Reinstatement of mandatory use?

buffalo · 13-07-2016 8:51am #1

http://irishcycle.com/2016/07/12/mandatory-cycle-track-law-not-revoked-in-2012-says-department/

Worthy of its own thread, if the department starts insisting that mandatory use of cycle tracks/lanes was never revoked.

If the explanatory note is incorrect, why did it take them 3.5 years to the point it out... coincidentally just after a new minister without party power or much experience took over.

I'd urge anyone with an interest to get in touch with the Minister or their local TD and ask him that the Department corrects their stance: http://www.shaneross.ie/contact/

TheExile1878 · 13-07-2016 8:58am

Is this a genuine issue or yet another rationale to try to justify cycling on pavements ?

buffalo · 13-07-2016 9:11am

TheExile1878 wrote: »

Is this a genuine issue or yet another rationale to try to justify cycling on pavements ?

What? This is about cycling on roads and cycle lanes. Nothing about "pavements", unless you mean shared cycling facilities.

godtabh · 13-07-2016 9:19am

buffalo wrote: »

What? This is about cycling on roads and cycle lanes. Nothing about "pavements", unless you mean shared cycling facilities.

I think he means cycle lanes either on or off street.

So what is the current legal position of cycling/not cycling on cycle lanes? Maybe I'm reading the article wrong but it seems that the DOT has taken a view on the law that is contrary to the original basis of the law.

wanderer 22 · 13-07-2016 9:20am

buffalo wrote: »

What? This is about cycling on roads and cycle lanes. Nothing about "pavements", unless you mean shared cycling facilities.

emailed - thanks for bringing this up buffalo.

traprunner · 13-07-2016 9:25am

TheExile1878 wrote: »

Is this a genuine issue or yet another rationale to try to justify cycling on pavements ?

Nothing about pavements at all. I'm starting to wonder if you just see 'cycling' get the red mist and can't stop yourself.

godtabh · 13-07-2016 9:39am

I emailed Ross as well. Its baffling. Even in his own constituency there are a lot of locations of poor cycling infrastructure.

Kaisr Sose · 13-07-2016 9:40am

TheExile1878 wrote: »

Is this a genuine issue or yet another rationale to try to justify cycling on pavements ?

I guess you don't cycle...

Of course it's a genuine issue and it's about non mandatory use of cycle lanes - not cycling on pavements. Incidentally, some of these cycle lanes are on pavements. Many of these are not safe to cycle on - so why make it mandatory to do something that carries a risk to cyclist and pedestrians alike? Is the whole point of marked cycle lanes to increase safety for cyclists - not reduce it?
On the Stillorgan Carriage way near Cornellscourt, one of these marked lanes takes up the full pavement - where are the pedestrians supposed to walk?

Where proper cycling infrastructure is put in place and maintained, cyclists tend to use it. So, if they build it, they will come!!!

tomasrojo · 13-07-2016 10:02am

Utterly bizarre. So Leo Varadkar perpetrated an elaborate ruse that kept cycle tracks compulsory to use, while fooling everyone into thinking they were now optional to use. To what purpose?

Email about to be sent.

quozl · 13-07-2016 10:07am

I have emailed the Minister. I am genuinely angry about this, and if it is not clarified soon then I would be interested in any protest against it.

Granolite · 13-07-2016 10:10am

I have sent Minister Ross an email on this as well this morning. Let's hope this is a renegade call on behalf of an individual departmental staff member or subset group in the Department and they will be brought to task or asked to (re)clarify things.

I cannot see how one can re-interpret that section of the 2012 Road Traffic Regulations and to read it and assume that there was no intent to provide the sort of clarity the explanatory note on the last page of the Statutory Instrument provides, and try and interpret and present it in the way the Department has presented it yesterday and leave the explanatory note hanging, and redundant.

