note to cyclist in dublin

chopper6

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

You're probably not intending to be funny but that is hilarious!

Most of us are car owners and subsidise you by using our bikes while our taxed cars remain at home. Many motorists are wasting their lives stuck in their cars getting frustrated with traffic, getting fat and unfit, burning fuel and incurring parking charges etc.. It is they who are jealous of us out their making progress in traffic, using bus lanes, remaining fit, saving money on fuel with no parking charges.

And as regards all that crap you are spouting about the "qualifications" required to drive - in my experience most motorists have only passed a test in one category usually B but seem to consider themselves experts. I have passed a test in many categories and hold a full clean driving licence in all 14 categories (A, A1, B, BE, C1, C1E, C, CE, D1, D1E, D, DE, M, & W).

Incidentally,on a 70km spin tonight (in Dublin City, suburbs and county) I saw one cyclist breaking a red light (at the junction of O'Connell Street and Parnell Street) yet I encountered at least a dozen motorists breaking red lights.

What *I* find hilarious is this sort of rabid attack on the mentality of motorists..."all experts","fat and unfit" and so on...talking as a motorist to a cyclist is similar to talking to a vegetarian as a carnivore...cyclists are preachy and judgemental and eternally trying to justify themselves...i really dont see what the big deal is.

But enough ranting...i will ask again:




Why arent cyclists required to pass *any* sort of test?

They are road users are they not,regardless of thier motivations for cycling?

Grimebox

I'll put my hands up and go against the grain here. I regularly ignore the rules of the road as a cyclist. I probably will continue to ignore them until I get a fine. I somehow believe I won't get caught. I am the reason for these laws being pushed. I'm a stubborn eejit who hates following rules to the letter

Kiltennel

chopper6 wrote: »

Why arent cyclists required to pass *any* sort of test?

They are road users are they not,regardless of thier motivations for cycling?

Please think this through. How on earth do you plan for this to be enforced? What will the law be and who is eligible to take this test as any child who can cycle does not have the capacity to take such a test until their teens.

Surveyor11

While I don't agree with all of chopper's points, I would say (as a cyclist) that basic training would do no harm - when I was in primary school in the late 70's, we had our playground marked out like a road - stop signs, t-junctions etc. We were taught how to use the road properly - from memory it was a course sponsored by the predecessor of the RSA. I'm not sure if this was a nationwide initiative at the time, but it gave a good grounding in the basics. I'm not sure of its done today in schools, but cycling has dramatically dropped off since the 80's with the proliferation of cars, a good proportion of which are taking journeys of less than two miles in the mornings. Also, and I'm open to correction, I don't think any other country in Europe requires a test for cyclists, bit I would suspect that education at primary and secondary level is probably more at the fore than it is here, in addition to societal differences (more responsible and socially conscious).


But also remember that a good proportion of cyclists are drivers as well and that there are a lot of provisional, older drivers who've never sat a test and a good proportion of drivers who go their licences under an amnesty. However, the thread is about cyclists breaking red lights, where there is undoubtedly a problem, but I'm not sure of this would help the situation - if you are to take a lead from cars, my own observations is that red light breaking is more of an issue for cars, both in numbers and consequences - it's certainly what I witness at almost every junction on my commute.

chopper6

Kiltennel wrote: »

Please think this through. How on earth do you plan for this to be enforced? What will the law be and who is eligible to take this test as any child who can cycle does not have the capacity to take such a test until their teens.

I'm not talking about some kid messing round on a Raleigh Burner...most parents these days wont let kids cycle further than the gate anyway.

I'm talking about adults using bicycles in the city centre,cyclists who regularly travel major roads on thier way to work or whatever.

One way of starting the ball rolling would be that bicycle hire scheme in town...in order to hire one of those bikes you need to pass a competancy test first..if only a written one at a testing centre.

pillphil

chopper6 wrote: »

Well i know somebody whose brakes failed on the way to Dundrum and they ended up swiping another car. That was this year.

Why didn't the NCT prevent that from happening?

chopper6

pillphil wrote: »

Why didn't the NCT prevent that from happening?

Well you could visit your Doctor tommorow and get a clean bill of health....two days later you could have a heart attack.

The NCT is to show the car is fit for the road,it can't predict something going wrong with the car later on.

italodisco

Glad (as a cyclist) to hear of cyclists getting donE for breaking red lights, pisses me off so much to see others just wheel through a red light and then through looks at drivers/other cyclists who have the right of way.

Absolute twats .

No need to start at me about drivers, not talking about cars .

ixoy

Just post a Garda down at the junction between Georges Street and Dame Street. A nightmare spot there with cyclists and cars constantly driving through red lights even as pedestrians are crossing with the green man. They'd make a small fortune in charges.

chopper6

ixoy wrote: »

Just post a Garda down at the junction between Georges Street and Dame Street. A nightmare spot there with cyclists and cars constantly driving through red lights even as pedestrians are crossing with the green man. They'd make a small fortune in charges.

