Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 24 Jun 1992

Vol. 133 No. 8

Adjournment Matters. - Cycling Facilities.

Mrs. Hederman

I am sure the Minister is weary after his long day in the House and I assure him I will not keep him very long.

The motion deals with the need for the Minister for the Environment to make the necessary regulations to provide traffic signs for cycling facilities as a matter of urgency. It is well known to most people — and I am sure to the Minister — that I have been an enthusiastic proponent of cycling and cycling facilities for longer than I have been a member of the city council, which goes back to 1974. I have endeavoured to get agreement on various proposals which would improve the lot of cyclists and it has been an uphill struggle in more ways than one.

I have a statement which I think was made by the Minister but it is from the Department of the Environment to the Assistant City Manager of Dublin Corporation. It reads:

I am directed by the Minister for the Environment to refer to your letter. In accordance with Article 2 of the Road Traffic Parking Fees Regulation the Minister has approved the Corporation's proposals for the expenditure of £3.05 million for the purposes set out in your letter, subject to details of phase 3 of scats being discussed and agreed with the Department in prior consultation with the Department in relation to any proposals for cycle facilities or traffic calming measures on national roads.

The new city council has been in office since last June and I am glad to say that much more enthusiasm exists for the idea of cycling and improving facilities for cyclists. A great number of motions have been put down relating to cycling, parking, safety, cycle lanes, shared cycle paths and a range of different issues. The problem was lack of money but the corporation, thanks to my intervention, discovered that they had a little nest egg about which there seemed to be some secrecy. There was a substantial amount of money in this fund which had come from parking meter fees. We proposed, and the council enthusiastically agreed, that a substantial amount would be spent on various parking proposals, as I have outlined already.

I find it very irksome, and in light of what I said earlier today the Minister will understand my feelings, that we are completely dependent on the Department if we want to make progress. This has been the case for a long time. I will outline briefly a case that started in 1976. The city council agreed in 1976 to include a cycle-way on the Stillorgan Road dual carriageway. In June 1984 the corporation commenced work. Subsequently the necessary works were completed and sign-posts wrapped in black plastic bags were erected. They were subsequently removed and the cycle-ways have not yet been introduced. The scheme was submitted to the Department of the Environment for approval in December 1984, and some years later we were still waiting approval to implement the scheme. Basically the Minister held up this scheme for so long that, today, the cycle-ways still have not been introduced. We can see how frustrating this is for somebody like me who is trying to get work of this nature done.

We seem to have a council which are in favour of improving facilities for cyclists and we apparently have the money which accumulated in the fund from parking fees. One would imagine that things could go ahead but we still depend on the Minister to give us the go ahead. Why is it necessary for a local authority to get sanction from the Department to spend money which has been accumulated, quite legitimately, in an account belonging to the corporation? Why do the Department have to oversee the spending of every penny of our money? Would the Minister not agree that he would spend his time more profitably if he looked at general issues and policy issues rather than having a minute investigation into each little detail of the local authorities' operations?

A press statement issued on 19 May 1992 stated:

Mr. Michael Smith, Minister for the Environment, announced today that he has given his approval to the expenditure of £3.05 million out of capital receipts and parking charges in Dublin city. The money will be used by the Corporation for various things, scats, calming measures for traffic, provision of cycling facilities and road improvement schemes.

The difficulty is that it goes on to say that the Minister also supports the expenditure for the provision of cycling facilities to encourage more people to cycle. He hopes to be in a position in the near future to make regulations to provide for a series of traffic signs which will be used to identify such cycling facilities. That is why I put down this motion.

Is there any possibility the Minister will say that these signs are ready and that we will be able to go ahead and implement a number of schemes which we have in the pipeline and which we have been unable to implement? Will the Minister indicate whether he intends to continue this interference in the affairs of local authorities or will he give them a little more latitude and leeway to make minor decisions without the Department being kept informed of developments? That is what we want.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. Smith)

I am glad to have the opportunity to advise Senators of the steps I intend to take to promote cycling. It also, of course, affords me the opportunity not to let the sun go down on my anger in the context of being locked in battle with Senator Hederman in the earlier proceedings today and to end the day by cycling together down the old bog road as it were.

