Should cyclists be issued with traffic fines and have to pay road tax / insurance?

BostonB

I am not a cyclist

In your way? Lol.

When driving I hate white van getting in my way. They might argue they are "in front". I must try "in my way".

Mr.Crinklewood

BostonB wrote: »

In your way? Lol.

Yes.

Either on the road or pavement.

drdeadlift

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

It should be law to gave cycle helmets a bright / florescent colour.

Sick of cyclists wearing dark clothing getting in my way, by suddenly appearing out of the dark.

Lights are very effective,one on the front and one on the back.

Mr.Crinklewood

drdeadlift wrote: »

Lights are very effective,one on the front and one on the back.

When they are used, yes indeed. The addition of anymore aids are also an assistance (florescent jacket /leg ties/hemlet.

BostonB

I am not a cyclist

Apparently massive lights on a car, and lights on a cyclist aren't enough. You need to dress like a clown to be seen.

Of course if you make bright/florescent mandatory for cyclists, you'd have to make it mandatory for pedestrians. Because that's the group that more likely to get hit at night.

But its common sense not to dress like a ninja at night. Unless of course you are a ninja.

Mr.Crinklewood

If dressing like a "clown" saves a life then it is worth it.

Likewise wearing a helmet can save the life of a cyclist if they were to be in an accident. The small addition of bright colour to the helmet would be an additional safety measure.

Re pedestrians, they don't wear helmets, therefore changing the colour of helmets would not affect them.

Some areas also have cycle lanes in which cyclists and motorists will be sharing common areas, an area in which their visibility could save a life. Pedestrians should not really be walking in these cycle lanes.

For pedestrians walking in areas where there is no light, well yes they should be dressed accordingly.

RainyDay

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

Re pedestrians, they don't wear helmets

Why not? Wearing a helmet can save the life of a pedestrian if they were to be in an accident.

Mr.Crinklewood

RainyDay wrote: »

Why not? Wearing a helmet can save the life of a pedestrian if they were to be in an accident.

Correct, but what is the average speed of a cyclist and a pedestrian?.

How often do pedestrians travel at speed within touching distance of a car?

Helmets could also save the life of passengers in cars, of drivers, of children in prams... Should they all wear them... Well of course not.

My initial suggestion was a simple, cheap suggestion, that admittedly may or may not save lives.


I'm assuming you're trying to be witty or are trying to have a go at my post. Since this was your response it says it all really.

stateofflux

there will be nothing done to cyclists for the foreseeable future imo as there are simply not enough cops to enforce it.

desertcircus

Why do we have taxation on things like cars and petrol? Well, because petrol is a pollutant when burned and because cars wear down roads over time. Of course, bikes don't use petrol and don't emit CO2, so that's not a goer - but what about damage to the road? Motor tax works out at €160 a year for zero-emissions vehicles, so let's operate on the assumption that this figure is the base rate to cover damage to the road surface. A car is about a ton and a half, or 1,500kg, so we can work on the assumption that it's about 10c per kilo as a rough calculation figure. My bike weighs eight kilos, so that gives us an annual tax figure on my bike of 80c. In other words, nowhere near enough to justify bothering to set such a tax up.

As for insurance: the possibility of causing serious damage to either property or person are virtually zero for any given cyclist (please, for the love of God, note that I used the word virtually) - by several orders of magnitude less likely than for a driver. You're operating a vehicle one-hundredth the weight at between a half and a fifth of the speed; it's simply not even a vaguely comparable concept. Again, the cost of collecting and policing insurance would be prohibitively high - far higher than any benefit provided.

On-the-spot fines I'd happily run with. There's a tradeoff to be made, though - there are certain things which are barred in law because it's dangerous for cars to do them, rather than because it's dangerous for bikes to do them. Turning left on red is an obvious example; it makes no sense to force a bike to stop there.

Also: bike lanes are frequently badly designed, covered in cracks and damage, and layered with wet, rotting leaves from September to April. Then there's the bus stops that spit people right into your path, the driveways that bounce you up and down, and the points where you're left at a junction trying to figure out what you're meant to be doing to get across.

seamus

I am not a cyclist

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

Correct, but what is the average speed of a cyclist and a pedestrian?.