I also see cyclists regularly flying up and down the Luas line round abbey st...one bloke who was drunk came a cropper when his wheel got stuck in the tram rail,fortunately there were no trams on the line at the time.

italodisco

I think that pedestrians are as much a nuisance as cars / bikes / bicycles.

They do dart between cars without even checking for two-wheelers , absolute pain.

J walking should be cracked down on big time. Then again its a joke as ive been told its illegal to park in a cycle lane but every day the residents of Portland row near the 5 lamps all park their cars in the bike lane, cops dont Do anything about it.

A good start would involve the gardai inforcing rules fairly and EVENLY across the board.

EazyD

hardCopy wrote: »

While some kind of training would be nice for the idiots who cycle on paths and break lights, it would just discourage too many people from taking up cycling for little benefit. Driver testing and licencing ensures that some level of competency is shown before you can take a lethal weapon out on the road.

Cyclists just don't kill people,so why bother making it more difficult to get started?

A work colleague of my dads was killed a few years back in city centre by a cyclist breaking a light, pavements aren't soft you know.

I personally know several people who have been badly hurt by careless cyclists, my girlfriend herself was wiped out by a wanker on Leeson Street, who of course cycled on saying nothing.

Negligence kills whether by car,bike, motorbike, whatever the means.

CramCycle

chopper6 wrote: »

One way of starting the ball rolling would be that bicycle hire scheme in town...in order to hire one of those bikes you need to pass a competancy test first..if only a written one at a testing centre.

Congratulations, you just shut down the most successful bike hire scheme in the world, put a shed load of people in worse off health, added to congestion, had a minor negative effect on tourism, a minor negative effect on business etc. etc.

chopper6

CramCycle wrote: »

Congratulations, you just shut down the most successful bike hire scheme in the world, put a shed load of people in worse off health, added to congestion, had a minor negative effect on tourism, a minor negative effect on business etc. etc.

...Or they could undertake the safety test.

CramCycle

chopper6 wrote: »

...Or they could undertake the safety test.

Em.. yeah, and the scheme would flounder and fail.
I drive and cycle on a daily basis, having a test does not seem to improve safety levels in motorised vehicles (slight sarcasm but there is a point). The majority of people know the rules without ever having sat a test, I know as much technically now as I did before I passed my test. I have alot more experience now, my driving has improved, I am not a good driver but I believe I am a damn safe one. There are those that seem to have gotten progressively worse since receiving their license, those who sat their test and those who got it in a lottery?!?. I still see cars speeding up on amber, usually with 3 to 4 passing on red during rush hour, I once witnessed a fender bender where someone stopped on the red and the car who rear ended it started giving out that it stopped without notice?!? No L plates in the guilty persons car. I myself was rear ended on my bicycle by another bike when I stopped on red. My boss was rear ended by a car when he (on a bike) stopped on red because they thought he was being a smart ass and trying to delay them so they "showed him".

People know the rules. Having a test, which is not economically viable, political suicide and in general a humongous negative for public health, is one of the stupidest ideas I have ever heard. Maybe if it was introduced at school level, eg pre junior cert and therefore mandatory for all school going children, it would make sense.

The reason behaviour of this type is tolerated, regardless of the type of road user you are, is lack of enforcement, the reason for this is lack of resources, manpower and in the case of cyclist the lack of fixed penalty notices as opposed to the time wasting bullsh1t of court dates, which wastes money and time of the state, the AGS, basically all of us.

Back on topic, that is why I am glad there is a crack down but annoyed as f*ck that there is no fixed penalty notice yet.

beauf

chopper6 wrote: »

Well what do you do if THEY don't make thier intentions clear by not indicating?

Assume the worst, and wait to see what they are going to do. As you would with a taxi.

beauf

chopper6 wrote: »

...what proficiency or otehr tests to cyclists have to t ake before hitting the streets/

Nothing.


A motorist must pass the Driver Theory test to even qualify for a Provisional Licence,he must then take lessons from a qualified driver and is not allowed to drive unacompanied whilst learning.

In order to drive by himself the motorist must have passed the driving test,the car must be in possesion of a valid NCT certificate,motor tax and insurance.


Aditionaly motorists are regularly stopped for intoxication tests and for document checks.

Anybody can jump on a bicycle,whether it's a roadworthy contraption or not,they need no license,no test and they don't pay any kind of taxes.

It is my opinion that bicycle should be licensed,taxed and certified roadworthy and cyclists should also complete a 'driving' test before being allowed to use the city's roads.

A large % of cyclists are also drivers. Drivers doing test doesn't stop them from breaking laws, speeding and mobile phones use is as common as Red light jumpers. So whats the point of another test, that will cost money, and not be enforced. None. The laws are there already they just need to be enforced.

