The Ecovias Is Against Bicycles

In almost all the highways in the country, bicycles are welcome. Or at least accepted. No, any of them, infrastructure for cyclists or specific signage, and in many cases there is not even shoulder. But cyclists can travel whenever you want or need.

Not that Governments, local authorities, Union and dealers responsible for highways have special appreciation for cyclists. Generally, the bikes are only tolerated. At a few points, there is one or another piece of bicycle paths to get them out of the way of cars. But cyclists can spend.

For example, Andre Pasqualini’s doing a cicloviagem that has lasted several months. Until the moment in which I write, he has toured more than 6000 km of federal, State and municipal roads, in various States of the Southeast, Midwest and North of the country. In none of the roads by which passed, André was prevented from driving to be a bicycle.

With Ecovias is different

In December 2008, hundreds of cyclists tried to simultaneously lower the saw to go to Sao Paulo to Santos. The action, which became known as ” Bike “, was barred by the Interplanetary dealership Ecovias, which prevented the cyclists continue, with use of the highway patrol and an extremely convenient interpretation (and erroneous)

Bar cyclists with police use (which should protect their rights) generated a loss of tens of thousands of dollars for the public coffers and to the coastal cities, which have tourism one of its main income.

Beyond the financial loss, the stubbornness of the concessionaire that do not want to obey the laws caused slowness in the Rodovia dos Imigrantes, in addition to embarrassment and life-threatening citizens who were trying to move from bicycle.

A few weeks later, I called in a positioning of Ecovias about using the highway by bicycles, a right guaranteed by law. Dodging the way might even outlast me, the Ombudsman of the lost on erroneous arguments Ecovias in an attempt to convince me. They argued that, as the highway that administer is not safe, ban bicycles from reaching the coastline is the right thing to do, even if it would be contrary to the legal provisions that make her make the journey safe for any vehicles.

Okay, but it’s been three years!

Today, the articles of the law to which cling the concessionaire and Artesp, who amazingly always seem to argue in close unison, have changed a bit, but the basis is the same: there are too many cars, the road is only safe for them and that’s why we’re going to prohibit cyclists from using ” to your own … Well “.

Both the concessionaire who thinks he owns the road as the public agency that defends their interests insist to this day in the prohibition, on the assumption that the via is not safe for cyclists. Assume that officially since 2009, without moving a finger to correct this serious flaw, which contradicts the item II of art. 21. Code

Art. 21. It is the responsibility of the Executive agencies and entities, Union Road, the Federal District and the Municipalities, within your constituency:

II – plan, design, regulate and operate the transit of vehicles, pedestrians and animals, and promote the development of the movement and safety of cyclists;

The Traffic code, as you all know, is a law (Law 9,503, Of 23 September 1997), which must be accomplished.

And the Sierra descents that cyclists have done in Group?

Of two years something has changed, although not on the side of the dealership, which is still doing everything possible to prevent bicycles from using your (our!) Highways. More organized movements of cyclists (in particular the Manicstreetjournal Institute) were able to interact with other sectors of the Government than the irreducible Artesp, so trying to establish an alternative route to Rodovia dos Imigrantes, where it was possible to get a bike the coast: the route Cicloturistica Marcia Prado.

Have already been made two major descents by this route, with about of 1000 cyclists in each issue, to chagrin of the concessionaire. The route takes the road maintenance of the Rodovia dos Imigrantes, which runs parallel to the highway and within the area of an ecological park. However, there is still an obstacle for it to be released continuously for use of bicycles: it is necessary to use a few kilometers of the highway of immigrants where there is interconnection with the Rodovia Anchieta.

The Ecovias continues contrary to this use and, behind the scenes, tried to prevent the two editions of the descent of the – route fortunately without success. That year, was allocated the highway patrol to escort the cyclists, who descended on trains that took the out and did a detour of about ten kilometers which included excerpts without side and single track, all hoping to discourage those who insist on asserting your right to movement, guaranteed by law.

Talking to

Walls

Reproduce the email exchanges with the Ombudsman of Ecovias and Artesp. Note that the argument is similar to be a coincidence, especially when it comes to a convenient and erroneous interpretation of the laws to suit the position of the concessionaire. The Griffins of both parties were of the original e-mail.