PaulieC · 13-07-2016 10:10am

I think I agree with the DoT spokesman and his interpretation:

(4) A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where—
◾(a) a cycle track is provided on a road, a portion of a road, or an area at the entrance to which traffic sign number RUS 021 (pedestrianised street or area) is provided, or

From a semantics and grammar point of view, to exclude all non-pedestrianized roads, an extra comma is required:

(4) A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where— ◾(a) a cycle track is provided on a road, a portion of a road, or an area at the entrance to, which traffic sign number RUS 021 (pedestrianised street or area) is provided, or

I could be wrong, but that's the way I would understand it. Having said that, I am perfectly ok with the situation as it would appear to be at the moment i.e. non-mandatory use of cycle lanes.

tomasrojo · 13-07-2016 10:13am

PaulieC wrote: »

I
From a semantics and grammar point of view, to exclude all non-pedestrianized roads, an extra comma is required:

(4) A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where— ◾(a) a cycle track is provided on a road, a portion of a road, or an area at the entrance to, which traffic sign number RUS 021 (pedestrianised street or area) is provided, or

If that's the case, then why "(a)" and "(b)"?

Why not
(a) roads, portions of roads
(b) pedestrianised zones
(c) contraflow bus lanes
?

Any why did Leo Varadkar announce it as a rescinding of the compulsory use? A joke?

If there's an ambiguity in the wording, then the intent of the law maker should be used to resolve the ambiguity.

(You can't put a comma between "to" and "which" either. Not having a go at you; the wording is a bit awkward either way.)

PaulieC · 13-07-2016 10:18am

tomasrojo wrote: »

If that's the case, then why (a) and (b)?

Why not
(a) roads, portions of roads
(b) pedestrianised zones
(c) contraflow bus lanes
?

Any why did Leo Varadkar announce it as a rescinding of the compulsory use? A joke?

If there's an ambiguity in the wording, then the intent of the law maker should be used to resolve the ambiguity.

(You can't put a comma between "to" and "which" either.)

I agree that the wording is very ambiguous. It could have been a lot clearer and leave no room for misinterpretation. I believe Leo Varadkar was genuine in his intention to rescind the compulsory use, but it was bodged somewhere in the writing.

Yeah, I think my comma should have been before the 'to' , but even then I am not 100%. It really is a terribly badly written piece of regulation.

tomasrojo · 13-07-2016 10:21am

So this all hinges on whether you interpret the text as saying:

A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where

a cycle track is provided on a road
or a cycle track is provided a portion of a road
or where a cycle track is provided in an area at the entrance to which traffic sign number RUS 021 (pedestrianised street or area) is provided

or

a cycle track is provided on a road to which traffic sign number RUS 021 (pedestrianised street or area) is provided
or a portion of a road to which traffic sign number RUS 021 (pedestrianised street or area) is provided
or an area at the entrance to which traffic sign number RUS 021 (pedestrianised street or area) is provided

(Can a road have a traffic sign number RUS 021?)

godtabh · 13-07-2016 10:22am

PaulieC wrote: »

I think I agree with the DoT spokesman and his interpretation:

(4) A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where—
◾(a) a cycle track is provided on a road, a portion of a road, or an area at the entrance to which traffic sign number RUS 021 (pedestrianised street or area) is provided, or

From a semantics and grammar point of view, to exclude all non-pedestrianized roads, an extra comma is required:

(4) A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where— ◾(a) a cycle track is provided on a road, a portion of a road, or an area at the entrance to, which traffic sign number RUS 021 (pedestrianised street or area) is provided, or

I could be wrong, but that's the way I would understand it. Having said that, I am perfectly ok with the situation as it would appear to be at the moment i.e. non-mandatory use of cycle lanes.

Wasn't the hole point of the revoking of the requirement above because even if the above was available it may not be safe to use.

tomasrojo · 13-07-2016 10:23am

I don't think the ambiguity can be resolved with a comma.

(I know commas can clarify restrictive and non-restrictive clauses ("teachers who are lazy let down pupils" versus "teachers, who are lazy, let down pupils", the latter insulting all teachers), but it doesn't seem to work in this case.)

Boskowski · 13-07-2016 10:26am

Not blaming cyclists or the government but the current situation is s bit silly with cycling lanes totally being ignored by cyclists but yet government continues to spend considerable money on these. It has to be one or the other.

PaulieC · 13-07-2016 10:26am

godtabh wrote: »

Wasn't the hole point of the revoking of the requirement above because even if the above was available it may not be safe to use.

Yes. Let me be clear. I don't think that the use of cycle tracks should be compulsory as they are mostly sh*te.

I was just agreeing with the spokesman's interpretation of the existing regulation, which is, at best, ambiguous. I don't agree that it means the requirement was never, or never intended to be, rescinded.

