Reinstatement of mandatory use?

2RockMountain

tomasrojo wrote: »

We need the RSA's top-secret legal advisors on the case. (Don't tell anyone I told you about this.)

I wonder what an FOI on the financial spends might show up?

Deleted User wrote: »

€2m in Tallaght for a kerbed off road track that narrows the street to one tight lane, and I sat behind a cyclist most of the length of the road yesterday. Poster is correct, stop spending on infrastructures that are not used.

Where did you get the €2m figure from?

godtabh wrote: »

Roads must be cycle friendly (the design manual for urban roads and streets has seen a consistent approach on this).

They dont always get it right but to say they are purely car focused is wrong.

But is DMURS being seriously implemented? They did one round of training for LA engineers (not great quality training by all accounts) and there is no effective monitoring or feedback of progress.

seamus

radia wrote: »

Elsewhere in Irish legislation they make this kind of thing clear through layout on the page. They could solve this easily by laying it out as follows:

(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.

Layout or otherwise, this is the correct interpretation. Subclauses are always interpreted as complete statements, they cannot be selectively interpreted into independent subclauses.

In order for the DoT interpretation to be correct, the statute would have to look like this;

(4) A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where—

(a) a cycle track is provided on:
(i) a road or,
(ii) a portion of a road or,
(iii) 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.

The DoT is wrong. It's not a matter of ambiguity or argument, they're just straight wrong.
And seeing as they have no powers of enforcement or of directing Gardai in enforcement, the incorrect interpretation of some unqualified civil servant can be ignored.

eeeee

Ok I'm confused, does the new interpretation mean you are legally bound to use every cycle lane provided, on and off road? There is no way in hell I could safely follow that rule.
Or is it that you have to use the cycle lane where it's on road or in a contrafow situation?

tomasrojo

As I said upthread, it's a hell of an elaborate way to say:

Cycle tracks must be used where provided

It's actually just a list of everywhere you could conceivably find a cycle track in the new interpretation: roads, parts of roads, pedestrian zones and bus lanes.

NamelessPhil

There's an absolute corker of crap cycle lane design right in the middle of Shane Ross's constituency outside Dundrum Town Centre as you approach it from Whyckham Bypass. There's a cycle track alright, off-road well marked etc. and it stops with nowhere to go either onto the road or footpath just before a busy roundabout. Joined up thinking my backside!

https://goo.gl/maps/Sn4fiUY4CeN2

mrcheez

You're nicked!

07Lapierre

nee wrote: »

Ok I'm confused, does the new interpretation mean you are legally bound to use every cycle lane provided, on and off road? There is no way in hell I could safely follow that rule.
Or is it that you have to use the cycle lane where it's on road or in a contrafow situation?

Wouldn't worry about it too much..

Probably the best thing to do is to use the road. If a guard orders you to use the Cycle path, use it until the guard is gone and then get back on the road.

Business as usual really.

galwaycyclist

nee wrote: »

Ok I'm confused, does the new interpretation mean you are legally bound to use every cycle lane provided, on and off road? There is no way in hell I could safely follow that rule.
Or is it that you have to use the cycle lane where it's on road or in a contrafow situation?

Ultimately it is for the courts to interpret the law and to weigh up competing interpretations of the law from different parties.

It has always been the case that civil servants and the "civil service" have their own personal or institutional political agendas.

It is disappointing and it is not supposed to happen but it is not unknown for civil servants to act according to their own political agenda even when this is in conflict with the programs they are charged with delivering by our lawfully elected representatives.

It would appear that this is what is happening here - that there are individuals within the department who disagree with smarter travel etc and were opposed to the policies of the last minister. Now that the minister has moved on they see a chance to try and undermine those policies.

They are attempting to offer a different version by way of undermining the policy of the previous government. As far as I know, it has no status in law unless some judge, in a court that sets precedent, makes a judgement that comes down on one side or the other.

It is not law but it is dangerous for cycling because that some barrister might be tempted to use this new interpretation as an argument before a judge.

1bryan

Crocked wrote: »

I do cycle but I wouldn't be passing that way on the bike. However I pass near that way in the car and have a dashcam, so it'd be easy to detour to record it.

Also there are also two sides to everything. The new cycle lane also affects motorists, so no harm is seeing what they see either. I'll try do it by car and bike as a compare and contrast exercise.

edit: I never expressed any strong or intransigent opinion. The strongest I got was saying it looks good quality and not sure why a cyclist would avoid it.

I use that road several times a week by car and by bike.

Its a decent stretch of cycle infrastructure, and as a cyclist, I'd be happy to use it when all the construction activity in that area is finished.

But I can give you 2 reasons why cyclists wouldn't use it.

The cycle track, as it goes by the Bryan S Ryan offices (approaching Tallaght village), is too close to the entrance to their car park, making it a little dangerous.

There are large hoardings erected the near side of the Lidl where a new building venture is starting up. That impacts visibility of cars exiting the Lidl car park (and the office block in at the back, once its occupied).