Ombudsman Ecovias

From: Willian Cross
Sent: Monday, January 5 2009 19:27
To:
Subject: Reshmi Rajesh

Query

Hello

Would like a coherent position Ecovias bicycle traffic in the rodovia dos Imigrantes.

Whereas:

1st – the article 58 of the Brazilian Transit Code ENSURES the movement of bicycles on the roads – the shoulder where there is and the edges of the track where it does not exist:

Art. 58. In the urban and in the rural dual carriageway, the movement of bicycles must occur when there is no bike lane, bikelane, or shoulder, or when it is not possible to use these, along the track, in the same sense of regulated circulation via, with preference on motor vehicles.

2nd – article 10 of law No. 784, 30 August 1950, which prohibited the transit of bicycles, became obsolete from the new Traffic code, because the article 58 of the CTB (Federal law) offers in contrary to Law 784 (State law), overlapping the so for all legal and practical purposes.

3rd – there is a R-12 plate near the km 40 of Rodovia dos Imigrantes, signaling the prohibition of the transit of bicycles. The alleged reason is lack of security, although the real reason is the existence of the Board on this site since before the establishment of the new Traffic code, when the law itself 784 regia bicycle traffic on highways and it was not necessary to suit the traffic of this vehicle. But, leaving that issue aside and accepting as real reason the alleged lack of security for the transit of bicycles, and considering that the CTB has as obligation of agencies and entities road ” executives to promote the development of the movement and safety of cyclists ” (art. 21, item (II)), the R12 serves only to justify an apparent omission in providing safe conditions for this type of vehicle Since there isn’t, wasn’t built and not an alternative from the point in question, Board signaled therefore being not itself consistent argument to impede the flow of these vehicles.

4th – the alleged lack of security for the transit of bicycles is due less to the conditions of the highway than the intense flow of motor vehicles, which in summary would prohibit the flow of cars due to a dangerous flow of trucks, which would be equally absurd. So if the automotive vehicle flow makes dangerous flow of human propulsion vehicles, the first should be readequado, or via reformed and flagged, or an alternative pathway released for vehicle bike from the dangerous road, so that the stream of bicycles were possible, as guaranteed by the law. This conduct would meet the provisions of articles 21 and 58 Brazilian transit code, quoted supra.

5th – the Brazilian Transit Code that determines the legality of the movement of bicycles on highways, vige since 1997, having been long enough to match the highway in question for this type of traffic. Therefore becomes silent condemned her for a particular type of vehicle flow for so long and get legal loopholes to justify irresponsible that omission when the correct would be working in an evolution of this incorrect and exclusionary model.

Concludes that:

1st – is right to every citizen transit by highway with bike vehicle, supported by law 9,503, of 23 September 1997, in your article 58.

2nd – is an obligation of the State Government, through the public service concessionaire Ecovias, provide safe conditions of traffic to highway users who opt for the bike vehicle, the same way they are provided conditions for users of other vehicles, typed as such, whether through horizontal and vertical signs, change in or construction/adaptation of a parallel route for the transit of this type of vehicle in particular , pursuant to article 21, item II, of law No. 9,503, September 23, 1997.

3rd – Considering a scenario where the plate R12 per se justified the ban on stream, failure to comply to this signaling would fine the driver, according to the article 187 of the CTB (use in locations and times not allowed by the rules established by the competent authority). In no event the driver of the vehicle must be stopped of bicycle travel with the vehicle, as this would go against the laws. More absurd would still be the road authority in place alert the driver that the disrespect to signalling on issue would incur in detention, as reports of some users.

Considering the foregoing, I declare my intention to perform the path of Sao Paulo to Santos via the Rodovia dos Imigrantes using the vehicle bike, alone (therefore without participating in a “event” and without needing special permission to do so) and exercising my right provided for in law. I sincerely hope not be restricted in my legal right.

