IBT - The slow painful death of motorcycling in Ireland

wellboytoo

Jaysus don't our government and governmental bodies love your attitude?[/QUOTE]


Its called reality, not tilting at windmills, I am of an age lad where I only take on battles I have a chance of winning, and the RSA are not exactly ****ting in their shoes about a few people whinging on a site about an alleged price that no one can show some one has been charged, for a service that will possibly save their lives, now are they?

ArphaRima

get a life and grow up

lad

Thanks for that. I have years experience in varied driving environments in the world (some amongst the most dangerous) operating many kinds of cars, motorbikes and aircraft and dont see how you have any authority to belittle me whatsoever.

This forum is exactly that. A forum to discuss topics. Do I think that my views here directly threaten the RSA? No. But I would think that this forum serves as a microcosm of opinion amongst bikers.

Privilege to drive (not right)

As I stated earlier I believe anyone with the necessary skills and qualifications should have rightful access to a licence. Without undue barriers or expenses placed in their path.
That is the crux of this argument.

I vehemently reject your basic stance that any plan is good enough and who are we to complain anyway.

hobochris

wellboytoo wrote: »

I think you guys are missing the point, maybe you should rename this thread," The slow painful death of motorcyclists in Ireland" because that's what's happening out there, and you are arguing about money, kids are being killed and maimed weekly at the stupid non system we have at the moment.
A system is being put in place that one can avail of the Privilege to drive (not right), at least they are trying something to stop the carnage, and you guys are arguing about a few hundred Euro cost of training to get a license to drive for the next fifty (hopefully) years, get a life and grow up , the rest of Europe has had this for years and their mortality rates are lower because of this.
Look at the death rates on our roads dropping since the RSA has come into being, not an accident, a plan , and now they are tackling 2% of motorists (motorcyclist) who create an inordinate amount of the death rate and accident stats, and you guys are surprised!!!!!
Bitch and moan all you want, its here to stay and this time next year it will be business as usual , people will have to do the IBT and no moaning, remember the smoking ban?

I think it is you who is missing the point.

Nobody has said that IBT shouldn't be brought in, In itself it is a great idea, but like most things in the country it is being done half arsed.

If Kids are being killing on bikes then its a failing of the gards not enforcing existing licensing and age restriction for using a motorcycle in a public place.

Now if you look at the statistics a majority of motorcycle accidents are caused by cars, I could be wrong as the details on the car training have not been published in great detail, but Motorcycle awareness seems to be absent from AFAIK from the car syllabus.

If they subsidized the cost of IBT and brought In Direct access then there would be no issue.

Cuddlesworth

fluffer wrote: »

Can you explain what you're on about?

And in case you try to get me to research a thesis to back my views, think again.

We have increased costs in everything, not only due to being a Island nation but by have a larger then normal population dispersion. Even Dublin has far too little people living in it per acre then most other European cities of a similar or larger size. This means we have three ways of doing things. We either subsidise something and create a inefficient but widely available process, we create a requirement for something and let market forces deal with it or we ignore it. Driver licensing and testing is a example of the first, IBT is a example of the second. It was a example of the third.

Now this has not just been brought in for bikes, it is being introduced for cars too. And considering the greater skill that's required to drive a bike properly its not particularly unreasonable that the training period for bikes could be longer. I do regret the non-inclusion of direct access being added to it at the instructors approval.

So you can avoid writing this thesis that you want to so badly avoid, I ask the simple question.

Do you honestly think that some actual training for first time motorbike users is a bad thing?

ArphaRima

we create a requirement for something and let market forces deal with it

I disagree with subsidisation in general and I contend that a program of training is the right step.
Market forces can only go so far to bring prices down to reasonable levels. The requirement is what's unreasonable.

Do you honestly think that some actual training for first time motorbike users is a bad thing?

As I said a number of times above, I support the idea of an IBT. Just not in its current form.

