Reinstatement of mandatory use?

monument

nomdeboardie wrote: »

Thanks, but it's the initial reasons for your communication with them that I'm curious about (post 130), i.e. what were the questions you put to them to elicit their strange statements on the statute documents.

The change in the Rules of the Road this year. Will be covered in detail in one of the next articles.

nomdeboardie

monument wrote: »

The change in the Rules of the Road this year. Will be covered in detail in one of the next articles.

Ah, OK. Looking at the PDF currently on the RSA website I see a "must obey" for a listed item "Do cycle on cycle tracks where theyare provided" (page 191, =193 of the PDF). Is this document the latest version, do you know? I have a PDF from 2007 which says the same (in a different format), though it would have been written before the mandatory use revocation a few years ago. Was there a version in between where the "must" command had been remoced/rephrased? Either way, it is indeed important that the new version does not contain the imperative!

ETA: I now see the PDF is dated 2015 (final page)

2RockMountain

monument wrote: »

The change in the Rules of the Road this year. Will be covered in detail in one of the next articles.

Have they removed the HTML version of ROTR? I can only see the PDF version, so you can't link to a specific page any more.

galwaycyclist

nomdeboardie wrote: »

Ah, OK. Looking at the PDF currently on the RSA website I see a "must obey" for a listed item "Do cycle on cycle tracks where theyare provided" (page 191, =193 of the PDF). Is this document the latest version, do you know? I have a PDF from 2007 which says the same (in a different format), though it would have been written before the mandatory use revocation a few years ago. Was there a version in between where the "must" command had been remoced/rephrased? Either way, it is indeed important that the new version does not contain the imperative!

ETA: I now see the PDF is dated 2015 (final page)

There is another thread going on this in Commuting and Transport

http://touch.boards.ie/forum/246

bit more on the RoTR issue in there.

Carawaystick

nomdeboardie wrote: »

Ah, OK. Looking at the PDF currently on the RSA website I see a "must obey" for a listed item "Do cycle on cycle tracks where theyare provided" (page 191, =193 of the PDF). Is this document the latest version, do you know? I have a PDF from 2007 which says the same (in a different format), though it would have been written before the mandatory use revocation a few years ago. Was there a version in between where the "must" command had been remoced/rephrased? Either way, it is indeed important that the new version does not contain the imperative!

ETA: I now see the PDF is dated 2015 (final page)

the rules of the road pdf changed between the 30th January and the 5th February this year.
The webarchive shows this.

When did the SI changing cycle lane useage come into force?

tomasrojo

Carawaystick wrote: »

the rules of the road pdf changed between the 30th January and the 5th February this year.
The webarchive shows this.

When did the SI changing cycle lane useage come into force?

2012

I suspect the RSA, or elements within it, have now decided that they know best and are straining to make the statutory instruments comply with their word view.

So, cars ARE allowed to park in cycle tracks, and cyclists must use them, despite the statutory instruments saying otherwise. In the former case, they have recourse to a top-secret legal institution of which they can tell us nothing, but in the later case they have the good fortune to have someone in the Department of Transport on side.

nomdeboardie

Carawaystick wrote: »

the rules of the road pdf changed between the 30th January and the 5th February this year.
The webarchive shows this.

When did the SI changing cycle lane useage come into force?

Thanks - I've posted a follow-up comment in the other thread now (though my head is melted reading through ll the posts and tryng to make sure I'm looking at the documents I think I'm looking at etc )

tomasrojo

It's a very short post, and I'm not on Facebook and can't check, but I think this is saying that the Department of Transport told the RSA to alter the Rules of the Road to say that cycle tracks were compulsory to use.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100438506&postcount=150

If so, my apologies to the RSA for my last post.

magicbastarder

this is the exchange on FB:

Chris Slattery
Hey RSA why the sneaky amendment to force the use of Cycle lanes in the rules of the road ? where was the publicity change and who interpreted the Statutory instrument differently to everyone else ?

Road Safety Authority Ireland
The Rules Of The Road is not the Law . Its is simply an interpretation of the law from a road safety point of view. Readers with queries about the law are urged to check the legislation or to ask a Garda. The 2013 ROTR reflected the advice contained in the explanatory notice for SI332 /2012. The RSA was subsequently advised by DTTAS that the explanatory did not reflect the relevant section in SI 332 of 2012 and its most recent edition the RSA sought to clarify the law as it currently stands.

Shane Hogan
Did the RSA take legal advice on this change in the most recent edition, or did they rely on the stated view of DTTAS (which has no legal basis)?

tomasrojo

Well, who knows where it goes from here. Who arbitrates on differing interpretations of a fixed text?

2RockMountain

tomasrojo wrote: »

Well, who knows where it goes from here. Who arbitrates on differing interpretations of a fixed text?

A judge.

Chuchote

This might be a good thing in a way. It could radicalise vast numbers of cyclists to the point where they'd be having mass cycle protests that stopped traffic, etc, with the effect of forcing the government to make proper protected and separated cycle lanes that would be safe for children and adults to use.

tomasrojo

2RockMountain wrote: »

A judge.