Thanks,

Willian

Cruz

From: Leandro Almeida <our site>
Posted at: Tuesday, January 6 2009 9:22
To: Willian Cross
Subject: Query – RA: Ecovias Ombudsman 3334769/08

Dear Mr. Wadhwa,

Transit system bicycle Anchieta – Immigrants have restrictions arising from law and aimed solely at users ‘ own safety cyclists. The restrictive rules of traffic by the system, especially in SP 150 and SP 160, observe the characteristics of the track and local traffic, and were determined in conjunction with the military police, considering:

-the art 1, § 2 of the law 9,503, September 1997-National Transit Code-CNT: “traffic, in safe conditions, is a right of all and duty of bodies and entities of the national traffic System components”;

-the wording of article 2 of the CNT-“urban and rural roads Are streets, avenues, parks, paths, walkways, roads and highways, which your use will be regulated by the agency or entity with jurisdiction over them, according to local peculiarities and special circumstances”;

-contained in ORDINANCE SUP/DER 100-10/8/1998, which States that for any group of cyclists use the SP-160-RODOVIA DOS IMIGRANTES, including in the Sierra, required authorization by the Superintendent of the Department of highways of the State of Sao Paulo

-articles 67 and 95 of the law 9,503, September 1997-National Transit Code-CTB, on conducting trials and events that interfere or not the movement of vehicles on the roads.

-law No. 784 of August 30 1950, that in your article 10 States that: “will not be allowed, under any pretext, the transit of animal traction vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians on the roads paved” and in your article 11 stipulates that: “the Department of highways-DER, shall establish, in regulation, the special rules for running the roads paved.

In this way, even if the Traffic Code recognizes the bicycle as means of transport, traffic on the highway of immigrants, especially in stretch of serra is restrictive, for the reasons set out above and the existing signage on site must be obeyed, on penalty of committing a traffic violation. Such measures have no other objective but to preserve the safety and life of the users of the system, and are authorized by the Traffic code and relevant legislation.

For the change in or construction/adaptation of a parallel route please be advised that Dealership Ecovias dos Imigrantes manages by granting the Anchieta System – immigrants, and that all the works follow the highway concession contract.

Thank you for contact,

Best regards,

Ecovias ecorodovias Valdir Ribeiro | Ombudsman

From: Willian Cross
Posted at: Friday, January 9 2009 16:23
To: Reshmi Rajesh Leandro Almeida
Subject: RES: consultation – – – RA: Ecovias Ombudsman 3334769/08

Ladies and gentlemen Valdir Ribeiro and Leandro Almeida

Thanks for the speedy reply and for the information provided.

However, they are still not enough to deny argument consisting of a legal right. On the contrary, the Ombudsman’s own considerations this reinforce the right of movement of bicycles.

According to, art 1, § 2 of the CTB, “traffic, in safe conditions, is a right of all and duty of bodies and entities of the national traffic System components”. As emphasised in the communication for yourselves below, traffic in safe conditions is a right of all and a duty of the organs and entities. That is, use safely is the right of all (well, everyone) and provide these conditions of transit is a duty of the organs and entities.

So, as I mentioned in my considerations in the first email, it is obligation of organs and bodies providing these conditions of transit insurance, according to articles 1 (2), Item (II) 21 and 58. The information that you pass on this email only reinforces this reality.

The second item of the considerations of you spouting the regulation of the use of the road. You see, regulating the use does not mean at all, establish rules that overlap the laws. It’s not legislate. The laws are still in force, and throughout your extension. So yes, the affirmation in this item of the argument does not change the initial discussion, just reinforces.

The next day groups of cyclists need permission to circulate on the roads. There are two gaps in this rhetoric:

1) Where, in my original email, I told you I would hold an event or group circular? Might re-read the original content down there and check that what I wrote is that I want to use the road ALONE, without participating in an event and therefore without the need of consent.

2) according to the ministerial order of 100/RSD SUP 10/8/1998, published in 10/20/1998 in DOE-I in your page 18, available for viewing at http://tinyurl.com/Portaria-SUP-DER-100, we have, in your art 1 § 1: “for the purposes of this Ordinance be deemed to be evidence or events the pilgrimages, the footage, photographs, vehicle testing, the demonstrations, the tours, competitions and the like”. What I intend to do is nothing that – and not similar. I intend to go from point A to point B, and it is customary to give the name of transit, transportation or journey. It’s not a walk, a competition, let alone a pilgrimage. I want to get out of a town and move to another, as all other vehicles passing on the same highway, with the same rights of movement guaranteed in law. Therefore, the Ordinance SUP/DER-100 is not applicable in this context.