How often do pedestrians travel at speed within touching distance of a car?

They don't, which is actually the problem. Cyclists typically travel at speed, in parallel to the cars. Pedestrians travel at (effectively) zero speed, and more often perpendicular to the vehicles (i.e. crossing the road). The latter is far more dangerous than the former.

The statistics bear this out - per km travelled in Dublin City, you're more likely to be killed if you walk than if you cycle.

Mr.Crinklewood

Seamus, I'm talking about the whole country. A lot of people outside Dublin.

In relation to pedestrians crossing the road, this is more down to education. All the brights lights helmets etc give little help to a pedestrian crossing the the road in a hazardous manner (same applies to cyclists breaking lights etc)

Edit-or a driver behaving in a hazardous manner.

Again I have to go back to my initial point of the simple addition of florescent colouring to helmets. I was not the person who brought up the silly comparison of cyclists v pedestrians.

starlit

They can get fined if not obeying the rules of the road but they shouldn't have to pay tax, what do they need to pay for exactly like its not like they have a motor engine be different for a moped/motorbike. Insurance or use of the road maybe or parking is the only thing they should maybe pay for but I don't think its necessary.

drdeadlift

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

When they are used, yes indeed. The addition of anymore aids are also an assistance (florescent jacket /leg ties/hemlet.

Nope,helmet+lights.Good quality lights.If you cant see high wattage lights flashing you shouldn't be behind the wheel of a car.

Canis Lupus

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

Correct, but what is the average speed of a cyclist and a pedestrian?.

How often do pedestrians travel at speed within touching distance of a car?

Helmets could also save the life of passengers in cars, of drivers, of children in prams... Should they all wear them... Well of course not.

My initial suggestion was a simple, cheap suggestion, that admittedly may or may not save lives.


I'm assuming you're trying to be witty or are trying to have a go at my post. Since this was your response it says it all really.

I'm curious... these people that don't use lights or hi viz gear that get in your way, they'll wear a fluorescent helmet? I won't lie to you Marge, I'm not sure you've thought it through.

Zab

I'm a cyclist

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

If dressing like a "clown" saves a life then it is worth it.

Likewise wearing a helmet can save the life of a cyclist if they were to be in an accident. The small addition of bright colour to the helmet would be an additional safety measure.

Re pedestrians, they don't wear helmets, therefore changing the colour of helmets would not affect them.

Some areas also have cycle lanes in which cyclists and motorists will be sharing common areas, an area in which their visibility could save a life. Pedestrians should not really be walking in these cycle lanes.

For pedestrians walking in areas where there is no light, well yes they should be dressed accordingly.

You haven't made a case explaining how the addition of a luminous helmet to a bike that already has lights on it is going to make a worthwhile difference.

Lots of cyclists don't use lights, a fact that never ceases to amaze me. It's far and away the number 1 piece of safety equipment as far as I'm concerned, in fact I'd go as far as to say it's the only thing that's actually a requirement. That said, if they don't have lights then they probably aren't going to wear a luminous helmet either. You can already get luminous helmets by the way.

Mr.Crinklewood

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I'm curious... these people that don't use lights or hi viz gear that get in your way, they'll wear a fluorescent helmet? I won't lie to you Marge, I'm not sure you've thought it through.

Not to sure if you have been reading the thread, so i`ll quote myself.

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

When they are used, yes indeed. The addition of anymore aids are also an assistance (florescent jacket /leg ties/helmet.

With the word of "additional" i deliberately excluded those ignorant people who wear no visual aids whatsoever.

Most days i will see cyclist with a combination of safety aids, some with none. Some of these aids are not working properly, occasionally the lights are on but ineffective. I am merely suggesting a small change to an item of protection that cyclists should be wearing anyway.

Mr.Crinklewood

Zab wrote: »

You haven't made a case explaining how the addition of a luminous helmet to a bike that already has lights on it is going to make a worthwhile difference.