Personally I'd be happy to use that cycle lane, but I'll be popping down on the road for the forseeable future in those 2 spots.

cdaly_

galwaycyclist wrote: »

It is not law but it is dangerous for cycling because that some barrister might be tempted to use this new interpretation as an argument before a judge.

Or some driver of a large motor vehicle decides to use this* interpretation as 'justification' for running you off the road.




*Then again, some of them don't seem to need any 'justification' other than "you're in my way"...

ted1

Crocked wrote: »

Here's a tweet about it last week

https://twitter.com/sdublincoco/status/748511227190611968

Look at All the lovely land to the right for a segregated proper cycle path

ted1

tomasrojo wrote: »

This sums it up quite well.

That's a disgrace , I'd love to see the reaction if that was put up on a projector during a council meeting and ask them if they think it's a good design and the money was well spent

check_six

There was a discussion of this rule on the Commuting and Transport forum a month ago. A poster claimed that:

schemingbohemia wrote: »

The explanatory memorandum contradicts the legislation and has no legal standing. It's an error.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=99938265&postcount=164

There was a subsequent discussion that talked about the grammar and the clear intention of the law change that was in the memorandum. The poster was shown to have misread the SI.

I wonder who the DoT spokesman is? I wonder if they read boards.ie?

2RockMountain

2RockMountain wrote: »

Where did you get the €2m figure from?

Figure was quoted in local press. Seems cheap to me for near 2 years work

tomasrojo

tomasrojo wrote: »

This sums it up quite well.

That's hilarious in fairness

eeeee

Hmmmm so guards can legitimately tell you to get into the cycle lane now?
And the whole 'get in the cycle lane' shouts are also legitimized now or is it an error of interpretation?

This is ridiculous. Until they're fit for purpose, not dangerous and free of shyte I can't change how I cycle. The vast and overwhelming majority of cycle lanes by me are a complete and dangerous joke.

Oh I'm angry now!

seamus

nee wrote: »

Hmmmm so guards can legitimately tell you to get into the cycle lane now?

Technically Gardai can always tell you to get into the cycle lane. All traffic is required to obey a lawful direction given by a Garda.

And the whole 'get in the cycle lane' shouts are also legitimized now or is it an error of interpretation?

No, it's an error in interpretation. Don't be confused on that. Nothing has changed back. There is no mandatory use law back on the books.

galwaycyclist

ted1 wrote: »

That's a disgrace , I'd love to see the reaction if that was put up on a projector during a council meeting and ask them if they think it's a good design and the money was well spent

I was present at the council meeting that "approved" it. What happened was that councillors who were cyclist-friendly expressed serious concern about the design. One councillor accused the officials responsible of conducting a "vendetta" against cyclists. These officials were Mr. Ciaran Hayes (who is now the County Manager/CEO in Sligo) and Mr. Joe Tansey who at the time was the head of the roads department. (Mr. Tansey had previously proposed a scheme elsewhere in Galway where cyclists were expected to get off and walk at every junction - this was rejected by An Bord Pleanala)

Other councillors were unconcerned - one councillor exclaimed "why are we discussing this sh*t" in my presence.

The arguments went back and forth with Mr.Hayes and Mr. Tansey arguing that if the road was sent back for redesign it would delay the project and the money would be lost.

The threat of losing the money won out in the end and a majority of the city councillors voted to accept the scheme.

We live in a country where council officials can do what they like and central govt civil servants do not accept that they have any role in supervising how these officials spend state funds.



Edit: As a post script to this one of the consultant engineers responsible for this design subsequently obtained employment with the roads department of Galway City Council.

godtabh

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Edit: As a post script to this one of the consultant engineers responsible for this design subsequently obtained employment with the roads department of Galway City Council.

What's that got to do with things?

R1_Pete

ted1 wrote: »

That's a disgrace , I'd love to see the reaction if that was put up on a projector during a council meeting and ask them if they think it's a good design and the money was well spent

Where is that?!

Edit.. sorry I see its down West..
Jaysus thats awful..

galwaycyclist

godtabh wrote: »

What's that got to do with things?

For one reason because in my view there are questions as to the suitability of that persons appointment to such a position.

At the time a fitness to practice complaint was submitted against the road safety auditors.

However arguably it should have gone in against the designers. In the view of many the photographs speak for themselves.

Why dont you tell us why you think this would not be of interest?

godtabh

galwaycyclist wrote: »

For one reason because in my view there are questions as to the suitability of that persons appointment to such a position.

At the time a fitness to practice complaint was submitted against the road safety auditors.

However arguably it should have gone in against the designers. In the view of many the photographs speak for themselves.

Why dont you tell us why you think this would not be of interest?

Are copies of the Part VIII design/RSA available?

galwaycyclist

godtabh wrote: »

Are copies of the Part VIII design/RSA available?

With regret I am not in a position to rehash ancient history at this point - I have other priorities. If you want to go into it then FOI is your friend.

