with contra-flow lanes.

I presume the first point means you can't cycle in pedestrian areas? Just allowed through if there is a bike lane to allow passage. Seems like an odd point to make in writing as surely it is implicit as a vehicle they can't cycle there. Just wondering as it seems odd the need to clarify.

monument

CramCycle wrote: »

I presume the first point means you can't cycle in pedestrian areas? Just allowed through if there is a bike lane to allow passage. Seems like an odd point to make in writing as surely it is implicit as a vehicle they can't cycle there. Just wondering as it seems odd the need to clarify.

I'm drafting a comment article which covers this -- they seem to over think everything and that causes issues like these to start with.

But basically -- yes. A pedestrian street sign disallows all vehicles and a cycle track was put in and defined with white lines, that alone would restrict cycling to the cycle track.

My guess is somebody wanted to cover "pedestrian areas" as more than just pedestrian streets -- ie cycle tracks beside footpaths -- but somebody else when drafting the law put in the requirement for it to only apply when the pedestrian street sign is shown.

In otherwords, somebody thought by revoking mandatory use of cycle tracks would somehow allow cycling on footpaths or wider pedestrian areas which are legally footpaths. But this was nonsense, other laws disallow cycling in such areas.

rubadub

CramCycle wrote: »

just wondering as it seems odd the need to clarify.

I would say somebody high up said "and make sure there is zero ambiguity this time, we don't want the same mess again", so they are spelling out the obvious.

monument

rubadub wrote: »

I would say somebody high up said "and make sure there is zero ambiguity this time, we don't want the same mess again", so they are spelling out the obvious.

No, pedestrian areas marked with the pedestrian street sign was also an exception in the regulations removing mandatory use in 2012.

plodder

Good to hear they have updated the regulation. The argument went that what it used to effectively say was:

A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track that is:
{
    on a road, 
    a portion of a road, 
    or an area at  the  entrance  to  which  traffic  sign  number  RUS  021 (pedestrianised street or area) is provided
}

So, the first of the three options arguably made cycle tracks mandatory on all roads.

What it says now, is what was intended (unambiguously):

A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track that is:
{
    on a road, 
    a portion of a road, 
    or an area
}
at  the  entrance  to  which  traffic  sign  number  RUS  021 (pedestrianised street or area) is provided

Now each of the three options only apply where the RUS 021 sign is placed.

monument

plodder wrote: »

Good to hear they have updated the regulation. The argument went that what it used to effectively say was:

A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track that is:
{
    on a road, 
    a portion of a road, 
    or an area at  the  entrance  to  which  traffic  sign  number  RUS  021 (pedestrianised street or area) is provided
}

So, the first of the three options arguably made cycle tracks mandatory on all roads.

If that was so, it would have been written as such, with each numbered:

(1) on a road,
(2) a portion of a road, or
(3) an area at the entrance to which traffic sign number RUS 021 (pedestrianised street or area) is provided.

That's why intent comes into reading the paragraph without a common like the one in bold and red here:

a road, a portion of a road, or an area, at the entrance to which traffic sign number RUS 021(pedestrianised street or area) is provided

Strange instead of a quick fix that intent was questioned, isn't it?

plodder

monument wrote: »

If that was so, it would have been written as such, with each numbered:

(1) on a road,
(2) a portion of a road, or
(3) an area at the entrance to which traffic sign number RUS 021 (pedestrianised street or area) is provided.

That's why intent comes into reading the paragraph without a common like the one in bold and red here:

a road, a portion of a road, or an area, at the entrance to which traffic sign number RUS 021(pedestrianised street or area) is provided

Strange instead of a quick fix that intent was questioned, isn't it?

If that was intended, it would have been written that way, but I think everyone acknowledges it was a mistake. I'm not a lawyer, but I think there have been many cases of drafting errors, where the intent was one thing, but the written law ended up something different.

Here is how it was written:

(4) A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where—
(a) a cycle track is provided on a road, a portion of a road, or an area at the entrance to which traffic sign number RUS 021 (pedestrianised street or area) is provided, or
(b) a cycle track is a contra-flow cycle track where traffic sign number RUS 059 is provided and pedal cycles shall only be driven in a contra-flow direction on such track.

It was badly drafted. Maybe a comma after "an area" might have fixed it, but again I'm not certain about that.

JMcL

tomasrojo wrote: »

This is RUS 059?

The photo is a fine example of inadequacy of enforcement - cycle track is blocked by 2 parked cars leaving contraflow cyclists no choice but to leave it or get off and walk around

amcalester

JMcL wrote: »

The photo is a fine example of inadequacy of enforcement - cycle track is blocked by 2 parked cars leaving contraflow cyclists no choice but to leave it or get off and walk around

Don’t think so, those cars are parked in marked spaces.

The contra-flow cycle lane is marked with red paint.