Lots of cyclists don't use lights, a fact that never ceases to amaze me. It's far and away the number 1 piece of safety equipment as far as I'm concerned, in fact I'd go as far as to say it's the only thing that's actually a requirement. That said, if they don't have lights then they probably aren't going to wear a luminous helmet either. You can already get luminous helmets by the way.

Well thank you, you are kinda of proving my point.

Yes, i have only my own experience for evidence, but i see more cyclists wearing helmets than i see with lights on.

The fact that they are already in production would indicate that there is a demand for them.

If helmets were to be luminous by law, what negative impact would you see?

Zab

I'm a cyclist

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

If helmets were to be luminous by law, what negative impact would you see?

I would have to wear a luminous helmet or risk a fine, and I don't want to wear a luminous helmet.

Mr.Crinklewood

Zab wrote: »

I would have to wear a luminous helmet or risk a fine, and I don't want to wear a luminous helmet.

I remember people having the same complaints about seatbelts. They could not give a proper reason, apart from "i don`t want to wear a seatbelt". Silly people.

Zab

I'm a cyclist

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

I remember people having the same complaints about seatbelts. They could not give a proper reason, apart from "i don`t want to wear a seatbelt". Silly people.

Look, everything boils down to whether the extra safety is worth whatever you're giving up by enacting the measure. With seatbelts it's clear that there are many relatively common situations where they can save your life, and this can be backed up with statistical analysis. You haven't given any evidence that luminous helmets make a worthwhile difference. I know it was raised before, but you aren't arguing that all drivers should wear motorcycle helmets even though I think we're all agreed that this would make a significant safety difference, and after all what's so difficult about slipping on a helmet?

whatdoicare

None of the above

I think there'd be no harm if cyclists had to get insurance, if nothing else it would encourage those who don't wear lights and break rules of the road regularly to maybe reconsider and act responsibly in case something happens and it voids the insurance. Also, they're covered if any unfortunate accidents occur.

It might also encourage those in Limerick who often cycle right next to the huge cycle lanes provided to cop on and use them!

Jawgap

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

I remember people having the same complaints about seatbelts. They could not give a proper reason, apart from "i don`t want to wear a seatbelt". Silly people.

Comparing seatbelts to cycle helmets is wrongheaded - seatbelts prevent injuries, cycle helmets are fairly useless over speeds of 20km/hr - in other words, most of the time.

There is a very strong argument for compulsory seatbelt wearing - not so for cycle helmets.

Mr.Crinklewood

Jawgap wrote: »

Comparing seatbelts to cycle helmets is wrongheaded - seatbelts prevent injuries, cycle helmets are fairly useless over speeds of 20km/hr - in other words, most of the time.

There is a very strong argument for compulsory seatbelt wearing - not so for cycle helmets.

I was not comparing seat belts to helmets, i was comparing the ignorant views of some people saying that the only negative impact they could think of was:- "I don`t want to wear one"

Zab wrote: »

Look, everything boils down to whether the extra safety is worth whatever you're giving up by enacting the measure. With seatbelts it's clear that there are many relatively common situations where they can save your life, and this can be backed up with statistical analysis. You haven't given any evidence that luminous helmets make a worthwhile difference. I know it was raised before, but you aren't arguing that all drivers should wear motorcycle helmets even though I think we're all agreed that this would make a significant safety difference, and after all what's so difficult about slipping on a helmet?

Admittedly i have no stats myself, the thought came into my head, when i saw a cyclist at the last minute as he was dressed in dark colours, with a black helmet, that when i thought it would be an idea to make these luminous.

I just can`t think of one negative reason for not doing so.

Zab

I'm a cyclist

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

I just can`t think of one negative reason for not doing so.

I suggest you wear a luminous helmet all the time then.

Jawgap

TCD recently published a study on cycling / commuting and basically they found that more you cycle the less dangerous you perceive it to be - the people shrieking for hi-viz and compulsory helmets tend to be non-bike riders.....

