Reinstatement of mandatory use?

radia

Casey Neistat's video from New York is well known, and an entertaining demonstration of the implications of mandatory cycle lane use, taken literally.

magicbastarder

apologies if i'm asking a question which has already been answered - have the RSA made any clear statements on their preference?

i.e. are they lobbying for reinstatement?

cdaly_

HivemindXX wrote: »

It's fine all up along the road, of course it's not mandatory for some reason. Then when the road narrows it becomes mandatory (solid white line)

Don't confuse 'mandatory (solid white line)' with 'mandatory use'.

'mandatory (solid white line)' means that no vehicle other than a bicycle may use the lane. 'not mandatory (broken white line)' means that other vehicles may use the lane temporarily. These definition in no way relate to a requirement for cyclists to use the lane.

'mandatory use' in the context of this thread relates to the discussion of legislation specifying when a cyclist is required to use a cycle lane (currently in a pedestrian zone or as a contra-flow lane).

tomasrojo

magicbastarder wrote: »

apologies if i'm asking a question which has already been answered - have the RSA made any clear statements on their preference?

i.e. are they lobbying for reinstatement?

They opposed revocation in the first place. I think it was one of the things that held back revocation for three years (announced 2009, delivered 2012), coupled with a change of government.

The thing about the "consultation" the Department want is that it's already been had. Varadkar did this already. They just don't like what he decided and are asking Ross for a do-over. They seem to think he'll oblige.

DirkVoodoo

It's a shame that the RSA's mandate of "working to save lives" essentially boils down to "Get everyone out of the way of all the big fast cars!"

I decided to use the cycle path going past Eden Park drive yesterday. I haven't used it in years because the "yield" for cyclists creates an impossible situation to manage where you have to pretty much come to a stop in order to make sure you won't be hit from the left or right.

I also forgot how dangerous the path behind the bus shelter is. To call it a bone shaker is putting it mildly. If you didn't know what to expect and weren't braced for it (taking a drink for example) then you could easily have an accident!

If mandatory use comes back in, it will be an extremely disappointing move backwards. Cycling in Dublin is actually becoming pleasant now!

tomasrojo

There's also the injustice of something being compulsory to use when the thing itself has no standards. There are literally no binding standards in place; there are guidelines, but if you don't follow them, what you build is still a cycle track if you put the correct signage on it.

So you're a hostage to the good will of the local authorities, who largely regard active travel as a nuisance to be diverted to the margins.

tomasrojo

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

It's a shame that the RSA's mandate of "working to save lives" essentially boils down to "Get everyone out of the way of all the big fast cars!"

It's a contradiction at the heart of road safety as currently practised. Most of the targets and metrics can best be met by discouraging people from walking and cycling. (If the Department of Health were involved, it would be different, in that the outcome of such policies would be more obviously negative if health metrics were included in the assessment of success.)

A great deal of the fall in child road fatalities is the result of children being conveyed from one safe location to another, much like prisoners.

rollingscone

https://twitter.com/Flaminghobo1/status/758714271400329218?s=09

magicbastarder

tomasrojo wrote: »

There's also the injustice of something being compulsory to use when the thing itself has no standards. There are literally no binding standards in place; there are guidelines, but if you don't follow them, what you build is still a cycle track if you put the correct signage on it.

So you're a hostage to the good will of the local authorities, who largely regard active travel as a nuisance to be diverted to the margins.

is there any legal basis on which to challenge a mandatory law so; given you could argue in court that if the council wanted to surface cycle lanes with lava and call it a cycle lane, use would still be mandatory?

tomasrojo

magicbastarder wrote: »

is there any legal basis on which to challenge a mandatory law so; given you could argue in court that if the council wanted to surface cycle lanes with lava and call it a cycle lane, use would still be mandatory?

My understanding, given to me back in the day by a law professor discussing the 1998 SI and how to get rid of it, is that often the best way to challenge this sort of issue is to wait for a case to arise, such as where action is taken against a cyclist for not using a cycle track, and then that cyclist would have locus standi (i.e. legal standing) to seek a judicial review of the particular statutory instrument.