Next item, you cite the articles 67 and 95 of the Brazilian Transit Code, trying to again convince me that I am conducting an event. Article 67 says clearly “the evidence or sporting competitions, including his essays”, which of course has no resemblance to what I’m going to be performing. Article 95 talks about “work or event that can disturb or interrupt the free movement of vehicles and pedestrians, or put your safety at risk”. Again I repeat for the record, this time in capital letters: I’m not making any event, I’m moving on a highway to get to another city, just as thousands of other vehicles traveling on the same highway. There is some logic in considering an offset by bicycle, even if it was in a group of half a dozen people, as an event. Therefore, articles 67 and 95 of the Brazilian Transit Code are not applicable in this context. It is very clear and I don’t know why you insist on that line of argument. Probably due to lack of other or maybe betting a supposed ignorance of the laws on the part of the caller.

On the last item you cite law No. 784 of 30 August 1950. I ask that you MIGHT RE-READ my original email, where I totally refute the use of ready law. A State law cannot, by definition, contradict a FEDERAL law, which is the case of the Brazilian Transit Code. So, as I informed in my previous considerations, in the original communication, article 58 of the CTB (Federal law) offers in contrary to article 10 of Law 784 (State law), overlapping the so for all legal and practical purposes. Article 10 of law No. 784 of August 30 1950 does not have legal effect, with regard to the movement of bicycles, since September 23, 1997.

In the final considerations, the gentlemen say the disrespect to existing signage on the site is considered a traffic violation. As I concluded in the original release: ” Considering a scenario where the plate R12 per se justified the ban on stream, failure to comply to this signaling would fine the driver, according to the art. 187 of the CTB (use in locations and times not allowed by the rules established by the competent authority). In no event the driver of the vehicle must be stopped of bicycle travel with the vehicle, as this would go against the laws. More absurd would still be the road authority in place alert the driver that the disrespect to signalling on issue would incur in detention, as reports of some users. ”

There is still a last paragraph commenting on the construction or fitting-out of a parallel route. Your answer says that the works follow the highway concession contract. Can I exercise my right as a citizen to analyze the public contract, to assess whether any provision prohibits the adaptation of via to law enforcement? I request hereby send me the text of the concession contract, so that it can be reviewed.

Finally, I would like to point out a mistake in the communication of the Lords regarding the name of the law nº 9,503, of 23 September 1997. The correct nomenclature is Brazilian Transit Code. National transit code is the nomenclature used to Decree No. 62,127, of 16 January 1968, it was replaced by the Act.

I’m awaiting a new official media Ombudsman and say farewell with a fraternal hug.

Willian

Cruz

From: Willian Cross
Posted at: Friday, January 30 2009 18:20
To: Reshmi Rajesh Leandro Almeida ‘
Subject: RES: consultation – – – RA: Ecovias Ombudsman 3334769/08

As email below, the ninth day of January of the current year, still waiting for a placement of this Ombudsman vis-a-vis the legal facts exposed below.

Thanks,

Willian

Cruz

From: Willian
Cross posted at: Wednesday, February 11 2009 20:07
To: Reshmi Rajesh Leandro Almeida ‘
Subject: RES: consultation – – – RA: Ecovias Ombudsman 3334769/08

Gentlemen

Still waiting for reply to my statement of the ninth day of JANUARY, more than a month ago.

Standing by,

Willian

Cruz: Valdir Raj [mailto: our site]
Posted at: Thursday, February 12 2009 9:06
To:
Cc: Cross Willian Leandro Almeida
Subject: RES: consultation – – – RA: Ecovias Ombudsman 3334769/08

Dear Mr. Willian cross,

The requested response sent on 02 February 2009 (see email below).

Please note that the starting position is maintained, but as for your question about the intention to use the highway alone and in groups, we have to clarify the following:

The use of individual and group not Highway, is permitted in places where there is no prohibitive.

Signaling

Best regards,

Valdir

Ribeiro | Coordination of quality, environment and Ombudsman | 11 4358.8111

þ

Before printing, think about your responsibility and commitment to the environment.