The researchers concluded that, relative to driving...
"

• As the number of days people cycle each week increases that probability of describing cycling as safer than driving in Dublin also increases and the probability of describing it as less safe decreases."
• The probability of describing cycling in Dublin as safer than driving is larger for people who prefer to cycle on urban roads and on roads with no cycle facilities than for those who prefer not to.
• The probabilities of a cyclist, who does not wear bright coloured/hi-visibility clothing, describing cycling as safer than and as safe as driving in Dublin are both larger than for those who do.
• the probability of describing cycling as safer than or as safe as driving grows with age. Consequently, older people are more likely to deem the network as safer than the relatively younger population.

Mr.Crinklewood

The probabilities of a cyclist, who does not wear bright coloured/hi-visibility clothing, describing cycling as safer than and as safe as driving in Dublin are both larger than for those who do.

I`m probably being thick, but what does this mean?

This survey was for Dublin only, admittedly i have not read it all, but it also seems to deem with "perceptions".

Canis Lupus

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

The probabilities of a cyclist, who does not wear bright coloured/hi-visibility clothing, describing cycling as safer than and as safe as driving in Dublin are both larger than for those who do.

I`m probably being thick, but what does this mean?

This survey was for Dublin only, admittedly i have not read it all, but it also seems to deem with "perceptions".

I'm reading that as people who don't wear high viz etc rate cycling safer than people who do wear it which I think comes back to the point that it's people who don't cycle or don't cycle often being the people who perceive cycling as dangerous and tend to wear or propose the wearing of high viz etc.

From my own experience of urban cycling the most important thing is a good front light to stop cars pulling out in front of you. Traffic from the rear can see you easily with or without lights. In rural setting all you need is front and back. Someone has already made the point. If you can't see a light then you shouldn't be driving a car.

jimmycrackcorm

I'm a cyclist

drdeadlift wrote: »

Lights are vnight. ffective,one on the front and one on the back OTE]

Not when you come onto a roundabout at night with a side view of a cyclist already on it. nearly milled one wearing dark clothes one night who was next to impossible to make out against the roundabout itself.

Zab

I'm a cyclist

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Not when you come onto a roundabout at night with a side view of a cyclist already on it. nearly milled one wearing dark clothes one night who was next to impossible to make out against the roundabout itself.

How did you miss his lights?

Canis Lupus

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

drdeadlift wrote: »

Lights are vnight. ffective,one on the front and one on the back OTE]

Not when you come onto a roundabout at night with a side view of a cyclist already on it. nearly milled one wearing dark clothes one night who was next to impossible to make out against the roundabout itself.

I have to say I find it surprising you could enter a roundabout and not see a cyclist on it... I could comment on the speed you were going if you 'almost milled into him'....

doozerie

gbee wrote: »

Next, responsibility, at the moment cyclist have none, OK they die and TBH again, some have deserved it, they were stupid, aggressive and are now dead.

That is highly offensive. And it is also drivel. It's a toss up whether you should be ashamed for adopting such a view or highly embarrassed for posting it in a public forum. No, actually, no toss up required, both apply.

doozerie

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

Admittedly i have no stats myself, the thought came into my head, when i saw a cyclist at the last minute as he was dressed in dark colours, with a black helmet, that when i thought it would be an idea to make these luminous.

I just can`t think of one negative reason for not doing so.

Your willingness to openly admit to an inability or reluctance to apply any rational thought to the topic is commendable. Bravo.

TeaAndCake

Everyone using the roads but cyclists has at least passed a test on the rules of the road. I think they should have to do the same - pass a theory test and get a little license to be allowed cycle on the roads.

With regards to tax or insurance? No, and especially while our cycle lanes are so poor. If we had good quality cycle lanes, then some form of tax for their maintenance would be an option I suppose.

They should absolutely be fined and prosecuted for breaking the rules of the road that we're all subject to though. The current situation is a joke and I've seen a huge amount of idiots on bikes in minor collisions recently that could have ended up a lot worse. If they're found to be continually breaking the rules, take the license away and ban them from cycling - simple as.