Borderfox · 13-07-2016 10:28am

Boskowski wrote: »

Not blaming cyclists or the government but the current situation is s bit silly with cycling lanes totally being ignored by cyclists but yet government continues to spend considerable money on these. It has to be one or the other.

The cycle lanes are not fit for purpose

2RockMountain · 13-07-2016 10:29am

I wonder about the legal status of this 'clarification'. It is just a statement from a Departmental spokeperson and has no legal standing in itself, any more than the original Minister's explanatory note has.

tomasrojo · 13-07-2016 10:32am

We need the RSA's top-secret legal advisors on the case. (Don't tell anyone I told you about this.)

buffalo · 13-07-2016 10:35am

Boskowski wrote: »

Not blaming cyclists or the government but the current situation is s bit silly with cycling lanes totally being ignored by cyclists but yet government continues to spend considerable money on these. It has to be one or the other.

What sort of sums are you talking about? Even if it really is 'considerable', does spending a lot of money on something guarantee good, safe design?

Or perhaps if well-designed, well-built cycle lanes were put in place, people would naturally use them more? There's no mandatory use of the M4/6 to get from Dublin to Galway - people use it because it's quicker and safer, even though it's more expensive. Why can't we have the same for cycle lanes?

tomasrojo · 13-07-2016 10:35am

Boskowski wrote: »

Not blaming cyclists or the government but the current situation is s bit silly with cycling lanes totally being ignored by cyclists but yet government continues to spend considerable money on these. It has to be one or the other.

With a small number of exceptions, "considerable" money is not being spent. They're mostly absurd stripes of red tarmac on a street that was designed exclusively for motorised traffic.. In the overall context of transport spending it's a complete pittance.

tomasrojo · 13-07-2016 10:39am

The new interpretation, as pointed out in the Irish Cycle article, also makes the situation more absurd than the 1997 SI did. Now there are no exceptions to the use. As absurd as the original SI was, it did list scenarios where use was not compulsory.

tomasrojo · 13-07-2016 10:44am

Another point I just realised is that the new interprtation would be covered by the simple text:

Cycle tracks must be used where cycle tracks are provided

The SI contains no other information than that, if the new interpretation is correct.

tomasrojo · 13-07-2016 10:46am

When the Irish version of the marriage equality constitutional amendment was argued to make marriages between people of opposite sex illegal, I remember letters being sent to the paper that said that in the event that an ambiguity creeps in that is clearly absurd, the interpretation that is not absurd is preferred. For reasons of sanity.

TheExile1878 · 13-07-2016 10:47am

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

I guess you don't cycle...

Of course it's a genuine issue and it's about non mandatory use of cycle lanes - not cycling on pavements. Incidentally, some of these cycle lanes are on pavements. Many of these are not safe to cycle on - so why make it mandatory to do something that carries a risk to cyclist and pedestrians alike? Is the whole point of marked cycle lanes to increase safety for cyclists - not reduce it?
On the Stillorgan Carriage way near Cornellscourt, one of these marked lanes takes up the full pavement - where are the pedestrians supposed to walk?

Where proper cycling infrastructure is put in place and maintained, cyclists tend to use it. So, if they build it, they will come!!!

No I don't cycle.

I have a brain.

13-07-2016 10:48am

buffalo wrote: »

What sort of sums are you talking about? Even if it really is 'considerable', does spending a lot of money on something guarantee good, safe design?

Or perhaps if well-designed, well-built cycle lanes were put in place, people would naturally use them more? There's no mandatory use of the M4/6 to get from Dublin to Galway - people use it because it's quicker and safer, even though it's more expensive. Why can't we have the same for cycle lanes?

€2m in Tallaght for a kerbed off road track that narrows the street to one tight lane, and I sat behind a cyclist most of the length of the road yesterday. Poster is correct, stop spending on infrastructures that are not used.

13-07-2016 10:50am

Borderfox wrote: »

The cycle lanes are not fit for purpose

Some

cython · 13-07-2016 10:51am

Deleted User wrote: »

€2m in Tallaght for a kerbed off road track that narrows the street to one tight lane, and I sat behind a cyclist most of the length of the road yesterday. Poster is correct, stop spending wasting money on infrastructures that are not used fit for purpose.

Fixed that for you. The most common reason for infra not being used is that it is sub-standard.

Reinstatement of mandatory use?

Comments