From: Leandro Almeida
Posted at: Thursday, February 12 2009 8:50
To: Valdir Raja
Subject: FORWARD: consultation – – – RA: Ecovias Ombudsman 3334769/08

From: Leandro Almeida
Sent: Monday, February 2 2009 9:49
For ‘ ‘Cross
Yoganand: subject: RES: consultation – – – RA: Ecovias Ombudsman 3334769/08

Dear Mr. Wadhwa,

On the request of v. Sa., the concessionaire Ecovias dos Imigrantes reviewed again the case, however, maintains the previous position. Please be advised that some parts of the System still Anchieta – immigrants, have no shoulder allowing the cyclists traffic.

Thank you for contact,

Best regards,

Leandro Almeida | Ombudsman | 11 4358.8654

þ

Before printing, think about your responsibility and commitment to the environment.

At least admitted that where there’s no plate, can. But they, at the same time, a sign at the beginning of the immigrants, in a stretch that has wide shoulder and it’s safe for the transit of bicycles.

Put this card in the beginning of the immigrants, long before the tunnels, which makes collapse the rationale leading to the use of the R-12 card (prohibited the movement of bicycles). After all, they say that the Board would be there because the road is unsafe due to lack of coasting in the tunnels.

Answered, of course:

Dear Mr. Valdir

The email quoted below, which you say have been sent by Mr. Leandro on day 2, was received only today in my mailbox. But that’s beside the point, let’s get down to business.

If the road does not provide security for the use of the vehicle, bike should be adapted. In fact, should have been adapted in one of several reforms that have already been performed earlier.

The law is being disrespected with this ban. Unless you offer an alternate route for the use of bikes.

See:

If the Immigrants can’t travel with trucks, they are offered the Anchieta. Fair.

So, I wonder what the alternate route for bicycle use, since in immigrants and in Anchieta traffic is prohibited by a sign. If there is no alternate route, is the disrespect to the law by the concessionaire Ecovias.

The dealership doesn’t have the right to prevent the transit of bicycles in all the highways linking the capital to the SMR, the same way that cannot prevent the traffic of trucks, buses, cars, motorcycles or motor tricycles.

Is clear to me that don’t want to invest money Ecovias to make their roads safer for bikes, even if it represents a discrete disregard for laws, since bicycles do not pay toll.

Make me believe that I’m wrong, please…

Thanks,

Willian

Cruz

After this my last email, no more answer.

Ombudsman Artesp

From: Willian Cross
Sent: Monday, January 5 2009 19:27
To:
Subject: Reshmi Rajesh

Query

Hello

Would like a coherent position on the bicycle traffic in the rodovia dos Imigrantes.

Whereas:

1st – the article 58 of the Brazilian Transit Code ENSURES the movement of bicycles on the roads – the shoulder where there is and the edges of the track where it does not exist:

Art. 58. In the urban and in the rural dual carriageway, the movement of bicycles must occur when there is no bike lane, bikelane, or shoulder, or when it is not possible to use these, along the track, in the same sense of regulated circulation via, with preference on motor vehicles.

2nd – article 10 of law No. 784, 30 August 1950, which prohibited the transit of bicycles, became obsolete from the new Traffic code, because the article 58 of the CTB (Federal law) offers in contrary to Law 784 (State law), overlapping the so for all legal and practical purposes.

3rd – there is a R-12 plate near the km 40 of Rodovia dos Imigrantes, signaling the prohibition of the transit of bicycles. The alleged reason is lack of security, although the real reason is the existence of the Board on this site since before the establishment of the new Traffic code, when the law itself 784 regia bicycle traffic on highways and it was not necessary to suit the traffic of this vehicle. But, leaving that issue aside and accepting as real reason the alleged lack of security for the transit of bicycles, and considering that the CTB has as obligation of agencies and entities road ” executives to promote the development of the movement and safety of cyclists ” (art. 21, item (II)), the R12 serves only to justify an apparent omission in providing safe conditions for this type of vehicle Since there isn’t, wasn’t built and not an alternative from the point in question, Board signaled therefore being not itself consistent argument to impede the flow of these vehicles.

4th – the alleged lack of security for the transit of bicycles is due less to the conditions of the highway than the intense flow of motor vehicles, which in summary would prohibit the flow of cars due to a dangerous flow of trucks, which would be equally absurd. So if the automotive vehicle flow makes dangerous flow of human propulsion vehicles, the first should be readequado, or via reformed and flagged, or an alternative pathway released for vehicle bike from the dangerous road, so that the stream of bicycles were possible, as guaranteed by the law. This conduct would meet the provisions of articles 21 and 58 Brazilian transit code, quoted supra.