I cycle very regularly by the way, so I'm not a biased car driver. We have appalling cycle lanes here that appear to be mainly there for the sake of being able to say they're there, most of which have fallen into extreme disrepair. Something has to be done about cyclists constantly breaking the rules of the road though.

BostonB

I am not a cyclist

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

....that admittedly may or may not save lives.....

Well theres nothing like doing knowing your facts before starting a debate on something you know nothing about.

BostonB

I am not a cyclist

TeaAndCake wrote: »

Everyone using the roads but cyclists has at least passed a test on the rules of the road. I think they should have to do the same - pass a theory test and get a little license to be allowed cycle on the roads.

With regards to tax or insurance? No, and especially while our cycle lanes are so poor. If we had good quality cycle lanes, then some form of tax for their maintenance would be an option I suppose.

They should absolutely be fined and prosecuted for breaking the rules of the road that we're all subject to though. The current situation is a joke and I've seen a huge amount of idiots on bikes in minor collisions recently that could have ended up a lot worse. If they're found to be continually breaking the rules, take the license away and ban them from cycling - simple as.

I cycle very regularly by the way, so I'm not a biased car driver. We have appalling cycle lanes here that appear to be mainly there for the sake of being able to say they're there, most of which have fallen into extreme disrepair. Something has to be done about cyclists constantly breaking the rules of the road though.

Considering taking the driving license off people doesn't deter people if there's no enforcement. We don't need more laws that aren't enforced. They need to enforce the existing ones.

BostonB

I am not a cyclist

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

....Admittedly i have no stats myself,...I just can`t think of one negative reason for not doing so.

Can I suggest you need to look at the research and stats before having a discussion on it?

opti0nal

I'm a cyclist

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I have to say I find it surprising you could enter a roundabout and not see a cyclist on it... I could comment on the speed you were going if you 'almost milled into him'....

Many drivers go the wrong way around roundabouts. I've never seen one stopped by the Gardai for it. But, I have seen cyclists stopped for having no lights.

Mr.Crinklewood

BostonB wrote: »

Can I suggest you need to look at the research and stats before having a discussion on it?

As already stated, this is from my own experience.

Still waiting for a negative reason behind the idea.

I'll refer back to the situation that put this thought into head, again I'll quote it as it seems that you missed it.

"Admittedly i have no stats myself, the thought came into my head, when i saw a cyclist at the last minute as he was dressed in dark colours, with a black helmet, that when i thought it would be an idea to make these luminous."

In this situation I believe I would have saw this individual sooner if she were wearing a luminous helmet.

Jawgap

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

The probabilities of a cyclist, who does not wear bright coloured/hi-visibility clothing, describing cycling as safer than and as safe as driving in Dublin are both larger than for those who do.

I`m probably being thick, but what does this mean?

This survey was for Dublin only, admittedly i have not read it all, but it also seems to deem with "perceptions".

The point of the finding is that experience teaches you that cycling (in Dublin) is fairly safe and that your behaviour is the biggest determinant on whether you get from A to B safely.

Hi viz and helmets in the hierarchy of cycling safety are pretty much towards the bottom - the marginal gain you'd get from enforcing compulsory wearing of both would be minimal compared to - for example - bringing in fixed penalty notices for currently illegal practices (such as red light jumping, 'salmoning' and cycling on the footpath)........and backing that up with an active programme of enforcement.

People jump red lights, don't bother with proper lights etc because they know the chances of being pulled are practically non-existent - proper enforcement would change that mental calculus and lead to improvements in behaviour in a fairly short space of time.

Canis Lupus

opti0nal wrote: »

Many drivers go the wrong way around roundabouts. I've never seen one stopped by the Gardai for it. But, I have seen cyclists stopped for having no lights.

I like the small painted roundabouts that drivers just drive over.

BostonB

I am not a cyclist

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

As already stated, this is from my own experience.

Still waiting for a negative reason behind the idea.

I'll refer back to the situation that put this thought into head, again I'll quote it as it seems that you missed it.

"Admittedly i have no stats myself, the thought came into my head, when i saw a cyclist at the last minute as he was dressed in dark colours, with a black helmet, that when i thought it would be an idea to make these c."