That's interesting, because, as far as I know, nobody was ever charged for not using a cycle track when they were unambiguously compulsory (1997-2012). We might be waiting a long time for a judge to bother looking at this.

HivemindXX

That statement from the RSA is pretty confusing. The ROTR is not the law, it's just an interpretation of the law, but someone contacted them and told them it didn't reflect the law, so they changed it?

So if someone was to tell them that the current wording doesn't reflect the law would they change it back? How hard would it be to get the minister responsible for the original change (Varadkar) to find out who exactly told the RSA this and find out why exactly they think the legislation doesn't say what everyone else thinks it says.

This wording does not improve my road safety. It empowers the sort of fools who think cyclists don't belong on the roads and that it's their job to teach us a lesson by deliberately endangering us. The RSA in general, and whoever is responsible for this change in particular, needs a good kick up the hole.

Does the RSA have any random advice for motorists which go beyond the legislation. Like, always go at least 10kph under the speed limit to be safe, or never answer the phone, even hands free, it's distracting.

galwaycyclist

tomasrojo wrote: »

That's interesting, because, as far as I know, nobody was ever charged for not using a cycle track when they were unambiguously compulsory (1997-2012). We might be waiting a long time for a judge to bother looking at this.

Not correct AFAIK but I have lost the case(s).

monument

The comment the RSA left on Facebook is the same as the response they gave me by email late Thursday afternoon:

http://irishcycle.com/2016/07/22/rules-of-the-road-change-on-cycle-lanes-based-on-advice-from-department-of-transport-says-rsa/

Chuchote

From the Hindustan Times: political party colours used in cycle track signage:

http://www.hindustantimes.com/noida/political-war-erupts-over-colour-of-cycle-tracks-in-noida/story-mSV8OxBi9yRpOpp7wKAR0O.html

Cute-hoorism Indian-style!

Maybe our politicians are aping England?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-400273/Fined-using-cycle-lane.html

A district judge who controversially cleared a speeding policeman has convicted a cyclist... for riding in the road.
Bruce Morgan caused a furore last year when he ruled that PC Mark Milton had done nothing wrong by driving at an 'eye- watering' 159mph while trying out a new high-performance squad car.
But when cyclist Daniel Cadden appeared before him last week, he threw the book at the 25-year-old software engineer for riding in the road instead of using a special path set aside for cyclists.

tomasrojo

Daniel Cadden was acquitted, if that's the right term, in the end (there never was a law in the UK that made cycle lanes/tracks/facilities compulsory).

Not sure where we're going with this one here.

The likeliest explanation, assuming good faith on the part of the people who drew up the legislation (likely) and competency on the part of the people who came up with the new interpretation is that some extra text is required to make the simple case of cycle tracks on roads or part of roads non-compulsory.

I still suspect someone is stretching credulity here so that the next printed edition of the RotR says all cycle tracks must be used. That way people can be misinformed for about ten years and the notion that cycle tracks must be used is internalised by another generation.

tomasrojo

http://irishcycle.com/2016/07/26/minister-thanked-cyclist-in-2013-for-supporting-his-decision-to-revoke-cycle-track-mandtory-use/

So Varadkar absolutely intended to revoke and believed he had revoked mandatory use, barring two exceptions.

They say ambiguity has arisen and are consulting with the RSA and Gardaí. But who cares what they think when it comes to resolving legal ambiguity? The question is, what was the intention of the original wording and what is required to make it meet that intention.

This is all a warm-up to extending compulsory use (for real), should Shane Ross be willing.

(The RSA opposed revocation, and I'm pretty sure the Gardaí will support extension of mandatory use.)

Chuchote

It's something rather harmful in our country, the way our first recourse is always to force people to do things, rather than to make it more pleasant and easier for them to do them.

jon1981

After wiping myself out on a leaf ridden cycle lane, it will be the last time I use it until the wet leaves are gone!

Mandatory use comes at a price to the county council... regular cleaning, maintenance and safety assurance...

I'm pretty sure you could win an argument as to why you didn't use a cycle lane for majority of the cycling lanes in the country..

tomasrojo

jon1981 wrote: »

Mandatory use comes at a price to the county council... regular cleaning, maintenance and safety assurance...

We had compulsory use between 1997 and 2012 without any of that stuff.

I've a very bad feeling about this. All that stands between us and a return to this nonsense is Shane Ross. The RSA and Gardaí will both advocate a return to the old system. The RSA will wheel out their (fairly bogus) study on the dangers of cycling to say that cycling has become more dangerous since revocation.

RobertFoster

A couple in a car decided to beep and point inland when they passed me between Portmarnock and Malahide yesterday. I just gave them a wave and a hello, I didn't want to tell them I'd no interest in the football pitches (I assume) they were pointing at :pac:

The RSA/DOT haven't granted the power to direct traffic to anyone else recently have they?

buffalo

tomasrojo wrote: »

http://irishcycle.com/2016/07/26/minister-thanked-cyclist-in-2013-for-supporting-his-decision-to-revoke-cycle-track-mandtory-use/

So Varadkar absolutely intended to revoke and believed he had revoked mandatory use, barring two exceptions.

