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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Cycle lanes now mandatory again, apparently

124»

Comments

  • #152
    plodder
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,402 ✭✭✭plodder


    nomdeboardie wrote: »
    "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...
    The first link has the old wording (mandatory only in pedestrian zones and contra-flow tracks). The second link has the "new" interpretation.

    I wouldn't pay too much attention to document revision numbers or the like. The good thing about the links above is that they are independent evidence of what a document stated at a particular time, and it's clear that the ROTR changed on this point some time earlier this year.


  • #153
    nomdeboardie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,045 ✭✭✭nomdeboardie


    plodder wrote: »
    The first link has the old wording (mandatory only in pedestrian zones and contra-flow tracks). The second link has the "new" interpretation.

    I wouldn't pay too much attention to document revision numbers or the like. The good thing about the links above is that they are independent evidence of what a document stated at a particular time, and it's clear that the ROTR changed on this point some time earlier this year.
    Thanks, but while I agree that the wording of the yellow-highlighted text has been changed, I don't think the 2013 sentense ("Cyclists must use any cycle track provided as part of a pedestrian street or area, or as part of a contra flow cycle track.") made any explicit statement about the status of tracks other than contraflows and those in pedestrianised areas were. I agree that anyone reading it might surmise that othe tracks might be optional, but the point I was making is that the "must obey"..."Do cycle on cycle tracks where they are provided" item elsewhere then suggests otherwise. (And just to be clear, I am strongly 'pro-revocation' - just want to get a clear idea of what the sequence of RSA ROTR docs contained :))


  • #154
    plodder
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,402 ✭✭✭plodder


    nomdeboardie wrote: »
    Thanks, but while I agree that the wording of the yellow-highlighted text has been changed, I don't think the 2013 sentense ("Cyclists must use any cycle track provided as part of a pedestrian street or area, or as part of a contra flow cycle track.") made any explicit statement about the status of tracks other than contraflows and those in pedestrianised areas were. I agree that anyone reading it might surmise that othe tracks might be optional, but the point I was making is that the "must obey"..."Do cycle on cycle tracks where they are provided" item elsewhere then suggests otherwise. (And just to be clear, I am strongly 'pro-revocation' - just want to get a clear idea of what the sequence of RSA ROTR docs contained :))
    I see what you mean now. I guess the text in the yellow box is misleading and redundant then unless the statement "Do cycle on cycle tracks where they are provided" is taken to be qualified by the information in the yellow box. That might make sense since the ROTR never explicitly stated the exceptions to the rule (like when turning at a junction).


  • #155
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,189 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    confirmation that varadkar intended to prior to, and believed had been achieved, the removal of mandatory use of cycle lanes as a result of the addendum to the law:

    http://irishcycle.com/2016/07/26/minister-thanked-cyclist-in-2013-for-supporting-his-decision-to-revoke-cycle-track-mandtory-use/


  • #156
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    Given the ambiguity that has come to light with regard to SI 332 of 2012 specifically, the Department is currently consulting with the Road Safety Authority and An Garda Síochána and has sought their views on the relevant provisions in the SI.

    If the SI has already been passed by Varadkar, surely their 'views' are irrelevant unless the department is looking to change or revoke SI 332?
    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

    This bit seems to be that the person concerned does not want the mandatory use revoked.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    This bit seems to be that the person concerned does not want the mandatory use revoked.

    Agreed. We are talking about a Government policy commitment that has no financial obligations associated with it.

    If it did have financial implications then the Department of Finance might be entitled to take a view that the policy should not be implemented at this time.

    However, it seems to me that it would not be for unelected officials in the Department of Transport to attempt to dictate policy.

    But that seems to be exactly what is going on.


  • #158
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,804 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    However, it seems to me that it would not be for unelected officials in the Department of Transport to attempt to dictate policy.

    But that seems to be exactly what is going on.

    Perhaps Shane Ross informally said he was willing to revisit it? This is quite a bold move if whoever is involved doesn't have some reasonable hope of bringing back some major aspect of mandatory use.


  • #159
    trellheim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,965 ✭✭✭trellheim


    suggest twitter and email


  • #160
    nomdeboardie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,045 ✭✭✭nomdeboardie


    For monument:

    Thanks for the new irishcycle.com article :)

    Re this bit:
    Sometime after Varadkar said he would write to the Road Safety Authority, the Rules of the Road — which the RSA edits — was changed to reflect the law change as explained in the explanatory note under SI 332 of 2012.