Faith+1

wellboytoo wrote: »

Bitch and moan all you want, its here to stay and this time next year it will be business as usual , people will have to do the IBT and no moaning, remember the smoking ban?

Hate to agree but your spot on.

Cuddlesworth

hobochris wrote: »

Now if you look at the statistics a majority of motorcycle accidents are caused by cars, I could be wrong as the details on the car training have not been published in great detail, but Motorcycle awareness seems to be absent from AFAIK from the car syllabus.

A lot of bikers like to get caught up on this. But I think it needs to be said, a lot of motorbike accidents were caused by a car but could have been avoided by the bike. Proper training and perception can lead to better biking.

And you are completely ignoring the amount of single vehicle accidents in this country.

KamiKazi

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

A lot of bikers like to get caught up on this. But I think it needs to be said, a lot of motorbike accidents were caused by a car but could have been avoided by the bike. Proper training and perception can lead to better biking.

It could have been avoided by the car a lot easier than by the bike.

MrPudding

KamiKazi wrote: »

It could have been avoided by the car a lot easier than by the bike.

Maybe, maybe not. Besides that, why are you happy to leave your safety in the hands of someone else? Cuddlesworth is exactly right, better trained bikers are the less likely they will be involved in incidents, whether those incidents are caused by their own lack of skill or that of a cager.

Car drivers should be more careful, but there is a lot more of them. It simply makes more sense to have better trained bikers who are able to avoid trouble, whatever the cause. It just makes sense.

MrP

KamiKazi

There is no maybe about it.

It is easier and safer (not just to bikers) to have cagers paying more attention to what's going on around them.

MrPudding

KamiKazi wrote: »

There is no maybe about it.

It is easier and safer (not just to bikers) to have cagers paying more attention to what's going on around them.

Of course cagers have to pay more attention, and should pay more attention. But the sad facts are, there are a lot more of them, so it will take longer to train them. this is assuming there is a will to train them, look how long learner were allowed to drive unaccompanied. Secondly, even if you do train them better there will still be lapses, no matter what bikers might think, cagers are also human. And thirdly, there are no disadvantages to having better trained bikers.

So, in summary, if you are happy to leave your safety to someone else then fine. Try to get all the cagers trained to a level that you can ride with you eyes closed. Alternatively, if you want to have your own safety in your own hands then get trained so that you spot hazards* and avoid them.

I don't have the figures to hand, but I do recall that riders with IAM or ROSPA training are significantly less likely to be involved in incidents. Given the proportion of incidents that are "caused" by cagers, we would have to assume that IAM and ROSPA riders are also less likely to be involved in this type of incident also.

I certainly know from my own experience that my IAM training has saved be form someone else's crappy driving / riding on more than one occasion.

MrP






*Hazards being untrained cagers, highly trained cagers that are having a bad day / unusual lapse in judgement or anything not cager related which still poses a risk to the rider.

KamiKazi

Just LOL, I can't even be bothered replying to such stupidity.

MrPudding

KamiKazi wrote: »

Just LOL, I can't even be bothered replying to such stupidity.

It's funny, cos that is exactly how I felt about your idiotic post, but I managed to persevere. Saying that biker safety lies in the hands of cagers is stupidity.

MrP

KamiKazi

MrPudding wrote: »

It's funny, cos that is exactly how I felt about your idiotic post, but I managed to persevere. Saying that biker safety lies in the hands of cagers is stupidity.

MrP

Herp derp, that's not what I said. Try reading my posts.

MrK

Idleater

MrPudding wrote: »

Alternatively, if you want to have your own safety in your own hands then get trained so that you spot hazards* and avoid them.

This was my overriding reason for getting the RoSPA training. I don't like the idea of being ruled by "well at least it wasn't my fault". I want to know how to handle unexpected situations be they caused by other drivers or my own misinterpretation of information. I know for a fact I am guilty of the latter and have no problem admitting to that and learning from each experience.
Relying on each and every other idiotic cager to have the same common sense approach to road use is futile IMO.

