Cycle lanes now mandatory again, apparently

galwaycyclist

Carawaystick wrote: »

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

Apologies you are right.

Write 100 lines "you cannot multitask you have the wrong chromosomes"

trellheim

The minister can clarify this instantly by issuing a revised SI

Summary of facts so far AFAICS

1. The RotR are not the Law
2. The Law - in this case - is the SI - Dept of Transport issue these from the Minister
3. RotR have been amended by the RSA to change cycle lanes to mandatory
4. RotR change has not amended the revision number, making this a stealth change


I don't have a working PDF comparison utility but it may be worthwhile seeing what else was sneaked in.

mackeminexile

at the same time as enforcing the basic laws against speeding, RLJ's, mobile phone usage, eating breakfast, doing make-up etc all while wrapped in 2 tonnes of moving metal...

plodder

trellheim wrote: »

The minister can clarify this instantly by issuing a revised SI

If the problem (as they see it) is that a comma is missing in section 4(a) after the word 'area' then it could be the shortest SI ever, but it would involve accepting they made a mistake.

trellheim

and that they accepted the ensuing rabid storm of complaint.

expectationlost

im trying to find some announcement of the 5th revision of the rules of the road
the website says

The current Rules of the Road comply with and reflect the road traffic law as at 1st March 2007. It is important to check this website for updates in case of rule changes

http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Learner-Drivers/Your-learner-permit/Rules-of-the-road/

the ROTR is published by O'Brien press for the RSA and those pdf are just a copy of the book http://www.obrien.ie/rules-of-the-road published 2015

tomasrojo

Of course, the RSA have a private, top-secret agency to interpret the law for them.
http://irishcycle.com/2015/06/03/rsa-rejects-foi-on-cycle-lane-safety-due-to-commercial-sensitivity/

Don't got trying to interpret the law yourself now. Leave it to the RSA and their secret decoder ring.

Jimmy Garlic

check_six wrote: »

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!

You are using the roads motorists pay for un-taxed and un-insured. Just follow the rules and stop complaining.

check_six

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

You are using the roads motorists pay for un-taxed and un-insured. Just follow the rules and stop complaining.

Would you rather I followed what's written in the SI, or what's written in the Rules of the Road pdf? Before answering, bear in mind that they are not the same, and are also not equivalent in legal standing.

Not that it makes a blind bit of difference to my cycling, it may ease your mind to know that I pay rather a lot of motor tax and insurance on a car that's infrequently used. So much pro rata, in fact, that every time I venture out in my car I get an echelon of Garda motorcycle outriders to escort me and a couple of backbench TDs to scatter rose petals in my path. 'Cause that's how tax works nowadays.

traprunner

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

You are using the roads motorists pay for un-taxed and un-insured. Just follow the rules and stop complaining.

Oh Joe. It's awful. You know like they don't even pay road tax or insurance or nuttin. Using our roads and all.

Maybe you should learn about motor tax. Also insurance too.


The RSA need to monitored by the department they report to. They shouldn't have a need for a private legal company to interpret law as the department and attorney general should have provided the correct translation.

monument

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

You are using the roads motorists pay for un-taxed and un-insured. Just follow the rules and stop complaining.

Off-topic and trolling -- cut it out!

-- moderator

Roadhawk

I believe that in a perfect world the law would state that cyclists must use the infrastructure provided for them otherwise why build it at all? The government should either confirm that a cyclist must use a cycle track where provided and invest in adding new cycle lanes (strategically - not frivolously) or remove all cycle lanes allowing more road space for all road users and stop investing unnecessarily.

I think the current cycle track network in Dublin mainly lacks structural continuity and has cyclists behind a fence one minute, on a road the next and then in a painted strip on the road? Not realistic.

tomasrojo

Other countries do have a mandatory-use requirement: Germany and the Netherlands, for example. However, these countries also have minimum standards for cycle facilities, quite exacting ones in the case of the Netherlands. Anything can be a cycle facility here, provided you add the right sign. So a footpath, the top of a garden wall, a row of single bricks snaking off into the distance ... anything you like. The only definition of a cycle track is that it has the correct line flanking it, and the correct sign.