We are all aware of the many benefits associated with cycling. First, it is probably the healthiest form of personal transport. Also, where it is used as a commuter transport system in urban areas as an alternative to the private car it brings distinct environmental benefits. It has to be said, however, that there is associated with cycling a degree of risk which gives rise to distinct concern. During 1990, the last year for which a full analysis of road accident details is available, 46 cyclists were killed on Irish roads. While that figure represents less than 10 per cent of the total number of road deaths in that year and is only slightly above the average for recent years, it still represents a level of accidents out of proportion to the number of cyclists. It is, for example, three times the equivalent rate for cars. The vast majority of accidents involving cyclist deaths and injuries result from collisions with cars and goods vehicles. Therefore, the provision of separate facilities for cyclists is the most obvious way of reducing their involvement in accidents.

At present the road traffic general bylaws, 1964 provide a statutory basis for cycle tracks. These state that where cycle tracks are provided not only must cyclists use them but other vehicles must not be driven on them. While I accept that mechanically propelled wheelchairs should be exempt from that ban, I would expect motorists to honour the integrity of the cycle facilities. If I am made aware of abuses of the facilities, I will consider whatever additional measures might be necessary.

As to the matter of sign regulations to which the Senator's question refers and which she discussed, I will shortly make regulations which will prescribe new traffic signs for use where cycle tracks are provided. Most Senators will be aware that a range of experiments have been carried out with cycle priority measures over the past number of years and full effect may now be given to those with the advent of the new traffic signs. However, I ask local authorities to reassess the facilities they have provided to ensure they provide the maximum protection for cyclists. Clearly, the ideal solution is to provide cycle tracks which are entirely separate from other parts of the road but such facilities would be difficult to provide in many instances. The reservation of part of the existing footway may be a more practical option in many situations provided cyclists take particular care in the presence of pedestrians.

The provision of cycling facilities as part of the main carriageway is the least attractive option in terms of safety considerations. Such a solution could be a useful additional option, however, if the necessary discipline in road user behaviour generally can be achieved. We all have a part to play in this respect but the principal burden will fall on the National Safety Council to educate and generally promote the necessary awareness and the Garda to enforce the law. I look forward to witnessing a large measure of success of both their efforts in the immediate future.

In the case of Dublin, Senators will be pleased to learn I have authorised expenditure of over £3 million by Dublin Corporation out of accumulated parking charges on various roadworks, including £500,000 on providing new cycling facilities in the city.

I would like to refer briefly to pending legislative initiatives which will have a direct impact on cyclists. The Roads Bill, 1991, which is currently before the Dáil, includes a provision relating to cycle ways. This concept will see the introduction of designated roads or parts of roads which will be either fully reserved for cyclists or shared by cyclists and pedestrians. In addition, later this year I hope to introduce a new Road Traffic Bill which will include provisions aimed at the devolution of many traffic management functions to local authorities. I assure the Senator that is the road I will be travelling in the context not only of these matters but in relation to other issues as well. I hope to amplify that over the next couple of months.

The Senator will, however, take into account the fact that we are coming onto new ground and I would like to have as much uniformity as possible across the country with local authorities in a position to provide uniform signs and approaches. That takes time. Over the next couple of years, I see much more scope and room for local authorities to take those decisions in their own right consistent with a national programme which would be operated in such a way as to take account of a number of the safety aspects which I referred to earlier.

Mrs. Hederman

I thank the Minister for his reply. I enjoyed our little confrontation today. As far as I am concerned, I look forward to continuing with it at the next stage.

The news is not very encouraging. All the Minister is saying is that he hopes shortly to be in a position to take some action. That is the same as saying "as soon as possible". We still do not know when we will get permission to put our programme for cycling facilities for the city into operation. I ask the Minister to proceed with all possible speed.

Mr. Smith

Normally "as soon as possible" means months and "shortly" means weeks.