MrPudding

KamiKazi wrote: »

Herp derp, that's not what I said. Try reading my posts.

MrK

I have.

KamiKazi wrote: »

It could have been avoided by the car a lot easier than by the bike.

KamiKazi wrote: »

There is no maybe about it.

It is easier and safer (not just to bikers) to have cagers paying more attention to what's going on around them.

Given the context of your posts, in response to a poster saying accidents which were the drivers fault could often be avoided by the biker (assuming a certain level of skill of course), your comments above would seem to indicate that you feel the responsibility for reducing this type of incident lies with the drivers. This would indicate you feel that the safety of bikers is the responsibility of the drivers, and therefore their safety is, to an extent, in their hands.

I don’t disagree fully with you. Drivers really do need to cop on, of that there is no doubt. But I am not willing to leave my safety to someone who may not even have sat a test let alone had any training.

The levels of skill on the road needs to improve overall. But that is a huge piece of work. Getting riders to a higher level, particularly when they are starting out, is a faster and easier way to lessen their vulnerability. I am not suggesting removing the responsibility of drivers from causing the majority of car / bike accidents, I am simply pointing out that it is better to have less accidents even if that means bikers taking up the slack.

I would prefer to avoid an accident and lose the opportunity to say “stupid cager pulled out on me” from my hospital bed.

MrP

KamiKazi

Sigh, you're still mis-understanding what I posted.

Obviously we should be as well trained as possible to watch out for dopey cagers, that goes without saying.

MY response was in relation to the bit about there being too many cagers to train them to a sufficient level and that in the event of a cage wiping out a bike it would be easier for the bike to get out of trouble than it would be for the cager to not create that situation in the first place! Idiotic point of view TBH.

Both car AND bike drivers/riders should be trained to an equal level to avoid such incidents.

Roadskill

MrPudding wrote: »

I would prefer to avoid an accident and lose the opportunity to say “stupid cager pulled out on me” from my hospital bed.

MrP

Well said.
Only today during a lesson I altered a trainee's positioning on the approach to the college as he was too close to the parked cars. Just as he moved over a driver decided to do a U turn from a parked position after the car in front had passed him without even looking to see the two bikes behind. Without that change the trainee would have been hit by the driver. A small but crucial bit of information for him and he will retain that for ever due to the circumstance. IBT is here to stay but maybe if new riders come through often enough prices will come down because of demand and competition.

Roadskill

KamiKazi wrote: »

Sigh, you're still mis-understanding what I posted.

Obviously we should be as well trained as possible to watch out for dopey cagers, that goes without saying.

MY response was in relation to the bit about there being too many cagers to train them to a sufficient level and that in the event of a cage wiping out a bike it would be easier for the bike to get out of trouble than it would be for the cager to not create that situation in the first place! Idiotic point of view TBH.

Both car AND bike drivers/riders should be trained to an equal level to avoid such incidents.

I get what your saying here. I do believe that cagers who ride bikes are safer drivers and more aware as they realize how much more damage is done to a rider than if you have a smash in the car. I bet if you removed the roof and the doors of a car then got them to drive around for a while it would make them feel as vulnerable as we are.

hobochris

No matter how much training a rider has, There are still always going to be situations where only better training of car drivers will avoid incidents.

For example, cars side swiping bikes when changing lanes, Not something even the most alert rider can avoid all the time, but teach the car driver to be aware of bikes and what to look for and then the situation could be avoided.

There is no point having one section of road users well trained when its is all road users who need their skills improved.

I just think it is ridiculous that one section is targeted for extra training and not the other.

MrPudding

KamiKazi wrote: »

MY response was in relation to the bit about there being too many cagers to train them to a sufficient level and that in the event of a cage wiping out a bike it would be easier for the bike to get out of trouble than it would be for the cager to not create that situation in the first place! Idiotic point of view TBH.