    Do you have a copy of that version of the rules PDF? (I’ve commented previously, in posts 152 and 157, that a version linked and discussed above that had one possibly ‘Varadkar-inspired’ change also retained a blanket mandatory statement elsewhere)


  • #161
    expectationlost
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,987 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    nomdeboardie wrote: »
    For monument:

    Thanks for the new irishcycle.com article :)

    Re this bit:



    Do you have a copy of that version of the rules PDF? (I’ve commented previously, in posts 152 and 157, that a version linked and discussed above that had one possibly ‘Varadkar-inspired’ change also retained a blanket mandatory statement elsewhere)

    Revision No. 5: March 2015 Road Traffic Law as at 1 March 2015
    http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Learner%20Drivers/Rules_of_the_road.pdf


    Revision No. 4: December 2013 Road Traffic Law as at 1 March 2013.
    https://web.archive.org/web/20160130071126/http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Learner%20Drivers/Rules_of_the_road.pdf


    Revision No. 3: June 2013. date source
    http://www.adverts.ie/other-books-magazines/driver-theory-test-and-rules-of-the-road-with-cd/5564989



    Revision No. 2 March 2010 date source
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057121049

    Road Traffic Law as at 31 December 2009. https://web.archive.org/web/20111215233832/http://www.rotr.ie/pdf-downloads/english/rules-of-the-road%20eng.pdf no cover or edition number


    was the first rules of the road only in 2007 ? http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Learner-Drivers/Your-learner-permit/Rules-of-the-road/ a year after RSA set up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_Safety_Authority


    draft revised version 2006 http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.transport.ie/upload/general/7604-0.pdf

    Updated 'Rules of the Road' for every home
    21 March 2007
    It is the first update of the rule book since 1995.
    http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0321/86993-roadsafety/


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,172 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Bump into Shane quite a bit, must pass comment to him the next time I pass him by. Once a point is reasonable, he tends to take it on board, sound ignorant or like you are unlearned in what you are referring to and he dismisses you quite quickly.


  • #163
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    nomdeboardie wrote: »
    Do you have a copy of that version of the rules PDF? (I’ve commented previously, in posts 152 and 157, that a version linked and discussed above that had one possibly ‘Varadkar-inspired’ change also retained a blanket mandatory statement elsewhere)

    I see somebody else has linked to the different copies.

    Contradictory statements in the ROTR can be seen as an error or some kind of fudge.


  • #164
    nomdeboardie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,045 ✭✭✭nomdeboardie


    expectationlost wrote: »
    Revision No. 5: March 2015
    http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Learner%20Drivers/Rules_of_the_road.pdf


    Revision No. 4: December 2013 Road Traffic Law as at 1 March 2013.
    https://web.archive.org/web/20160130071126/http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Learner%20Drivers/Rules_of_the_road.pdf


    Revision No. 3: June 2013. date source
    http://www.adverts.ie/other-books-magazines/driver-theory-test-and-rules-of-the-road-with-cd/5564989

    ? https://web.archive.org/web/20150606082831/http://www.rotr.ie/pdf-downloads/english/rules-of-the-road-eng.pdf ? no cover or edition number

    Revision No. 2 March 2010 date source
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057121049

    Road Traffic Law as at 31 December 2009. https://web.archive.org/web/20111215233832/http://www.rotr.ie/pdf-downloads/english/rules-of-the-road%20eng.pdf no cover or edition number
    Thanks for this

    Rev 4 is the version I was referring to.

    The ‘mystery version’ has is the same for the 2 elements of interest ( “Cyclists must use any cycle track provided as part of a pedestrian street or area, or as part of a contra flow cycle track.” but also "must obey"..."Do cycle on cycle tracks where they are provided"

    (Can’t view Rev 3 or 2)

    Road Traffic Law as at 31 December 2009 has “A cyclist must use a cycle track if it is provided.” on p159 (not highlighted) as well as the "must obey"..."Do cycle on cycle tracks where they are provided"

    Has anyone actually seen a version that has the “Cyclists must use any cycle track provided as part of a pedestrian street or area, or as part of a contra flow cycle track.” WITHOUT the "must obey"..."Do cycle on cycle tracks where they are provided" element?


  • #165
    nomdeboardie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,045 ✭✭✭nomdeboardie


    monument wrote: »
    I see somebody else has linked to the different copies.