So, while Germany in particular has some pretty poor cycling infrastructure, they don't have things like this, and if they did, they have a process by which users can have it declared not to be compulsory to use:

Roadhawk

Deedsie wrote: »

That is possibly your most reasonable contribution to this discussion since you started posting here. Fair play.

Thanks...I started cycling for a better insight into many issues. Im not completely convinced but im on the way

plodder

In any case, what about the exceptions that used to be provided for, when they were mandatory:

(i) where a person driving a pedal cycle intends to change direction and has indicated that intention, or

(ii) where a bus is stopped in the cycle track at a point where traffic sign RUS 031 (bus stop) is provided, or

(iii) where a vehicle is parked in the cycle track for the purpose of loading or unloading.

Exception (i) allowed cyclists to leave a cycle-track at a junction in order to make a turn. Those exceptions no longer exist. Are they saying that cyclists are not allowed to change direction, or they have to dismount and use pedestrian crossings etc.?

magicbastarder

one problem is that cyclists of different abilities have different needs;a confident fit cyclist is more comfortable on the road and is not intimidated by traffic, but someone starting out woudl be much more comfortable on an off-road lane.

has anyone seen the new cycle lanes in ashbourne? they're quite substantial off-road lanes, far wider than a red lane would be, and the work to install them has narrowed the road quite a bit. they suffer from the 'let's dump the cyclist back into traffic right at the junction' flaw a lot of these lanes have, plus they're used as a car park in ashbourne village.

cython

Roadhawk wrote: »

I believe that in a perfect world the law would state that cyclists must use the infrastructure provided for them otherwise why build it at all?

Not to be contrarian, but if we're going to talk about Utopias here, I would contend that there would also be excellent cycling facilities in place before any mandatory requirement for usage would be imposed.

Roadhawk wrote: »

The government should either confirm that a cyclist must use a cycle track where provided and invest in adding new cycle lanes (strategically - not frivolously) or remove all cycle lanes allowing more road space for all road users and stop investing unnecessarily.

To follow on from the above, I think this is a case of putting the cart before the horse. You need to first ensure that there is fit-for-purpose infrastructure in place before making the usage of same mandatory, otherwise you have a conflict between the law dictating mandatory usage, and the legal responsibility to not put oneself in danger. With this in mind, the binary choice you have outlined is not really accurate, as it does not allow for infrastructure to be improved to a point where mandatory usage can be safely written into law.

Roadhawk wrote: »

I think the current cycle track network in Dublin mainly lacks structural continuity and has cyclists behind a fence one minute, on a road the next and then in a painted strip on the road? Not realistic.

This is but one of its problems in my view. Maintenance would be another big issue.

Roadhawk

Deedsie wrote: »

Ah lay off road hawk he has gone from the most anti cycling poster in the forum to a borderline cycling sympathiser :-)

I 100% agree with you re maintenance of cycling lanes. Glass and slippery surfaces are another reason to avoid them.

Well as i said im not entirely convinced but in on the way.

Roadhawk

cython wrote: »

Not to be contrarian, but if we're going to talk about Utopias here, I would contend that there would also be excellent cycling facilities in place before any mandatory requirement for usage would be imposed.To follow on from the above, I think this is a case of putting the cart before the horse. You need to first ensure that there is fit-for-purpose infrastructure in place before making the usage of same mandatory, otherwise you have a conflict between the law dictating mandatory usage, and the legal responsibility to not put oneself in danger. With this in mind, the binary choice you have outlined is not really accurate, as it does not allow for infrastructure to be improved to a point where mandatory usage can be safely written into law.

This is but one of its problems in my view. Maintenance would be another big issue.

I agree...over the last few years the current cycle network has been neglected in terms of maintenance and built poorly in terms of new lanes but i still think it needs to be all or nothing from the government. Otherwise its just another half arsed project from the irish government.