That is not quite what I meant. I'll try again. There is a very large number of cagers. A lot of them do not drive particularly well. Whilst I fully believe they should be trained to be better drivers that is not going to happen overnight.

There is a much smaller number of biker, further, there is an even smaller number of people joining the biking community. If they are targetted and given better skills there life expectancy will increase.

All I am saying is with training a biker is less likely to be in a position where a cager pulling a stupid move is going to hit him, that is all. You might think it is an idiotic point of view, I think it is merely realistic. Seriously, which do you think is going to be easier and give faster results:

1) Retrain all cagers not to be idiots, or
2) Equip new riders with a set of skills that will enable them to avoid a lot of the dangers presented by idiot cagers.

Please don't get me wrong. I am not an apologist for cagers. I genuinely believe the standard of driving overall needs to be improved. I just don't think bikers can afford wait around for it to happen.

KamiKazi wrote: »

Both car AND bike drivers/riders should be trained to an equal level to avoid such incidents.

Absolutely. And if I was ruler of the universe I would have mandatory bike training for everyone.

hobochris wrote: »

No matter how much training a rider has, There are still always going to be situations where only better training of car drivers will avoid incidents.

Agreed. But there are plenty of times when a better train biker will avoid an incident.

hobochris wrote: »

For example, cars side swiping bikes when changing lanes, Not something even the most alert rider can avoid all the time, but teach the car driver to be aware of bikes and what to look for and then the situation could be avoided.

I would agree here to an extent. No amount of training is going to cover every eventuality, I am not saying, nor have I ever said, that bike training is the answer, but I find that attitude that "the cager is at fault they need to get safer" to be somewhat lazy. No matter how much training we give cagers and bikers, at the end of the day we are human and incidents will happen. it is about equipping yourself with the skills you need to be as safe as you can, irrespective of what anyone else is doing on the road.

hobochris wrote: »

There is no point having one section of road users well trained when its is all road users who need their skills improved.

Again, I agree to a certain extent. Skills need to be improved across the board, but seriously, it is a numbers game. How many bikers are there compared to cagers? How many learner bikers are there compared to learner cagers? I would expect there are huge differences in numbers. It is clearly easier and more sensible to target the smaller number, particularly if it can be shown that training this segment produces good results. I tihnk the figures for that are pretty conclusive, rider with advanced training are considerably less likely to be involved in incidents.

I know this is not really advanced training, but any training is better than none.

hobochris wrote: »

I just think it is ridiculous that one section is targeted for extra training and not the other.

I don't think it is ridiculous. More like realistic and actually workable.

MrP

MrPudding

MrPudding wrote: »

That is not quite what I meant. I'll try again. There is a very large number of cagers. A lot of them do not drive particularly well. Whilst I fully believe they should be trained to be better drivers that is not going to happen overnight.

There is a much smaller number of biker, further, there is an even smaller number of people joining the biking community. If they are targetted and given better skills there life expectancy will increase.

All I am saying is with training a biker is less likely to be in a position where a cager pulling a stupid move is going to hit him, that is all. You might think it is an idiotic point of view, I think it is merely realistic. Seriously, which do you think is going to be easier and give faster results:

1) Retrain all cagers not to be idiots, or
2) Equip new riders with a set of skills that will enable them to avoid a lot of the dangers presented by idiot cagers.

Please don't get me wrong. I am not an apologist for cagers. I genuinely believe the standard of driving overall needs to be improved. I just don't think bikers can afford wait around for it to happen.

Absolutely. And if I was ruler of the universe I would have mandatory bike training for everyone.

Agreed. But there are plenty of times when a better train biker will avoid an incident.

I would agree here to an extent. No amount of training is going to cover every eventuality, I am not saying, nor have I ever said, that bike training is the answer, but I find that attitude that "the cager is at fault they need to get safer" to be somewhat lazy. No matter how much training we give cagers and bikers, at the end of the day we are human and incidents will happen. it is about equipping yourself with the skills you need to be as safe as you can, irrespective of what anyone else is doing on the road.