    Contradictory statements in the ROTR can be seen as an error or some kind of fudge.
    Do you mean that the “Cyclists must use any cycle track provided as part of a pedestrian street or area, or as part of a contra flow cycle track.” contradicts the "must obey"..."Do cycle on cycle tracks where they are provided"? I agree that the former would suggest that only the two mentioned types are mandatory-use if that was the only statement, but it could be argued that the latter is a blanket statement that extends the imperative to all cycle tracks. Confusing but not necessarily contradictory I think (unfortunately!)?

    Suggests that that someone might have begun to amend to reflect the revocation and didn't finish the job, and then they or subsequent staff reverted the amended statement. So yes, some sort of fudge and/or incompetence.


  • #166
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,401 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    So Vardarkar intended something but didn't see it through? Sounds like tough titties right?


  • #167
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,804 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    So Vardarkar intended something but didn't see it through? Sounds like tough titties right?

    I'm not sure your question is entirely serious, but Varadkar did pass the intended legislation. The Department has now decided, four years later, that the SI is "ambiguous", but of course that literally means it contains two or more meanings, one of which happens to be consonant with what Varadkar actually announced and what the explanatory note describes. Under the cover of removing the "ambiguity", the department plans to get Ross to write a new SI to make cycle tracks compulsory again.

    It has nothing to do with Varadkar not seeing it through.


  • #168
    radia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 360 ✭✭radia


    In this post, seamus (who I think has a legal background) says categorically that there is no ambiguity, as in law subclauses must be interpreted as complete statements; they cannot be selectively interpreted into independent subclauses (which is what the DoT is now doing).

    If the legislators wanted to say you had to use a cycle track where it was provided on 'a road' as opposed to 'a road... at the entrance to which traffic sign number RUS 021 (pedestrianised street or area) is provided', then 'a road' would HAVE to have its own numbered subclause. They can't just slice up the sentence themselves into the bits they would like.

    Now in fairness a lay person might not know that, but there are plenty of other signs of what the legislators at the time intended to accomplish and stated they had accomplished, not least:
    • Fulfilment of the commitment in the National Cycle Policy Framework 2009, Section 15.4: "We will revoke the Statutory Instrument that requires cyclists to use cycle tracks where they are provided - Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Amendment Regulations, S.I. No. 274 (1998). This regulation is unsatisfactory for a number of reasons..." [That legislation already made use of cycle tracks mandatory so it would make no sense at all to revoke that clause and then immediately replace it by a new clause reinstating mandatory use.]
    • The explanatory note declaring - correctly, since you can't split clauses arbitrarily - that mandatory use had indeed been revoked.
    What the legislation currently says:

    (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

    (b) a cycle track is a contra-flow cycle track where traffic sign number RUS 059 is provided and pedal cycles shall only be driven in a contra-flow direction on such track.
    What the legislation would have to say in order to make the DoT interpretation valid (note separate numbered subclauses):

    (4) A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where—

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

    (b) a cycle track is a contra-flow cycle track where traffic sign number RUS 059 is provided and pedal cycles shall only be driven in a contra-flow direction on such track.
    The way the legislation could be laid out in order to make it more obvious - even to civil servants with an agenda and inadequate understanding of the law - that mandatory use has been revoked (even though such change is not legally necessary):

    (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

    (b) a cycle track is a contra-flow cycle track where traffic sign number RUS 059 is provided and pedal cycles shall only be driven in a contra-flow direction on such track.


  • #169
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,804 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Nevertheless, the next printed Rules of the Road will say that all cycle tracks must be used, and by autumn that probably will be the law for real, judging by the tone of the replies from Ross' private secretary.


  • #170
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    How many RTAs or cyclist fatalities can be attributed to the poor engineering and haphazard layout of cycle lanes in ireland? From the language used here I presume it's a lot.


  • #171
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    How many RTAs or cyclist fatalities can be attributed to the poor engineering and haphazard layout of cycle lanes in ireland? From the language used here I presume it's a lot.

    Probably hard to track down injuries but here are some examples of deaths from a previous thread on this forum.
    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    Cyclists killed by turning HGVs while using Irish cycle lanes/cycle tracks (this list is not exhaustive)

    Maria Sonia Jimenez Martinez (Aged 28) Killed using a cycle-track at junction Malahide Road and Griffith Avenue, Dublin 28/01/2004. (According to a news report a friend of Maria Sonia's "identified her through a silver watch and ring")

    Dante de Vere Padua (Aged 32) Killed using cycle-track at junction of East Wall Road and Annesley Bridge Road, Dublin 8/02/2005.