2RockMountain

Deedsie wrote: »

I
I contacted DLRCC this week about the Northbound cycle lane coming up to the N11 Lower Kilmacud road junction. Seeing if they could move a filter traffic light out of the cycle lane to the far side of the crossing. And trim back the hedge protruding halfway across the cycle lane.

No budget apparently, but they had enough budget to stupidly place the filter lane light there originally.

Is it the far traffic light pole in this location that you're talking about?

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.2892998,-6.1956086,3a,75y,192.47h,83.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1st2485-FIoKiMbmmadIcHng!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Is that on a cycle lane?

It is awful disappointing that local authorities seem to be surprised by growing hedgerows and trees each summer. Surely there should be planned maintenance to cut these back?

ted1

2RockMountain wrote: »

Is it the far traffic light pole in this location that you're talking about?

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.2892998,-6.1956086,3a,75y,192.47h,83.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1st2485-FIoKiMbmmadIcHng!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Is that on a cycle lane?

It is awful disappointing that local authorities seem to be surprised by growing hedgerows and trees each summer. Surely there should be planned maintenance to cut these back?

It actually divides the cycle lane and and footpath

what_traffic

tomasrojo wrote: »

The Head of the Consulting Engineer group responsible for this scheme in Doughiska, Galway City - is now the head of the Roads Dept in Galway City Council. You actually get rewarded for this stuff!

2RockMountain

Deedsie wrote: »

Yes that is the one. It should be moved up along the kerb to where the drain is visible.

Does the cycle lane not end at the end of the dark tarmac, about 1m back along the path?

trellheim

DTTAS contacted RSA and ordered them to change it ; a query was just answered on RSA FB about the origin of the change.

2RockMountain

Deedsie wrote: »

To me it becomes a kind of shared pedestrian/cyclist zone from there on. The red part of the crossing is for bikes apparently. Well there is a faded bike painted on it.

You might be right. If not, the cyclist is just left in limbo with nowhere to go at the end of the lane, so some kind of redesign is needed.

tomasrojo

trellheim wrote: »

DTTAS contacted RSA and ordered them to change it ; a query was just answered on RSA FB about the origin of the change.

To change the "must" statement in the RotR?

nomdeboardie

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.

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



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



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.

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

"Revision No. 4: December 2013" (former link) did also contain the "must obey" imperative for listed item "Do cycle on cycle tracks where they are provided" (page 192, =193 of the PDF), same as currently-provided Rev 5 March 2015 document (page 191, =193 of the PDF). So while the change in the yellow-highlighted pronouncement elsewhere in the documents is indeed significant, and suggests the 2013 version was influenced by the wording of the 2012 revocation and it's 'interprative' statement and that someone then 'corrected' that so that there would be no doubt that mandatory use still applied :rolleyes:, it may be the case that the general 'must use' imperative was never completely removed from the ROTR documents...

nomdeboardie

trellheim wrote: »

DTTAS contacted RSA and ordered them to change it ; a query was just answered on RSA FB about the origin of the change.

Do you have a link for that? I can only find https://www.facebook.com/RSADrivingTest/ and can't find the message you mention there. (Mabe I'm just bad at finding stuff on Facemuck, though :P)

2RockMountain

nomdeboardie wrote: »

Do you have a link for that? I can only find https://www.facebook.com/RSADrivingTest/ and can't find the message you mention there. (Mabe I'm just bad at finding stuff on Facemuck, though :P)

Go to https://www.facebook.com/RSAIreland/ and look for 'Visitor Posts'. If you're on a laptop/desktop, it will be on left side, a bit down.

expectationlost

2RockMountain wrote: »

Go to https://www.facebook.com/RSAIreland/ and look for 'Visitor Posts'. If you're on a laptop/desktop, it will be on left side, a bit down.

Chris Slattery https://www.facebook.com/RSAIreland/posts/1380829188613390
Yesterday at 3:39pm
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
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.