In the UK cycle campaigners do have a legal fund for contesting court cases. If the Department of Transport is openly turning against active travel, something like that might be required.

fat bloke

We've been taking our girls put cycling a bit more now they've gotten little road bikes. I'm finding that the primary lesson we're all learning is - "better off not bothering with the cycle lane"

2RockMountain

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 general, I'd be first to the barricades for a good protest, but we need to be clever about how we approach this. If we go about it the wrong way, we could make the situation much worse.

tomasrojo wrote: »

My understanding, given to me back in the day by a law professor discussing the 1998 SI and how to get rid of it, is that often the best way to challenge this sort of issue is to wait for a case to arise, such as where action is taken against a cyclist for not using a cycle track, and then that cyclist would have locus standi (i.e. legal standing) to seek a judicial review of the particular statutory instrument.

In the UK cycle campaigners do have a legal fund for contesting court cases. If the Department of Transport is openly turning against active travel, something like that might be required.

That is certainly one option. If the view of the SI clauses set out by Seamus stands up, we should be safe enough in Court.

But this is a complex area with multiple stakeholders - Gardai, RSA, Minister, Dept Officials, NTA, TII and possibly more. We really need to think it through before we rush into something.

tomasrojo

2RockMountain wrote: »

That is certainly one option. If the view of the SI clauses set out by Seamus stands up, we should be safe enough in Court.

The way things are, I have no doubt that everyone is pretty safe from successful prosecution for failure to use a cycle track. The issue is that under pretence that there is "ambiguity" (there isn't), the Department is going to get Ross to write a "clearer" SI. The content won't be the same; the tracks will be compulsory to use in the re-write, based on the "expert" advice of the Gardaí and the RSA.

And that new version is what would have to be challenged by judicial review, should the opportunity arise.

tomasrojo

When I say "safe from successful prosecution" I mean that it would seem incredible that a judge would read the current SI and say, "Hmm, yes, well, I know what Varakdar meant, but if I read this in a hurry and didn't give it a lot of thought I might conclude that cycle tracks provided on roads or parts of roads must be used. Ok, I'm going to go with Guilty."

tomasrojo

2RockMountain wrote: »

But this is a complex area with multiple stakeholders - Gardai, RSA, Minister, Dept Officials, NTA, TII and possibly more. We really need to think it through before we rush into something.

I'd add cyclists to the top of that list!

Chuchote

I've had personal responses from eight TDs so far, three of them ex-Ministers, and several promising to raise this for discussion (with their party colleagues, alas, but that's the system we have…)

I would warmly recommend that others email at least their own TDs plus Leo Varadkar, Shane Ross and any others who have been mentioned, and make the point clearly about how awful most cycle lanes in Ireland currently are (and how popular with cyclists the good ones are).

nomdeboardie

Chuchote wrote: »

I've had personal responses from eight TDs so far, three of them ex-Ministers, and several promising to raise this for discussion (with their party colleagues, alas, but that's the system we have…)

I would warmly recommend that others email at least their own TDs plus Leo Varadkar, Shane Ross and any others who have been mentioned, and make the point clearly about how awful most cycle lanes in Ireland currently are (and how popular with cyclists the good ones are).

Good work

I've done quite a bit of haranguing various bodies in the past, and will probably join in again when I get a clearer indication of exactly what the 'offocial' situation is.

Chuchote

nomdeboardie wrote: »

Good work

I've done quite a bit of haranguing various bodies in the past, and will probably join in again when I get a clearer indication of exactly what the 'offocial' situation is.

Basically all I said was that it was awful to propose to force people to use lanes that are largely unfit for purpose, and listed a bunch of ways that current lanes are unfit; then I said it would be great to have proper protected lanes, especially going to schools, and said why — health, obesity, carbon footprint, self-reliance, etc.

tomasrojo

Incidentally, I was listening to the Irish Times "Inside Politics" podcast (came up on Twitter; mostly about how suitable referendums are for making complex decisions), and they were discussing when Enda Kenny would step down. The political correspondent said maybe after the budget, with Varadkar as one of the obvious favourites to take over.

So that would be interesting, Ross unpicking the policies of a politician that might be about to head the coalition of which Ross is a member. They mentioned that Varadkar isn't enamoured with the Independents anyway.

Chuchote

tomasrojo wrote: »

Incidentally, I was listening to the Irish Times "Inside Politics" podcast (came up on Twitter; mostly about how suitable referendums are for making complex decisions), and they were discussing when Enda Kenny would step down. The political correspondent said maybe after the budget, with Varadkar as one of the obvious favourites to take over.