    Conor Murphy (Aged 41) Killed using cycle-track at Belgard Road, Dublin, 30/05/2006

    Nadia Lescuier (Aged 31) Killed using cycle-track Plassey Park Road Limerick 18/10/2006


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,189 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    How many RTAs or cyclist fatalities can be attributed to the poor engineering and haphazard layout of cycle lanes in ireland? From the language used here I presume it's a lot.
    the problem is that data is not collected. for example, if i was dumped from an off-road cycle lane onto the road at a junction, a driver who had previously may not have paid attention to me could hit me. however, the hypothetical accident did not occur in the bike lane itself, but on the junction, and a wordy explanation of why the accident occurred would be difficult to capture in bare statistics.


  • #173
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Wow that's mad. Presumably blind spots played a part? Statistical anomaly that 3 of the 4 names aren't Irish?


  • #174
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    Wow that's mad. Presumably blind spots played a part? Statistical anomaly that 3 of the 4 names aren't Irish?

    I would assume that mutually conflicting expectations among road users is the main problem rather than simply blind spots.

    One of those expectations would be a misplaced expectation of safety. This then leads to the question "If expectations of safety for cycle tracks are misplaced then why is somebody trying to force cyclists to use them?"

    The nationality thing may not be significant we only have a snap shot of deaths from the newspapers. There may be others that would change the picture.

    However (speculation) it may be that people from other countries expect cycle facilities to be safe but Irish cyclists have more common sense.


  • #175
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    Wow that's mad. Presumably blind spots played a part? Statistical anomaly that 3 of the 4 names aren't Irish?

    What difference would it make if they were foreigners? For all we know their family could be here for generations.


  • #176
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    traprunner wrote: »
    What difference would it make if they were foreigners? For all we know their family could be here for generations.

    In this case the people with names other than Murphy arrived in our country from elsewhere.


  • #177
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    traprunner wrote: »
    What difference would it make if they were foreigners? For all we know their family could be here for generations.
    Calm down, I'm just wondering if they were fresh off the boat and new to Irish roads but sure don't miss an opportunity to be offended on behalf of other people.


  • #178
    2RockMountain
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,012 ✭✭✭2RockMountain


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    Probably hard to track down injuries but here are some examples of deaths from a previous thread on this forum.

    The young lady in Blackrock from a year or two back

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/truck-driver-prayed-for-cyclist-after-fatal-collision-in-blackrock-1.1860794


  • #179
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    Do the rsa think you should use a cycle lane if it leads to a different road than the one you're travelling on?
    https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.4455358,-6.1296188,114m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
    https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.4235563,-6.3622305,132m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

    Do you have to use a cycle lane if it's a dead end and you can't cycle any further?
    https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.5976489,-6.1839668,3a,75y,118.39h,78.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3sJ77zXuinLcN1nbAg_8_Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

    Do you have to use a cycle lane if it's too narrow for a bike?
    https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.4318279,-6.2300689,3a,41.5y,233.77h,73.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssPaLYgKNOYdxa0JoSV3syA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en


  • #180
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,804 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    Probably hard to track down injuries but here are some examples of deaths from a previous thread on this forum.

    I remember the Belgard Road death. He mentioned to his wife several times that he was worried about how narrow the cycle track was and how closely he was being passed. Cement truck killed him, I think.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    check_six
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,245 ✭✭✭check_six


    Carawaystick wrote: »
    Do the rsa think you should use a cycle lane if it leads to a different road than the one you're travelling on?
    https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.4455358,-6.1296188,114m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
    https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.4235563,-6.3622305,132m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

    Do you have to use a cycle lane if it's a dead end and you can't cycle any further?
    https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.5976489,-6.1839668,3a,75y,118.39h,78.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3sJ77zXuinLcN1nbAg_8_Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

    Do you have to use a cycle lane if it's too narrow for a bike?
    https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.4318279,-6.2300689,3a,41.5y,233.77h,73.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssPaLYgKNOYdxa0JoSV3syA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

    The answer is very simple:
    "Cyclists must use any cycle track provided."

    Don't be fooled into thinking that this is merely a clumsy edit of the old wording ("Cyclists must use any cycle track provided as part of a pedestrian street or area, or as part of a contraflow cycle track."). Don't think for a moment they just left the end of the sentence dangling and unspecified by mistake. The intention is clear. You must use any cycle track provided.