5th – the Brazilian Transit Code that determines the legality of the movement of bicycles on highways, vige since 1997, having been long enough to match the highway in question for this type of traffic. Therefore becomes silent condemned her for a particular type of vehicle flow for so long and get legal loopholes to justify irresponsible that omission when the correct would be working in an evolution of this incorrect and exclusionary model.

Concludes that:

1st – is right to every citizen transit by highway with bike vehicle, supported by law 9,503, of 23 September 1997, in your article 58.

2nd – is an obligation of the State Government, through the public service concessionaire Ecovias, provide safe conditions of traffic to highway users who opt for the bike vehicle, the same way they are provided conditions for users of other vehicles, typed as such, whether through horizontal and vertical signs, change in or construction/adaptation of a parallel route for the transit of this type of vehicle in particular , pursuant to article 21, item II, of law No. 9,503, September 23, 1997.

3rd – Considering a scenario where the plate R12 per se justified the ban on stream, failure to comply to this signaling would fine the driver, according to the article 187 of the CTB (use in locations and times not allowed by the rules established by the competent authority). In no event the driver of the vehicle must be stopped of bicycle travel with the vehicle, as this would go against the laws. More absurd would still be the road authority in place alert the driver that the disrespect to signalling on issue would incur in detention, as reports of some users.

Considering the foregoing, I declare my intention to perform the path of Sao Paulo to Santos via the Rodovia dos Imigrantes using the vehicle bike, alone (therefore without participating in a “event” and without needing special permission to do so) and exercising my right provided for in law. I sincerely hope not be restricted in my legal right.

Thanks,

Willian

Cruz: ouvidoria@ our site
Posted at: Tuesday, January 6 2009 16:26
To: Willian Cross
Subject: Reply of the Ombudsman system. Protocol: 126015

The Transport Agency ARTESP of Sao Paulo State is responsible for the supervision of the services provided by dealers of highways and intercity transportation companies. The clarification regarding these services are duties of this agency and a law of users.

So, in response to the request, made to this Ombudsman, ARTESP presents the following information:

The Rodovia dos Imigrantes and Anchieta Highway are flagged with regulatory boards R-12 – Banned transit of Bicycles. Therefore, in sections marked with this sign is not allowed the movement of bicycles for safety concerns.

The legal basis for this prohibition, for security reasons, is the Brazilian transit code – CTB (Law 9,503 of September 23, 1997). The Code regulates the R-plate! 2 and in places where there is this Board is prohibited the traffic.

The Ombudsman is grateful for the contact. With the participation of the society will be increasingly ARTESP, the opportunity to exercise the supervisory role to improve the services provided to users.

To learn more about the access our site ARTESP

Click here to evaluate the performance of the Ombudsman’s Office.

Yours faithfully,

Public Services Regulatory Agency Ombudsman Delegates of the Sao Paulo State Transport –
7278377

0800 Artesp

From: Willian Cross
Posted at: Friday, January 9 2009 16:32
To ouvidoria@our site
: Subject: RES: response of the Ombudsman system. Protocol: 126015

Hello

Ombudsman.

Sorry but this response doesn’t make sense. I ask that you might re-read my original communication and understand my arguments before responding with a text ready. For practical purposes, the finally copy again below, right after the response received to you.

I’m awaiting a coherent argument based on legal facts cited in the communication sent to you.

Thanks,

Willian

Cruz

From: Willian Cross
Posted at: Friday, January 30 2009 18:16
‘ouvidoria@our site’
To: subject: RES: response of the Ombudsman system. Protocol: 126015

Hello, Ombudsman.

As email below, the ninth day of January of the current year, still waiting for a placement of this Ombudsman vis-à-vis the legal facts exposed below.

Thanks,

Willian

Cruz

From: – [our site] Ombudsman Artesp
Posted at: Friday, January 30 2009 18:17
To: Willian Cross
Subject: Re: RES: response of the Ombudsman system. Protocol: 126015

Dear Mr. Willian

The your protocol was answered in 1/6/2009, as described in below and
not have any email opened in your name.