Again, I agree to a certain extent. Skills need to be improved across the board, but seriously, it is a numbers game. How many bikers are there compared to cagers? How many learner bikers are there compared to learner cagers? I would expect there are huge differences in numbers. It is clearly easier and more sensible to target the smaller number, particularly if it can be shown that training this segment produces good results. I tihnk the figures for that are pretty conclusive, rider with advanced training are considerably less likely to be involved in incidents.

I know this is not really advanced training, but any training is better than none.

I don't think it is ridiculous. More like realistic and actually workable.

MrP

This is quite interesting:

http://www.motorcyclecruiser.com/streetsurvival/maids_motorcycle_accident_study/index.html

According to this report it seems like a lot of biker lives could be saved by the bikers themselves. Again, not saying the cagers don't also need training, simply that biker training could also save plently of lives.

MrP

KamiKazi

Numbers don't matter! When training is mandaroty (like IBT) all new motorists are subject to it!

Cuddlesworth

KamiKazi wrote: »

Numbers don't matter! When training is mandaroty (like IBT) all new motorists are subject to it!

I'm afraid I don't understand the relevance of this post.

KamiKazi

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

I'm afraid I don't understand the relevance of this post.

MrPudding seems to think only bikers need training as there are fewer of us and it would be too difficult to train car drivers to the same level.

Cuddlesworth

KamiKazi wrote: »

MrPudding seems to think only bikers need training as there are fewer of us and it would be too difficult to train car drivers to the same level.

I think you have missed a critical point with regards to minimising a individuals personal risk while riding a bike.

If you are interested on this subject I would recommend you pick up a copy of "Roadcraft; the police riders handbook to better motorcycling" to start with. Its available in Easons and number of other good book stores. Then try to attempt some advanced rider certs. The insurance certs are good to start with, but qualifications such as ROSPA and AIM should be a later goal.

KamiKazi

I've already read that book thanks.

I never once said I was against rider training, quite the opposite, but this attitude of accident prevention being for motorcyclists alone is all wrong!

Del2005

wellboytoo wrote: »

Look at the death rates on our roads dropping since the RSA has come into being, not an accident, a plan , and now they are tackling 2% of motorists (motorcyclist) who create an inordinate amount of the death rate and accident stats, and you guys are surprised!!!!!

The RSA have had a minuscule no affect on our road death rates. They've run a few ads on the TV about how to do roundabouts and stop speeding. I've seen a 0% improvement on roundabouts, I actually think there are getting worst, and people are still speeding.

The reason why are road deaths have reduced is due to 100s of kilometres of motorway/HQDC being opened in the last few years and cars have gotten much saver for occupants.

keithm1

This cbt is the straw that broke the camels back for biking in Ireland ,i know a few lads that are booked in to do the direct acces in England

more money leaving these shores but you can't really blame them

My missus is just going about getting an adress in the uk to do hers come march or april

It's defiantly the way forward for anyone seriously considering getting into bikes now

The price here for a provisional licence what a joke 600 - 800 quid

eurofoxy

keithm1 wrote: »

This cbt is the straw that broke the camels back for biking in Ireland ,i know a few lads that are booked in to do the direct acces in England

more money leaving these shores but you can't really blame them

My missus is just going about getting an adress in the uk to do hers come march or april

It's defiantly the way forward for anyone seriously considering getting into bikes now

The price here for a provisional licence what a joke 600 - 800 quid

i 100% agree, it is a joke why this all of a sudden why not bring it in 10years ago, i live in the netherlands to get your licence here takes 22 hours of instruction including classroom, then the test which has a huge failure rate, the cost almost 2500 euro.
To do a car licence its much the same the minimum hours are only 16 but the chances of passing after 16 hours is minimal and the norm is about 25-30 hours. again the price is about 2500.

I decided to do the ibt at home as at the end of the day its easier for me as my level of dutch would not be up to a test standard and also its a good lot cheaper.