    Provided where? I hear you ask.
    Provided what? I hear you ask.
    Answers are stupid things, I answer.
    Provided.
    Clear as day.
    It says it right there on the page. No further explanation or clarification required.
    Going your way? Doesn't matter.
    The track has been: Pro-vi-ded.

    I'm happy to have cleared that one up to everyone's satisfaction.
    Now, as there are no further questions or confused faces, I will bid you good day!


    p.s. I've only just spotted that the old version of the RotR statement is incorrect too. It says "...or as part of a contraflow cycle track.". It should say "...or as part of a contraflow lane." Otherwise you would be compelled to use things like that ridiculous uphill wrong way track on the Mobhi Road.


  • #182
    Roadhawk
    Registered Users Posts: 935 ✭✭✭Roadhawk


    Carawaystick wrote: »
    Do you have to use a cycle lane if it's a dead end and you can't cycle any further?
    https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.5976489,-6.1839668,3a,75y,118.39h,78.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3sJ77zXuinLcN1nbAg_8_Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

    Do you have to use a cycle lane if it's too narrow for a bike?
    https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.4318279,-6.2300689,3a,41.5y,233.77h,73.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssPaLYgKNOYdxa0JoSV3syA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

    There is nothing wrong with the first example? it goes from a shared pedestrian and cycle path to a specific cycle track then back to a shared pedestrian and cycle path. I might be missing something but it looksk ok to me.

    In the second example the lane visually looks ok when comparing it to the width of the bus lane. I havent used this route by bike and probable wont to be honest.


  • #183
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,189 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    i knew what that one was the moment i saw it.
    Roadhawk - that's a combined footpath and cycle path. there's a bus stop on it. it's ludicrous.


  • #184
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,804 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Incidentally, Ross' private secretary mentions a general review of the laws applying to cyclists in the autumn. There are some other mandatory issues I can imagine the RSA suggesting, but for the sake of my sanity, I'll stick to one thought: the Gardai are quite keen for "balance" to be struck on the issue of parking cars on cycle tracks, and the RSA claim that the SI forbidding parking on "mandatory" (i.e. "cars keep out" unbroken white line) cycle tracks is "ambiguous" (sound familiar?).

    So we might see cyclists being made to use all cycle tracks in the name of safety, and cars being permitted to be left on all cycle tracks in the name of balance.


  • #185
    check_six
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,245 ✭✭✭check_six


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    ...the RSA claim that the SI forbidding parking on "mandatory" (i.e. "cars keep out" unbroken white line) cycle tracks is "ambiguous" (sound familiar?).

    Sheesh, when was that claim made? I know that the cycle track with an unbroken white line across the road from the Shelbourne Hotel is a de facto taxi rank now, but I thought that was just the taxi drivers doing whatever they felt like.

    Fun stat: my record spot for cars parked in that short stretch of mandatory cycle track is only 4. Can you do better?


  • #186
    expectationlost
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,987 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    check_six wrote: »
    Sheesh, when was that claim made? I know that the cycle track with an unbroken white line across the road from the Shelbourne Hotel is a de facto taxi rank now, but I thought that was just the taxi drivers doing whatever they felt like.

    http://irishcycle.com/2015/05/11/rsa-cycle-lane-advert/


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    Roadhawk
    Registered Users Posts: 935 ✭✭✭Roadhawk


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    i knew what that one was the moment i saw it.
    Roadhawk - that's a combined footpath and cycle path. there's a bus stop on it. it's ludicrous.

    With my best judgement i would day its a pole about 6 inches wide...just go around it?


  • #188
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,804 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    check_six wrote: »
    I know that the cycle track with an unbroken white line across the road from the Shelbourne Hotel is a de facto taxi rank now

    Same with the cycle track in front of the Hilton in Kilmainham.

    Remember, if you're on a bike and being forced out into traffic, it's "balance". If you're on a bike and forced to take a route that's inconvenient or downright dangerous, it's for "safety".


  • #189
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    There is nothing wrong with the first example? it goes from a shared pedestrian and cycle path to a specific cycle track then back to a shared pedestrian and cycle path. I might be missing something but it looksk ok to me.
    No. The cycle lane ends where the white lines finish, and the shared use path begins at the sign.
    In between is ordinary footpath, and it's illegal to cycle on a footpath.
    Roadhawk wrote: »
    In the second example the lane visually looks ok when comparing it to the width of the bus lane. I havent used this route by bike and probable wont to be honest.
    Thats a 2 way cycle lane, and the vegetation has grown out more since google drove by. I'd say it's about 5" wide now.