Best regards,

Ouvidoria

From: Willian Cross
Posted at: Friday, January 30 2009 18:35
To: subject: new request to this Ombudsman

Dear friends in lingerie

The way the answer below was written shows a lack of respect this Ombudsman to the citizen and lack of consideration for the argumentation and the legal facts described in the original e-mail. In this way, the “regards” with which the subscribe email acquires until a tone of irony.

My Protocol may have been answered, but my questions don’t. What I got was a general answer, without legal basis, and that does not respond to the questions that I did in my original e-mail.

If the previous Protocol was finalized, please open a new and, this time, I ask the gift of reading carefully the legal facts described in this communication, to respond to them in accordance with the above, not with an answer that seems to have been written for another person and that doesn’t match what they sent.

Also ask you to inform me if, after your answer, should I open a new Protocol to be able to answer them or if I can respond directly to the message (which is what I did last time). If the response to a message from you will not be read, I can always create a new Protocol until the communication submitted will be answered in accordance with what has been exposed.

Awaiting a clear answer,

Willian

Cruz

Three days later, on 2 February, I received this email:

Dear Willian cross,
Thank you for your contact and please be advised that your demonstration was filed under paragraph 130292 in 2/2/2009.

Your manifestation will be analyzed and your process (or progress) can be followed on the internet at the following link: our site.

Best regards,

Public Services Regulatory Agency Ombudsman Delegates of the Sao Paulo State Transport – Artesp
Phone: ******

Received no response until the 11 day of the same month. I consulted the manifestation and the site reported that she had been TERMINATED:

Situation of
Manifestation Service provider agency: Public Services Regulatory Agency Delegates of Transportation of the State of Sao Paulo –
situation of Manifestation: Artesp Manifestation Closed

Absurd!

Sent new email:

I’m still awaiting a reply to the email below, sent 12 days ago, which refers to a consultation held in day 5 of January and that has not been adequately answered.

The system of you sent me an email the day 02 of the current month, saying the demonstration had been “filed under paragraph 130292 in 2/2/2009”. This is a complete nonsense, because I received no communication from you from sending this manifestation. You closed the service without giving me back?

I’m still waiting.

Thanks,

Willian

Cruz

The next day, responded that he can’t because he has a plate. The Board is in charge, it’s not the law or the need for it.
Original Message From: our site

Ombudsman Artesp
posted at: Thursday, February 12 2009 10:34
To: Willian Cross
Subject: Re: still awaiting an answer

Dear Mr. Cruz,

130292 Protocol was answered and routed in 2/2/2009, as follows:

Best regards,
Ombudsman
The Transport Agency ARTESP do Estado de Sao Paulo is responsible for
monitoring of services provided by dealers of highways and
by intercity transportation of passengers. The
clarification about these services are duties of this agency and a law of users .

So, in response to the request, made to this Ombudsman, ARTESP
clarifies that: the Rodovia dos Imigrantes and Anchieta Highway
are flagged with regulatory boards R-12 – Banned transit of
Bicycles. Therefore, in sections marked with this card is not
allowed the movement of bicycles for safety concerns.

The legal basis for this prohibition, for security reasons, it is
Brazilian Traffic Code – CTB (Law 9,503 of 1997 23 September
). The Code regulates the R-plate! 2 and in places where there is this
Board is prohibited the traffic.

The Ombudsman is grateful for the contact. With the participation of the society
will ARTESP increasingly, the opportunity to exercise the supervisory role to
improve the services rendered to users.

To learn more about the access our site.

Sent new email:

Hello

Ombudsman

Thanks for the reply to the previous request, although it was the same response received initially (even with the repetition of the same error of typography), which disregards the arguments presented and justifies the violation of law (CTB Art. 21 item II and Art. 58) by the existence of a Board.

If the road does not provide security for the use of the vehicle, bike should be adapted. In fact, should have been adapted in one of several reforms that have already been performed earlier.

The law is being disrespected with this ban. Unless you offer an alternate route for the use of bikes.

See:

If the Immigrants can’t travel with trucks, they are offered the Anchieta. Fair.

So, I wonder what the alternate route for bicycle use, since in immigrants and in Anchieta traffic is prohibited by a sign. If there is no alternate route, is the disrespect to the law by the concessionaire Ecovias, situation in which the Artesp has a duty to act.

