Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Cycle lanes now mandatory again, apparently

Options
12467

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Dyr
    Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    check_six wrote: »
    Enforcing the law?

    Enforcing what the law states?

    Or enforcing the misinterpretation of an unnamed civil servant?

    We can start with the basics, pull up cyclists mounting pavements and breaking lights then work their way up to the controversial stuff.

    Broken windows and all that


  • Options
    #93
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    Bambi wrote: »
    We can start with the basics, pull up cyclists mounting pavements and breaking lights then work their way up to the controversial stuff.

    Broken windows and all that


    They could do that but wouldn't time be better spent on enforcement of laws surrounding the riskier and greater offences of cars mounting the footpads and breaking lights? Bikes tend not to kill people but cars kill 100's every year here. There is a serious lack of resources within the Gardai so they should be put to the best use possible.


  • Options
    #94
    check_six
    Registered Users Posts: 2,245 ✭✭✭check_six


    Bambi wrote: »
    We can start with the basics, pull up cyclists mounting pavements and breaking lights then work their way up to the controversial stuff.

    Broken windows and all that

    Is this to do with a civil servant stating erroneously that the change to the law regarding cycle tracks never took place and, in fact, the regulations were tightened in the opposite direction?

    Or have you wandered in here by mistake from a completely different thread?


  • Options
    #95
    Pinch Flat
    Registered Users Posts: 7,761 ✭✭✭Pinch Flat


    Bambi wrote: »
    We can start with the basics, pull up cyclists mounting pavements and breaking lights.....

    But they already do? :confused:


  • Options
    #96
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Bambi wrote: »
    We can start with the basics, pull up cyclists mounting pavements and breaking lights then work their way up to the controversial stuff.

    Broken windows and all that

    As already stated -- there's already threads for those topic and it's off topic here.

    -- moderator


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    plodder
    Registered Users Posts: 7,139 ✭✭✭plodder


    I just took a look at the traffic sign manual to see what it says about RUS021 and it clearly can be used on roads or any area where traffic is not allowed. I think if they wanted to state that cycle tracks are to be used in three different cases, they would have put it in a list like:

    - roads,
    - portions of roads, or
    - areas at the entrance to which traffic sign RUS021 is provided

    Stating it the way they did, means that it makes more sense to interpret it as RUS021 must be present in all of the three cases.

    So, on "mature reflection" I think the new interpretation is wrong, and share the general wonderment about where this came out of ...


  • Options
    #98
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,834 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    This is one example:
    https://www.google.ie/maps/place/53%C2%B025'36.0%22N+6%C2%B021'29.4%22W/@53.4266542,-6.3589795,143m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d53.426653!4d-6.358174

    The cycle lanes on this road are rarely used. Most cyclist use the road and this is brand new infrastructure.

    I'm late to this party but I use this area several times a day. Most cyclists out for a spin will use the pretty good and wide road, causing no obstruction to other traffic. And the vast majority commuting or sauntering you'll find on the shared pedestrian/cycle lanes.

    If you're on a training spin you don't want to, or need to, stop and start at every roundabout you get to when on the cycle lane, nor mixing it up with pedestrians and runners.

    You'll also find that many of the dead end junctions at the roundabouts are used for parking by an assortment of trucks, particularly near the construction of the pharmaceutical plants, blocking the path/lane from one side of the road to the other.


  • Options
    #99
    boardbeer
    Registered Users Posts: 138 ✭✭boardbeer


    plodder wrote: »
    Not a lawyer, but I don't think so. The explanatory note is not the law. A judge won't even look at it if it comes to a real case. What the law said previously is not directly relevant either, nor what is stated in the Dail, only the text of the laws and regulations currently in force.
    As we are governed by a common law regime, rather than a civil one, the judge would absolutely have to consider explanatory notes, the minister's statements regarding intent, as well as any precedent, in making a judgement.


  • Options
    #100
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    boardbeer wrote: »
    As we are governed by a common law regime, rather than a civil one, the judge would absolutely have to consider explanatory notes, the minister's statements regarding intent, as well as any precedent, in making a judgement.

    Unfortunately not, marginal notes, headers, footers etc can not legally be taken to be part of the enactment or be construed or judicially noticed in relation to the construction or interpretation of any enactment.


  • Options
    #101
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,494 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    GM228 wrote: »
    Unfortunately not, marginal notes, headers, footers etc can not legally be taken to be part of the enactment or be construed or judicially noticed in relation to the construction or interpretation of any enactment.

