Reinstatement of mandatory use?

beauf

In my opinion its someone chasing a populist agenda. Cyclists are in the minority when it comes to votes.

It would be a huge set back to cycling.

galwaycyclist

beauf wrote: »

In my opinion its someone chasing a populist agenda. Cyclists are in the minority when it comes to votes.

I believe the only reason this is happening is we are seen as weak and an "easy target" for certain individuals in positions of influence. I doubt that it is politically inspired or has anything to do with votes - if it was it would be getting announced with great fanfare in the media by the Minister himself.

It would be a huge set back to cycling.

On the other hand - if we react intelligently and in an organised fashion it could be the making of us.

galwaycyclist

galwaycyclist wrote: »

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.

On the other hand when Cycling Ireland put themselves forward to develop an Irish Standard for Cycle Training it should have been obvious that taking a position on traffic legislation went with that.

beauf

Time will tell about the fanfare...

2RockMountain

beauf wrote: »

In my opinion its someone chasing a populist agenda. Cyclists are in the minority when it comes to votes.

It would be a huge set back to cycling.

It smells to me more like some officials who never like Leo's approach are trying to pull a fast one.

tomasrojo

I think they reckon Shane Ross is more "pliable" than Varadkar was. I have no insider knowledge, but the impression I got from the media was that Varadkar was well informed on active transport, and he had his own ideas.

beauf

2RockMountain wrote: »

It smells to me more like some officials who never like Leo's approach are trying to pull a fast one.

In my limuted experience places like CS are more open to things like, cycle to work, and such. Id imagine theyd be pro cycling.

Trojan

galwaycyclist wrote: »

On the other hand when Cycling Ireland put themselves forward to develop an Irish Standard for Cycle Training it should have been obvious that taking a position on traffic legislation went with that.

Didn't we see recently that Cycling Ireland don't have the interests of cyclists in Ireland at heart, but only sports cyclists - and only the competitive subset of those?

I'm a cyclist in Ireland and I do not feel that Cycling Ireland represents me in any way. My interests are far better served by folks like the Dublin Cycling Campaign, even though I don't live in Dublin.

boardbeer

galwaycyclist wrote: »

On the other hand - if we react intelligently and in an organised fashion it could be the making of us.

I like the sound of that. Might be a good time to collate all the relevant info on this, international studies (e.g., Franklin's reading list), stats, highlights of the Irish cycle lane photos, etc., ready to kick off a ChangeX or Avaaz type campaign?

godtabh

I got a reply

On behalf of the Minister for Transport, Tourism & Sport, Shane Ross T.D., I wish to thank you for your letter/email regarding cycle lanes and the interpretation of the law. A further reply will issue to you as soon as possible.




Yours sincerely,


Chris Smith
Private Secretary to Minister Shane Ross

galwaycyclist

godtabh wrote: »

I got a reply

That reply is actually very encouraging. If it has come from the Minister's Private Secretary then it suggests the matter is now bypassing the permanent civil servants who were behind the attempted coup.

tomasrojo

My reply was from the private secretary too, but I'm pessimistic because of the "some cyclists versus road-safety people" framing. However, it's really up to Ross himself, isn't it?

dreamerb

galwaycyclist wrote: »

That reply is actually very encouraging. If it has come from the Minister's Private Secretary then it suggests the matter is now bypassing the permanent civil servants who were behind the attempted coup.

1. A Minister's private secretary is a civil servant - a department official who is, for the time being, assigned to manage the Minister's office, not a person directly employed by the Minister.
2. It is routine for correspondence to be acknowledged by a Minister's private secretary before being referred to the section or division with responsibility for the relevant policy area.
3. You have no evidence that permanent civil servants were behind an "attempted coup". What happened, and how the new interpretation emerged, is not clear, but it's quite a leap to assume it's a civil service conspiracy.

galwaycyclist

dreamerb wrote: »

1. A Minister's private secretary is a civil servant - a department official who is, for the time being, assigned to manage the Minister's office, not a person directly employed by the Minister.
2. It is routine for correspondence to be acknowledged by a Minister's private secretary before being referred to the section or division with responsibility for the relevant policy area.

Sadly you are correct I was mistaken. If the mails are being acknowledged by the Minister's special advisor then that would be encouraging. On that note it might be an idea to include the Ministers constituency office in any e mails.

3. You have no evidence that permanent civil servants were behind an "attempted coup". What happened, and how the new interpretation emerged, is not clear, but it's quite a leap to assume it's a civil service conspiracy.