At this point the Doughiska photographs constitute the public curriculum vitae of the individuals involved.

In case you missed it, the photographs also comprise the public curriculum vitae of the Irish civil engineering profession.

If it helps to avoid unexpected offence let me make my position clear. When I am introduced to someone who holds a degree in civil engineering from an Irish university, I have a personal policy of assuming that the person is unfit to advise on the design of public roads until proven otherwise. It is a personal policy that has been beneficial for me and has helped me to avoid unnecessary disappointment.

ED E

We have http://freethecyclelanes.vool.ie/ as a demonstration of the obstruction issue, has anyone made similar for badly designed Irish cycle lanes? God knows there are so many brilliant examples.

godtabh

galwaycyclist wrote: »

With regret I am not in a position to rehash ancient history at this point - I have other priorities. If you want to go into it then FOI is your friend.

At this point the Doughiska photographs constitute the public curriculum vitae of the individuals involved.

In case you missed it, the photographs also comprise the public curriculum vitae of the Irish civil engineering profession.

If it helps to avoid unexpected offence let me make my position clear. When I am introduced to someone who holds a degree in civil engineering from an Irish university, I have a personal policy of assuming that the person is unfit to advise on the design of public roads until proven otherwise. It is a personal policy that has been beneficial for me and has helped me to avoid unnecessary disappointment.

And with an attitude like that I put you on ignore.

galwaycyclist

godtabh wrote: »

And with an attitude like that I put you on ignore.

Engineers should not design streets

http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2016/5/22/engineers-should-not-design-streets

mrcheez

godtabh wrote: »

And with an attitude like that I put you on ignore.

Holy crap didn't know you could do that

Does that block you seeing all posts by a user, but you still see them if they are replied to?

godtabh

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Engineers should not design streets

http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2016/5/22/engineers-should-not-design-streets

And you're an expert now who knows more than the entire engineering profession? Fair play a needed a laugh to distract me from my the design of my dead end cycle lane.

Urban design isnt determined by one profession. Its determined by a collective of different professionals.

The desire for safe, attractive and vibrant streets is reflected in a range of existing transport, planning and environmental policies and objectives. These policies and objectives address how neighbourhoods, villages and towns are created and protected. They relate not only to road safety and civil engineering, but also to town planning, urban design, architecture, landscape architecture and conservation.

‘It is only in the last few decades that the car has come to dominate every street. Streets are (or ought to be) living spaces, an integral part of the community and the focus of many activities that link together people’s
lives. The way in which streets are managed and used promotes or discourages a sense of community and makes them an attractive or unattractive place to live…This imbalance must be reversed if urban communities are to revive and prosper. Planners and engineers must take the lead in this process.’

Clearly the above statments are wrong when keyboard engineers know it alls know best

radia

check_six wrote: »

There was a discussion of this rule on the Commuting and Transport forum a month ago. A poster claimed that:

schemingbohemia wrote:

The explanatory memorandum contradicts the legislation and has no legal standing. It's an error.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=99938265&postcount=164

There was a subsequent discussion that talked about the grammar and the clear intention of the law change that was in the memorandum. The poster was shown to have misread the SI.

I wonder who the DoT spokesman is? I wonder if they read boards.ie?

As highlighted by tomasrojo in that other thread, if anyone else is writing to Shane Ross about the current misinformation, it might be helpful to include reference to the fact that the removal of mandatory cycle lane use by the 2012 legislation directly reflected the commitment made in the National Cycle Policy Framework (2009):

15.4
Mandatory Use Regulation
We will revoke the Statutory Instrument that requires cyclists to use cycle tracks where they are provided - Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Amendment Regulations, S.I. No. 274 (1998).
This regulation is unsatisfactory for a number of reasons:
(i) it is clear that the cycling infrastructure that has been constructed to date is often of a poor standard and is poorly maintained, and cyclists are required to use it;
(ii) it can force cyclists to be on cycle tracks and (when they are planning on continuing straight ahead) to be on the inside of left-turning vehicles, including Heavy Goods Vehicles;
(iii) if a group of cyclists (on a weekend cycle for example) is using a road with an off-road cycle-track alongside it, then they are required to use it – which is not practicable.

galwaycyclist

godtabh wrote: »

And you're an expert now who knows more than the entire engineering profession? Fair play a needed a laugh to distract me from my the design of my dead end cycle lane.

Your attitude allows us to explore another reason for the proliferation of unusable infrastructure.

It is not just threats of withdrawing funds that are used.

Interestingly enough one of the arguments that local authority officials use in pushing through hostile road designs is that councillors and others are not "qualified" to question the recommendations of consultant engineers.

Sometimes this will be accompanied by veiled or even direct threats of legal action against the person who has the temerity to question the recommendations of "the engineer". It is straightforward bullying and it is routine in my experience.

Am I alone in getting a scent of the same thing on this thread? That those who are the victims of incompetent design are not "permitted" to question the actions of their betters unless they are members of the club?