  • #190
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,189 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    With my best judgement i would day its a pole about 6 inches wide...just go around it?
    You do know entire human beings wait at bus stops?


  • #191
    radia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 360 ✭✭radia


    Ah now. You're all very fussy. The cycle lane designers do their best.

    They even go beyond the call of duty in the interests of cyclists sometimes. For example, here they have built a special hillock for cyclists (the road itself is flat), just so we can burn an extra calorie as we travel along. No other apparent reason - just an unexpected gift to us!
    I bet it would never have occurred to most cyclists to design something so thoughtful. It even has a rail to make sure we don't fall off the top as we admire the view from this vantage point.

    Yer man on the bike in the google map image seems to be wiping away tears of joy (or maybe just the sweat from his brow, having expended that extra calorie).

    https://goo.gl/maps/BUS9cKDchMo


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    V-man
    Registered Users Posts: 71 ✭✭V-man


    Carawaystick wrote: »
    No. The cycle lane ends where the white lines finish, and the shared use path begins at the sign.
    In between is ordinary footpath, and it's illegal to cycle on a footpath.

    Thats a 2 way cycle lane, and the vegetation has grown out more since google drove by. I'd say it's about 5" wide now.

    And worst is that this so called "cycling" lane ends at the roundabout, following the new logic crossing here towards the other cycling lane would be a death sentence.

    Bus lane for me here, every week day, making it very clear that I am going straight by using hand signals and moving to the primary position on the road to avoid car drivers overtaking and take the first exit.
    Not a perfect situation and not for the faint hearted as you will need to be at a similar speed as the rest of traffic.

    The other direction towards the Airport roundabout is probably worse, you need to change lane toward Santry. Many drivers ignore the 60km/h limit big time and love to race onto the bus lane where cyclist tend to be. Had some very close calls here.


  • #193
    NiallBoo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,504 ✭✭✭NiallBoo


    radia wrote: »
    The cycle lane designers do their best.

    What a scary thought...


  • #194
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,804 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    radia wrote: »
    Yer man on the bike in the google map image seems to be wiping away tears of joy (or maybe just the sweat from his brow, having expended that extra calorie).

    https://goo.gl/maps/BUS9cKDchMo

    Salmoning too.


  • #195
    nomdeboardie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,045 ✭✭✭nomdeboardie


    radia wrote: »
    Ah now. You're all very fussy. The cycle lane designers do their best.

    They even go beyond the call of duty in the interests of cyclists sometimes. For example, here they have built a special hillock for cyclists (the road itself is flat), just so we can burn an extra calorie as we travel along. No other apparent reason - just an unexpected gift to us!
    I bet it would never have occurred to most cyclists to design something so thoughtful. It even has a rail to make sure we don't fall off the top as we admire the view from this vantage point.

    Yer man on the bike in the google map image seems to be wiping away tears of joy (or maybe just the sweat from his brow, having expended that extra calorie).

    https://goo.gl/maps/BUS9cKDchMo

    I knew before looking where that would be, from the description pacman.gif
    (It among the many rolleyes.png lovely features I highlighted that road in a photorant to the council planners a few years ago)

    Ironically (or not as the case may be) for our cause, the cyclist in that Googlesnap is going the wrong way! :p (Don't get me started on salmon...))


    ETA: By the way, does anyone else keep having to prove they're "not a robot" by ticking the new boards anti-droid box? Is it something to do with the amount of time one takes to write a post? Robots is people too :( Heck, Soylent Green is people :eek:

    E[again]TA (EATA): Jeebus, those last few comments weren't there before I posted, so salmon comment redundant :o Sure I pulled up the page after the timestamps - think posts seem to get delayed on boards sometimes?


  • #196
    radia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 360 ✭✭radia


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    Salmoning too.
    nomdeboardie wrote: »
    Ironically (or not as the case may be) for our cause, the cyclist in that Googlesnap is going the wrong way! :p (Don't get me started on salmon...))

    In fairness, it's such a nice feature that you can hardly blame him for crossing the road to use it. I'm sure he moved back to the other side of the road to continue his journey.


  • #197
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,295 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    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.

    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.
    It might have been a civil servant who drafted it, but is was the Oireachtais which implemented it, and made it law, after debate and consideration. What the courts do is decide what the intention of the Oireachtais was making the law. The courts scrutinise what was actually passed, not what was in the mind of some civil servant who wrote a draft.


Advertisement