    Neither can the commentary from a civil servant about what they think the law states. As Galwaycyclist said earlier, that is for a judge to interpret. The judge will decide when it is presented, should a suitable piece of legislation to bring the person in breach of the law to court exist.

    The judge would then decide, if the person challenged, which interpretation of the law was correct. If there are multiple possible ways to interpret the statement, the judge may refer to the notes you mention for guidance but they would be in no way bound nor led by them.

    This could several ways.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    CramCycle wrote: »
    Neither can the commentary from a civil servant about what they think the law states.

    That's correct.
    CramCycle wrote: »
    As Galwaycyclist said earlier, that is for a judge to interpret. The judge will decide when it is presented, should a suitable piece of legislation to bring the person in breach of the law to court exist.

    The judge would then decide, if the person challenged, which interpretation of the law was correct. If there are multiple possible ways to interpret the statement, the judge may refer to the notes you mention for guidance but they would be in no way bound nor led by them.

    This could several ways.

    Yes only a court can determine any challenged interpretation of law. Problem is though that such a case would be brought before the District Court and a DC judge can't interpret law.

    That would be a matter for the Hight Court or Supreme Court only, if the interpretation was in doubt a DC judge would need to refer to the HC for definitive interpretation so unless such happens or an amendment is made which makes the law clear there could be a question mark over this for a while.

    With regards a judge referring to the notes for guidance as I already said this can't be done, you may be surprised but for a judge to do that he/she would actually be breaking the law and the judgment would then be a cause for prosecutions to be challenged. In a judgement for interpretation the judge would have to give other guiding reasons for his interpretation other than the notes.


  • Options
    #103
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,480 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    CramCycle wrote: »
    Neither can the commentary from a civil servant about what they think the law states.
    but was it a civil servant who wrote the law?
    the commonsense response there would be that if only judges can say what a law actually states, it should only be judges writing the law.
    i.e. if it was my job to write law, my boss would be a bit bemused if i told him i could not decide the meaning of what i had actually written.

    it's a bit absurd (not saying it's not the case) if the judge did not take the stated intent of the law into account in a courtroom - i.e. if a mistake in the law which was clearly unintended criminalises an activity, the judge is bound to punish something which by any measure was never intended to be criminalised.


  • Options
    #104
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,494 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    GM228 wrote: »
    With regards a judge referring to the notes for guidance as I already said this can't be done, you may be surprised but for a judge to do that he/she would actually be breaking the law and the judgment would then be a cause for prosecutions to be challenged. In a judgement for interpretation the judge would have to give other guiding reasons for his interpretation other than the notes.
    They can look at the text as it is but there would be thought given for the authors intention (so long as its not unconstitutional, all law is given the presumption of constitutionality until challenged AFAIK) and then set down narrow but clear rules for this specific law. I am not sure what it is called here but I think in the US they use the phrase legislative intent. The notes mentioned here could be taken into consideration here.

    You are right, it would be a HC (I presume it would not go anywhere near the SC). I doubt that there would be much thrown at it.

    It's much like the one brake on a track bike law. The spirit of the law is clearly that there is one mechanical brake in addition to the braking force of the riders legs, as it follows on from the preceding paragraphs. You could interpret it that the legs are one form of brake and sufficient. While there are no notes, it would be clear to any legal eagle, the spirit of the law means in addition to your legs, there is one brake.

    Its not been tested though AFAIK.
    magicbastarder wrote: »
    but was it a civil servant who wrote the law?
    the commonsense response there would be that if only judges can say what a law actually states, it should only be judges writing the law.
    i.e. if it was my job to write law, my boss would be a bit bemused if i told him i could not decide the meaning of what i had actually written.
    That's why you have several legal reviews before a law or S.I. is passed. They try and straighten the law out to the point where a judge would only have one reasonable interpretation of the law.
    it's a bit absurd (not saying it's not the case) if the judge did not take the stated intent of the law into account in a courtroom - i.e. if a mistake in the law which was clearly unintended criminalises an activity, the judge is bound to punish something which by any measure was never intended to be criminalised.
    I could be wrong but I would be shocked in a new or first time case, where the law is challenged, that the judge did not make reasonable attempts to fufill the spirit of the law.


  • Options
    #105
    check_six
    Registered Users Posts: 2,245 ✭✭✭check_six


    A bigger problem for this issue is that some unnamed spokesman for the Department of Transport has accidentally or deliberately misinterpreted the 2012 laws regarding cycle tracks and publicly announced their ideas.