So that would be interesting, Ross unpicking the policies of a politician that might be about to head the coalition of which Ross is a member. They mentioned that Varadkar isn't enamoured with the Independents anyway.

Probably needs them, but.

godtabh

I got a reply from Ross. Going to read it again to see if I'll copy and paste here.

On my phone so if Indint copy and paste I'll post some of it later

tomasrojo

Chuchote wrote: »

Probably needs them, but.

They were saying that FG would probably enjoy a resurgence of popularity with a new leader, especially Varadkar. They said he would probably destabilise the coalition anyway, because he so obviously resented the Independents.

randomname2005

godtabh wrote: »

I got a reply from Ross. Going to read it again to see if I'll copy and paste here.

On my phone so if Indint copy and paste I'll post some of it later

Don't leave us in suspense.... :P

buffalo

godtabh wrote: »

I got a reply from Ross. Going to read it again to see if I'll copy and paste here.

On my phone so if Indint copy and paste I'll post some of it later

I got one too, probably similar.

Many thanks for your email. You are correct - there is ambiguity with regard to the mandatory use of cycle tracks. Clarification is needed in relation to the issue.

This Department is currently consulting with the Road Safety Authority and An Garda Síochána and has sought their views on the relevant provisions. Before any amendments might be made to clarify the situation in relation to the circumstances surrounding the mandatory use of cycle lanes, 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.

The Department has committed to look at legislation regarding cycling measures, and any potential legislative changes will be examined in the Autumn. I have received correspondence from a number of cyclists expressing similar concerns as yourself regarding the safety of some cycle lanes. I will ensure that this issue is considered in determining the final position on the matter.

Many thanks for getting in touch. If there is anything further I can help you with please do get in touch. Sorry I cant offer more precise information at this time but I will be back in touch as soon as the position has been clarified. Your very valid points will be taken on board.

ThisRegard

Isn't the main gist of that the same as what the department official has been saying, i.e. We're consulting with the RSA and the Gardai to see how we can make the roads 'safer' for motorists by removing cyclists from the equation so it's one less thing they have to deal with.

Crocked

I'd read that as, we are bringing in mandatory use but need to pretend to consult on it first. So we'll get the Gards and RSA to come up with some bull**** reasons we can give in a press release to the jurnos. Hey presto motorists, no more pesky cyclists holding you up at lights, I mean "safety" yay.

Just in time for the inevitable early general election.

traprunner

I've found that in the last 4 months or so motorists are much better in Dublin with cyclists. Why ruin the harmony that is being created now?

Chuchote

In all my replies to the TDs and ministers who replied (more today), I supplied some info about best-practice cycle tracks – including the US study that showed business booming for shops, etc where protected cycle tracks were installed.
Here's a 2011 list of TDs' email addresses:

http://www.politicalworld.org/showthread.php?8503-List-of-Email-Contact-Details-for-TDs-Ready-to-CC#.V6BZ9WXDFSU

Emailing all is a good idea (dar liom) because it should get a buzz going about cycling and cycle lanes.

An example of how this works. I have become impatient with my awful school French, and decided to try to upgrade it to yack-yack-away level with the help of chat exchanges on Skype, etc. So I'm talking to one nice Parisian lady about cooking (her: sorbets; me: scones), and she asks me what I've been doing. I explain about getting a bike fit and how it worked, and tell her about cycling out to Dun Laoghaire and wandering around the Forty Foot laughing at the hellraising divers.

The next week she comes back from her holiday in L'Île de Ré, and I ask her what she did for the week, and she says "J'ai loué une bicyclette!" and tells how she cycled all over the island.

tomasrojo

ThisRegard wrote: »

Isn't the main gist of that the same as what the department official has been saying, i.e. We're consulting with the RSA and the Gardai to see how we can make the roads 'safer' for motorists by removing cyclists from the equation so it's one less thing they have to deal with.

And note, apart from the identical wording between Ross' reply and all the other replies, the total lack of consultation with cycling groups. Or even Varadkar.

(Also, there is no ambiguity.)

Chuchote

In newspapers, there's a trope that one letter to the editor normally works out as 1,000 other people who haven't bothered to take up a pen. Same with politicians: it's the squeaky wheel gets the oil.

Motorists have traditionally squeaked far louder than cyclists in Ireland. If you want the cycle lanes to be a) good and b) there, you have to talk to politicians; if you don't ask, you won't get.