In this situation I believe I would have saw this individual sooner if she were wearing a luminous helmet.

Because its nonsense. If its dark enough that you can't see someone, the driver and the cyclists should by law have lights on (and reflectors). A novelty luminous helmet would give so little light it would be pointless at night.

If someone wants to wear some hi-vis they can wear a jacket or a waistcoat with many times the area of a helmet. Also hi-vis is primarily to be seen during daylight. Its the reflective strips that are for night time. And a light/reflector is still vastly more visible, and a requirement in law.

The idea that someone will ignore the law by not having lights, not wear a hi viz jacket but will wear a pointless luminous hat, is ridiculous.

opti0nal

I'm a cyclist

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I like the small painted roundabouts that drivers just drive over.

The less bad drivers do that. I've had near head-ons with drivers totally on the wrong side. Pure laziness on four wheels.

anncoates

Should pay some form of road tax

So to sum up.the thread, I'm a (insert road user) that acts like a c*nt on.the road and that's OK because those ( insert road user target of hate) do it all the time.

Furthermore my friends will arrive to the thread shortly to.back.me up.

hardCopy

I'm a cyclist

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

If dressing like a "clown" saves a life then it is worth it.

Likewise wearing a helmet can save the life of a cyclist if they were to be in an accident. The small addition of bright colour to the helmet would be an additional safety measure.

Re pedestrians, they don't wear helmets, therefore changing the colour of helmets would not affect them.

Some areas also have cycle lanes in which cyclists and motorists will be sharing common areas, an area in which their visibility could save a life. Pedestrians should not really be walking in these cycle lanes.

For pedestrians walking in areas where there is no light, well yes they should be dressed accordingly.

What load of utter bollix.

By that logic all cars should be florescent as well.

Maybe we should paint the trees too.

Or maybe you could just look where you're going.

Mr.Crinklewood

hardCopy wrote: »

What load of utter bollix.

By that logic all cars should be florescent as well.

Maybe we should paint the trees too.

Or maybe you could just look where you're going.

Do you think cars would be more visible if they were florescent?

Mr.Crinklewood

BostonB wrote: »

Because its nonsense. If its dark enough that you can't see someone, the driver and the cyclists should by law have lights on (and reflectors). A novelty luminous helmet would give so little light it would be pointless at night.

If someone wants to wear some hi-vis they can wear a jacket or a waistcoat with many times the area of a helmet. Also hi-vis is primarily to be seen during daylight. Its the reflective strips that are for night time. And a light/reflector is still vastly more visible, and a requirement in law.

The idea that someone will ignore the law by not having lights, not wear a hi viz jacket but will wear a pointless luminous hat, is ridiculous.

Where did I say people would ignore the law by not having lights, not wear a hi viz jacket but wear a jacket?

As already stated, I see more people wearing helmets than wearing hi viz jackets. Therefore if all helmets were luminous then these people would be more visible.

Admittedly this was initially from my own experience, however in the TCD provided by Jawgap this provides statistics showing that more cyclists wear helmets than any other safety gear.

hardCopy

I'm a cyclist

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

Do you think cars would be more visible if they were florescent?

I think it'd be pointless, like making people wear lime green helmets.

Front and rear lights are all that's needed on a bike and retro-reflective strips are more useful than day-glo anyway.

Mr.Crinklewood

hardCopy wrote: »

I think it'd be pointless, like making people wear lime green helmets.

Front and rear lights are all that's needed on a bike and retro-reflective strips are more useful than day-glo anyway.

Correct, when they are used and working properly. The same applies for the cyclists, however when they are not used or working properly a small change to the colour of a safety item worn more than any other safety item would be an assistance.

Killer Wench

Should pay some form of road tax

Here in WA state, if a cyclist is using the roadway, then they have to abide by the same traffic laws as motorists, but motorist should yield the right of way to cyclists. This means that they can receive traffic infractions for riding through red lights, not providing turn signals, etc.; those who ride on the sidewalk do not have to abide by those same rules, but they should yield the right of way to pedestrians.