    When some wild-eyed maniac is roaring at you about getting into the cycle lane as it is your "legal obligation" are you going to have the opportunity to serenely state: "That is for the judge of a court higher than the district court to determine! Good day, sir!"

    Any idea of how widely reported the civil servants ideas were?

    I'm remembering back to the nonsense publicity surrounding the FCPNs and the flier that had helmets and hi-viz marked on it as if they were somehow related to the FCPNs. I was pulled over by the guards with flashing blue lights and given a FCPN threat regarding a helmet following on from these leaflets! I'd rather not experience similar regarding cycle lanes.


  • Options
    #106
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    check_six wrote: »
    A bigger problem for this issue is that some unnamed spokesman for the Department of Transport has accidentally or deliberately misinterpreted the 2012 laws regarding cycle tracks and publicly announced their ideas.

    I believe the matter came to light because it was noticed that a recent edition of the RSA document the "Rules of the Road" does not correctly reflect the legal situation and still contains a claim of compulsion.

    So questions were asked.


  • Options
    #107
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,767 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    I believe the matter came to light because it was noticed that a recent edition of the RSA document the "Rules of the Road" does not correctly reflect the legal situation and still contains a claim of compulsion.

    So questions were asked.
    published 10/07/2016
    http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Learner%20Drivers/Rules_of_the_road.pdf
    Do cycle on cycle tracks where they are
    provided.
    pg 191 ?


  • Options
    #108
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    expectationlost wrote: »
    published 10/07/2016
    http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Learner%20Drivers/Rules_of_the_road.pdf pg 191 ?

    Page 189
    Cyclists must use any cycle track provided.

    So it may be that the misleading information started with the RSA and somebody in the department is trying to provide them some kind of cover.

    However there is no plausible deniability for anyone in the department and I cannot see how it can be construed as anything other than an attempt to pervert govt policy and the intent of the Minister.


  • Options
    #109
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    check_six wrote: »
    A bigger problem for this issue is that some unnamed spokesman for the Department of Transport has accidentally or deliberately misinterpreted the 2012 laws regarding cycle tracks and publicly announced their ideas.

    When some wild-eyed maniac is roaring at you about getting into the cycle lane as it is your "legal obligation" are you going to have the opportunity to serenely state: "That is for the judge of a court higher than the district court to determine! Good day, sir!"

    Any idea of how widely reported the civil servants ideas were?

    I'm remembering back to the nonsense publicity surrounding the FCPNs and the flier that had helmets and hi-viz marked on it as if they were somehow related to the FCPNs. I was pulled over by the guards with flashing blue lights and given a FCPN threat regarding a helmet following on from these leaflets! I'd rather not experience similar regarding cycle lanes.

    You can be the test case for a challenge.


  • Options
    #110
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    FYI there's still a few strands to the story which I'm working on. It can take a week to get a response sometimes and at that stage I may not be in a position to ask follow up questions.

    I have enough material to do two different follow up stories which look at different aspects of the overall story but I'm doing a bit more digging / pushing to get clearer answers and leave more than a reasonable amount of time to get replies.


  • Options
    #111
    plodder
    Registered Users Posts: 7,139 ✭✭✭plodder


    I just checked the web archive and the online Rules of the road at www.rotr.ie, changed some time this year between Jan 17 and Apr 21.

    Up to Jan this is what the relevant part of p189 looked like

    rotr_zpsuygm9kcd.png

    Some time between Jan and April 21 it was switched to this:

    rotr_new_zps9xj7z9oc.png

    So, it sounds like they are quite serious about it. I'm guessing someone noticed the change and queried it with the dept. but do we know if they made an effort to let people know of the change? I still think this interpretation is wrong btw.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,494 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    plodder wrote: »
    So, it sounds like they are quite serious about it. I'm guessing someone noticed the change and queried it with the dept. but do we know if they made an effort to let people know of the change? I still think this interpretation is wrong btw.

    None that I noticed. I am quite cynical and am convinced that a senior civil servant with an attitude came across a know it all on a bike while in a rush in traffic. One told the other to F off to the bike lane, the other told the first to F off he was legally entitled to use the road and gave the year the law was changed.

    Said civil servant then went in with a bee in his bonnet and after a few meetings, got the change he wanted to win the argument the next time.