So far, in my view, the available facts point in one direction. Those behind the new "interpretation" have had numerous opportunities for transparency which they have chosen not to use. In that regard the facts in the public domain pass the duck test.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

dreamerb

galwaycyclist wrote: »

So far, in my view, the available facts point in one direction. Those behind the new "interpretation" have had numerous opportunities for transparency which they have chosen not to use. In that regard the facts in the public domain pass the duck test.

In response to which, I refer you to Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

tomasrojo

All the same, they must know that what they're really doing is reviewing Varadkar's policy -- and he's still in the same cabinet as Ross!

galwaycyclist

dreamerb wrote: »

In response to which, I refer you to Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

How someone contrives to arrive at particular position is irrelevant. What is important is what happens when they are confronted with facts that do not support their position.

If they continue, without supporting evidence, to stick to a line at variance with a large body of evidence on the intent of the minister and state policy then the net effect is an attempt to subvert state policy and the law of the land.

It doesn't matter what their IQ levels are or how they dug themselves into that particular hole.

tomasrojo

If they persuade Ross to write a new SI (that I'm sure would return compulsory use, since the stated intention is only to consult with the RSA and Gardaí), then it wouldn't be subverting state policy, would it? It would be new state policy.

galwaycyclist

tomasrojo wrote: »

If they persuade Ross to write a new SI (that I'm sure would return compulsory use, since the stated intention is only to consult with the RSA and Gardaí), then it wouldn't be subverting state policy, would it? It would be new state policy.

I am sure it would not be the first time a minister made regulations at variance with some stated policy or other.

check_six

dreamerb wrote: »

3. You have no evidence that permanent civil servants were behind an "attempted coup". What happened, and how the new interpretation emerged, is not clear, but it's quite a leap to assume it's a civil service conspiracy.

dreamerb wrote: »

In response to which, I refer you to Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

I'd like to think that this is the case, but I'm not so sure that it is just plain incompetence. The change in the Rules of the Road booklet is significant, but at the same time unheralded.

Imagine a change was dropped into the RotR that said: 'Motor vehicles must use any Toll Road provided'. It would be a bizarre and perverse regulation. Now, imagine if it just appeared overnight in the RotR without a whisper of publicity.

To make the change, *or* to make it quietly could be excused as a mistake, but to do both takes a bit of scheming and planning. Alarming!

SantryRed

What would be the punishment if this was to come in? A fine? Or is that not decided yet either? Baffling reading through this thread. So many lanes not fit for use in Dublin.

cdaly_

So, is there a cycle lane outside Dept of Transport or the RSA premises where a horde of cyclists might end up queuing to get into the cycle around getting to work time or going home time?...

Chuchote

Leeson Lane, where the Department HQ is, seems to be entered only from Leeson Street Lower. There is also a bus/cycle lane on Kildare Street.

quozl

I would genuinely be up for protesting this in as disruptive a manor as possible to the Dept of Transport, RSA and Dail, if it is not fixed soon.

Roadhawk

quozl wrote: »

I would genuinely be up for protesting this in as disruptive a manor as possible to the Dept of Transport, RSA and Dail, if it is not fixed soon.

In favor for the lanes to be mandatory or against?

tomasrojo

Roadhawk wrote: »

In favor for the lanes to be mandatory or against?

In the words of Hex Enduction Hour, "HAVE A BLEEDIN GUESS."

Roadhawk

tomasrojo wrote: »

In the words of Hex Enduction Hour, "HAVE A BLEEDIN GUESS."

Hex Enduction Hour? i had to google that one...from the 80's...way before my time.

well if its in favor of the lanes to be mandatory, count me in

eeeee

Roadhawk wrote: »

well if its in favor of the lanes to be mandatory, count me in

The majority of off road cycle lanes at the moment are dangerous, badly designed, badly maintained (if at all) and largely full of shyte.
They endanger the lives of cyclists and their equipment.
Any decent amount of time spent cycling in the city will tell you that.
I have commuted around the city for 10 years now, experience has absolutely confirmed the above. Decent off road lanes are an absolute rarity and an exception to the rule.
This is an absolutely regressive step, any decent time spent on a bike using them will tell anyone that.

I'd love to take these 'interpreters' on a cycling tour of Dublin's shyte cycle lanes and see how they'd interpret things afterwards.

tomasrojo

Roadhawk wrote: »

Hex Enduction Hour? i had to google that one...from the 80's...way before my time.

To be fair, people who were alive in the 80s might have to google that one too.

Crocked

Roadhawk wrote: »

Hex Enduction Hour? i had to google that one...from the 80's...way before my time.

well if its in favor of the lanes to be mandatory, count me in

Explains a lot with regard to your outlook on the sharing of roads.