I wonder what grumpy old man took the time to email the Minister about his every little grievance...

ThisRegard

tomasrojo wrote: »

I've a very bad feeling about this. All that stands between us and a return to this nonsense is Shane Ross. The RSA and Gardaí will both advocate a return to the old system. The RSA will wheel out their (fairly bogus) study on the dangers of cycling to say that cycling has become more dangerous since revocation.

I agree, I posted this on the thread on the Commuting forum a short time ago

Given the ambiguity that has come to light with regard to SI 332 of 2012 specifically, the Department is currently consulting with the Road Safety Authority and An Garda Síochána and has sought their views on the relevant provisions in the SI.

If the SI has already been passed by Varadkar, surely their 'views' are irrelevant unless the department is looking to change or revoke SI 332?

the Department will have to satisfy itself that any such measures strike an appropriate balance between the views of some in the cycling community and the views of those stakeholders from a road safety perspective

This bit seems to be that the person concerned does not want the mandatory use revoked.

tomasrojo

the Department will have to satisfy itself that any such measures strike an appropriate balance between the views of some in the cycling community and the views of those stakeholders from a road safety perspective

Look at the framing:
"Some" in the cycling community (it was campaigned for by pretty much if not actually all campaigners, and very widely welcomed by those not involved in campaigning)

versus

The very serious road safety people.

galwaycyclist

buffalo wrote: »

I wonder what grumpy old man took the time to email the Minister about his every little grievance...

Whoever he is I think we all owe him a vote of thanks

Puggy

This thread has exhausted my powers of concentration

To my knowledge, there are basically 2 kind of cycle lanes, off road and on road.

I have no real problems with the on road cycle lanes, as the majority are built to the same standard of the road, and give the cyclist the same rights as other road users, especially at junctions, apart from the awful one in Galway! Some have dotted white lines and others have continuous lines. Some also have time limits posted. You need to be aware that other road users can drive and or park in these lanes under some conditions.

The off road cycle lanes however I find are dangerous from a number of angles.

The first being some other road users feel totally justified in punishing you for not using them. I've had a shave, closer than a Gillette Fusion blade, from a coach. The driver was so skilled, that in rush hour traffic, he opened the door and shouted at me that I should be on the foot path, much to the amusement of the motor cycle guard who was behind him.

Secondly, I had an incident on an off road cycle lane that had me off the bike for 6 weeks with a bad knee injury after avoiding a woman running across the road to catch a bus. Her view being she had right of way, and how was she to know I was doing 45kph.

Also the majority of off road cycle lanes are not maintained, cleaned or gritted by the local authorities. Outside of the urban areas they are frequently used to temporarily dump stuff. Debris and glass from the road often ends up on the cycle paths, but is rarely removed. Entry and exit points to these lanes on my commute are not suitable for a bicycle.

In summary, I feel safer cycling on the road, where the majority of road users do not seem to mind. When they do, and I'm causing an obstruction, I move in when I can.

tomasrojo

Got a reply with the exact wording quoted on the IrishCycle.com page.

The plan is clearly to pretend there is ambiguity, get the print edition of the Rules of the Road to say that all cycle tracks have to be used, and then to get Shane Ross to pass a new SI in the autumn to that effect.

I replied, for all the good it will do me, to Shane Ross's private secretary thus:

Dear ---,

Thank you for your reply.

I fail to see why the ambiguity in the SI (if indeed there is one) requires consultation with the RSA or the Gardaí. The intent of the SI is manifestly apparent, from the explanatory note accompanying it, and from numerous statements, private and public, by the then minister Leo Varadkar. If there is an ambiguity inherent in the wording, then the only consultation required is with agencies competent to disambiguate the wording so that it matches Leo Varadkar's intention.

What you are describing is a review of Leo Varadkar's policy. That is an entirely different thing. If that is Shane Ross's intention then he should state that he is reviewing the policy.

I am also unhappy with your framing of the issue. The revocation was the agreed policy of two successive governments and the result of many years of campaigning by virtually all cycling campaign groups, and was widely welcomed by people who cycle but are not involved in campaigning. It is not a dichotomy between "some" cyclists on one hand and people who are interested in road safety on the other. The "National Cycle Policy Framework 2009-2020" recognised that mandatory use created hazardous situations (such as forcing cyclists going straight ahead to remain on the left of left-turning traffic, especially HGVs, and requiring cyclists to use very poorly maintained facilities, with attendant risks of falls and collisions), and that road safety in fact was always put forward as a major reason in favour of revocation of the 1997 SI.

Sincerely,
--

galwaycyclist

tomasrojo wrote: »

"Some" in the cycling community (it was campaigned for by pretty much if not actually all campaigners, and very widely welcomed by those not involved in campaigning)

This does raise a somewhat thorny issue - and it may not be for me to raise it - but hey.

As far as I remember CyclingIreland has no position on such things. This is because they receive significant funding from the same department.

So among organised cycling it was the cycling campaigns that lead the issue with a glaring silence coming from one prominent corner. (Please correct me if I am wrong)

Is this to continue?

Edit: If CI people want to take it off line then feel free to PM me.