    Note: Completely fictitious but not beyond the realms of possibility. Welcome to Ireland where a grumpy sh1t, with money or power, can do what they want all to win a petty irrelevant argument.


  • Options
    #113
    loyatemu
    Registered Users Posts: 14,782 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    this may already have been suggested, but as it was Varadkar who announced the original change in the Dáil; perhaps someone could ask the current Transport Minister to clarify in a dáil question (maybe via one of the Green TDs)?


  • Options
    #114
    plodder
    Registered Users Posts: 7,139 ✭✭✭plodder


    CramCycle wrote: »
    None that I noticed. I am quite cynical and am convinced that a senior civil servant with an attitude came across a know it all on a bike while in a rush in traffic. One told the other to F off to the bike lane, the other told the first to F off he was legally entitled to use the road and gave the year the law was changed.

    Said civil servant then went in with a bee in his bonnet and after a few meetings, got the change he wanted to win the argument the next time.

    Note: Completely fictitious but not beyond the realms of possibility. Welcome to Ireland where a grumpy sh1t, with money or power, can do what they want all to win a petty irrelevant argument.
    The problem is it's no longer just an interpretation from one random civil servant. It seems to be the official understanding of the dept. and of the Road Safety Authority now.

    Just looking at it from their point of view for a minute, I find it incredible that they would let this happen without so much as a post on their (or the RSA's) website to flag it (along with some form of legal opinion on the matter). The RSA puts news items up about all kinds of random things like a driver license exchange agreement with Newfoundland and Labrador (Jan 2016) but also notification of new traffic regulations. If this didn't warrant notification, it's hard to see what would. So, it's either the embarrassment factor for having got it wrong in the first place, or something more sinister like what you're suggesting - neither being an acceptable way of operating. The timeline is interesting too, because this may have happened during the "interregnum" after the last election, with all the implications of that..*

    And that's just assuming their opinion is correct, which I don't think is the case. An interesting thing to do is to try and write the sentence in another way, in plain language, to state what the common understanding of the rule has been. It's actually very hard (to write it any other way), whereas I think it would have been easier to state it unambiguously the other way.

    * I think I said yesterday Paschal Donohoe is the current minister. He was the acting minister at that time probably. It's Shane Ross now and I wonder what his views on all this would be..


  • Options
    #115
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,480 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    i wonder what varadkar's views would be. shane ross probably won't give a toss.


  • Options
    #116
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    plodder wrote: »
    I just checked the web archive and the online Rules of the road at www.rotr.ie, changed some time this year between Jan 17 and Apr 21.

    It changed between 30th Jan and 5th Feb
    https://web.archive.org/web/20160130071126/http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Learner%20Drivers/Rules_of_the_road.pdf
    https://web.archive.org/web/20160205092753/http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Learner%20Drivers/Rules_of_the_roaD.PDF


  • Options
    #117
    check_six
    Registered Users Posts: 2,245 ✭✭✭check_six


    This whole saga is getting more and more sinister. Altering the rules of the road booklet without a peep of publicity is bizarre. I remember another thread from a little while back that was discussing the grammar in the 2012 law. I must check the dates to see if there is any kind of synchronicity with this change. If there was it would be even spookier!


  • Options
    #118
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    Carawaystick wrote: »
    It changed between 30th Jan and 5th Feb
    https://web.archive.org/web/20160130071126/http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Learner%20Drivers/Rules_of_the_road.pdf
    https://web.archive.org/web/20160205092753/http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Learner%20Drivers/Rules_of_the_roaD.PDF

    Both versions contain this claim
    The rules comply with and reflect the Road Traffic Law as at 1 March 2015.


  • Options
    #119
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,767 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    Both versions contain this claim

    last page
    Revision No. 5: March 2015
    http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Learner%20Drivers/Rules_of_the_road.pdf


    https://web.archive.org/web/20160130071126/http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Learner%20Drivers/Rules_of_the_road.pdf
    Revision No. 4: December 2013


  • Options
    #120
    check_six
    Registered Users Posts: 2,245 ✭✭✭check_six


    Here are a few posts from a thread from early June.

    I was reminded of these posts as they are so specific in how they mirror the misinterpretation of the law that the civil servant in the Department of Transport also made. There are a number of posts in reply explaining why the ideas in these posts are erroneous.

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

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=99951210&postcount=174

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=99951451&postcount=176


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    Both versions contain this claim

    The one from January says it complies with the law on 1st March 2013


Advertisement