The dealership doesn’t have the right to prevent the transit of bicycles in all the highways linking the capital to the SMR, the same way that cannot prevent the traffic of trucks, buses, cars, motorcycles or motor tricycles.

Is clear to me that don’t want to invest money Ecovias to make their roads safer for bikes, even if it represents a discrete disregard for laws, since bicycles do not pay toll.

Thanks,

Willian

Cruz

Manifestation

Protocol

Dear Willian cross,
Thank you for your contact and please be advised that your demonstration was filed under paragraph 132029 in 2/13/2009.

Your manifestation will be analyzed and your process (or progress) can be followed on the internet at the following link: our site.

Best regards,

Public Services Regulatory Agency Ombudsman Delegates of the Sao Paulo State Transport – Artesp
Phone: 0800 7278377

The Transport Agency ARTESP of Sao Paulo State is responsible for the supervision of the services provided by dealers of highways and intercity transportation companies. The clarification regarding these services are duties of this agency and a law of users.

So, in response to the request, made to this Ombudsman, ARTESP clarifies that the Rodovia dos Imigrantes and Anchieta Highway are flagged with regulatory boards R-12 – Banned transit of Bicycles. Therefore, in sections marked with this sign is not allowed the movement of bicycles for safety concerns.

The legal basis for this prohibition, for security reasons, is the Brazilian transit code – CTB (Law 9,503 of September 23, 1997). The Code regulates the R-plate! 2 and in places where there is this Board is prohibited the traffic.

There is no contractual obligation to the company to enable the traffic of Sao Paulo for the baixada santista.

The Ombudsman is grateful for the contact. With the participation of the society will be increasingly ARTESP, the opportunity to exercise the supervisory role to improve the services provided to users.

To learn more about the access http://www.artesp.sp.gov.br ARTESP

Yours faithfully,

Public Services Regulatory Agency Ombudsman Delegates of the Sao Paulo State Transport –
7278377

0800 Artesp

Right, so what you’re telling me is that as is not made explicit in the contract that must comply with the law, Ecovias she is not obligated to fulfill it?

Reminder: the law is being disrespected with this prohibition, unless you offer an alternate route for the use of bicycles. The dealership doesn’t have the right to prevent the transit of bicycles in all the highways linking the capital to the SMR, the same way that cannot prevent the traffic of trucks, buses, cars, motorcycles or motor tricycles.

In the absence of a road, route or path that bikes can use, configure a disrespect to the law in force for more than ten years. No contract can waive a law enforcement company.

Standing by,

Willian

Cruz

No more responses.

The Artesp should defend the rights of citizens

Is clearly the close relationship between Artesp and Ecovias, contradicting the item (III) of article 2 of complementary law No. 914, of 14 January 2002, which established the Artesp (Public Services Regulatory Agency Delegates of Transportation of the State of Sao Paulo), as below.

Article 2 – ARTESP will obey to the following principles:
II-equity in the handling of users, to the various regulated entities and other institutions involved in providing or regulating transport, authorized, allowed or granted;
III-impartiality, evidenced by the independence of public or private sector influences that might taint the credibility of the decision-making procedures inherent in the exercise of regulatory functions;

Article 3 – Are fundamental goals ARTESP:
(…)
V – meet, through the regulated entities, the reasonable requests of essential services to meet the needs of the users;
Vi – promote stability in relations between government authorities, regulated entities and users;

Article 4 – ARTESP, services included in their purpose, shall have the following tasks:
(…)
XIII-settling, within administrative and technical differences between permissionarios and authorized dealers, and between these agents and users;
XVII – Act on the defence and protection of the rights of users and the other agents affected by public transport services under your control, receiving petitions, representations, claims, and promoting the necessary verifications;

Article 20 – the Ombudsman will be appointed by the Governor of the State, with term of 2 (two) years, allowed a renewal, and will have the same remuneration of Directors, competing you receive suggestions and ascertain the users ‘ complaints against the operation of own ARTESP and regarding public transport.

See also:

The damage caused by Ecovias hundreds of cyclists turned away in an attempt to collective descent Santos bias against cyclists Highway between Goiania and Trindade (Goias) will have bike path completed by December Staircases: the Ombudsman’s response Sao Paulo Metro Son of Eike Batista hits and kills cyclist on side ofhighway