Perhaps you think a test would improve cyclists safety. Well do you have stats to prove that. because most stats would indicate its drivers that are the cause of the majority of cyclist vs car accidents. Which would suggest the best results would be achieved in more driver testing\training in relation to cyclists. Measures similar to those you suggest, have resulted in reducing the number of cyclists. Statistically the more that cycle the safer it is. Safety in numbers.

So your measures would be counter productive.

As a kid I went to traffic school in fairview. If they had resources they could bring that back.
http://www.whereisdarrennow.com/2012/11/germans-and-their-bicycles.html
http://prepatlps.global2.vic.edu.au/files/2008/10/p9100039.jpg

Personally I think if you want drivers to follow the rules and laws, it makes no sense to ignore them as a cyclist.

hardCopy

chopper6 wrote: »

...Or they could undertake the safety test.

Why though? Cyclists are only a danger to themselves. Let them at it.

beauf

hardCopy wrote: »

Why though? Cyclists are only a danger to themselves. Let them at it.

...themselves and pedestrians...

...maybe pedestrians should be "licensed,taxed and certified" as they also use the roadways when they cross them, and where there's no footpath.

Even if you took that seriously. I doubt the cost of running such a scheme would give any return in safety, and it would run at a massive financial loss. If it wasn't enforced. There are laws for pedestrians which seem to be largely unenforced also.

whiskeyman

unreal the amount of cyclists without lights / no high vis this morning is very bad conditions.
I know high vis isnt mandatory, but at least make an effort to be seen!

Galadriel

chopper6 wrote: »

...Or they could undertake the safety test.

Tourists? here for a few weeks?

07Lapierre

whiskeyman wrote: »

unreal the amount of cyclists without lights / no high vis this morning is very bad conditions.
I know high vis isnt mandatory, but at least make an effort to be seen!

+1..they give the rest of us a bad name!

tomasrojo

It might be helpful to consider the historical development of regulation, testing and registration around road users. Cyclists were around before motorised transport, and yet very little regulation, etc. has grown up around them. As far as I know, this is because whatever harm cyclists might cause, it was completely dwarfed by the death and impairment caused as motoring became more common. There weren't even that many motorists in the 30s in the UK, for example, but the road fatality rate was higher than in the 60s, when motoring was far more common. Part of it is down to people adapting to the more hostile roads, but you can see why a drive for regulation and training started with motorists.

EDIT: there's a good graph here:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reported_Road_Casualties_Great_Britain
The 60s were pretty bad too actually.

kylith

chopper6 wrote: »

Are you a motorist?


I think you're not...if you were you would know what i was talking about.


I think a lot of the antipathy directed against car-owners by cyclists is down to jealousy yet they choose to spin around on bicycles in all sorts of weathers whereas motorists remain warm and dry.

I think that you could learn a lot by cycling for a few weeks. You might then see that the antipathy directed against car owners often has its roots in poor practise by the motorist, and you'd learn something about the difficulties cyclist face on a daily basis.

chopper6 wrote: »

What *I* find hilarious is this sort of rabid attack on the mentality of motorists..."all experts","fat and unfit" and so on...talking as a motorist to a cyclist is similar to talking to a vegetarian as a carnivore...cyclists are preachy and judgemental and eternally trying to justify themselves...i really dont see what the big deal is.

And yet you seem more than happy to tar all cyclists with the same brush.

EazyD wrote: »

A work colleague of my dads was killed a few years back in city centre by a cyclist breaking a light, pavements aren't soft you know.

I personally know several people who have been badly hurt by careless cyclists, my girlfriend herself was wiped out by a wanker on Leeson Street, who of course cycled on saying nothing.

And I, while cycling, have had to drop my bike, damaging it and myself, to avoid hitting a pedestrian who stepped off the pavement directly into my path in the cycle lane on O'Connell Street. I've been nearly killed by motorists pulling in directly in front of me to park, and all I've gotten is 'sorry love, didn't see you'. I personally know cyclists who've been hospitalised by motorists not taking sufficient care when pulling out of side streets.

ALL road users, whether in a car or on a bike or on foot, need to be aware of those around them.

Negligence kills whether by car,bike, motorbike, whatever the means.

Very, very true.

Yes, there are cyclists that break red lights but I think these are becoming fewer. But there are also many, many junctions around the city where motorists fail to stop at an amber light as a matter of course. There are sections of road that are treated as motorists as two lanes when they are in fact one lane roads. But would I say 'all motorists break lights'? No. SOME do, and tarring all motorists with the same brush would be as unfair as doing so to cyclists.

ThisRegard

whiskeyman wrote: »

unreal the amount of cyclists without lights / no high vis this morning is very bad conditions.
I know high vis isnt mandatory, but at least make an effort to be seen!

Unreal the amount of motorists I saw driving around me on the M1, M2 and M50 this morning with no lights on whatsoever with the darkness and spray from cars. They could have at least tied some high vis flags to their aerials.



The point is, and has been made many many times already, it's people that are the issue, not someone that uses a certain mode of transport.

Ole Rodrigo

One example of where the motorists suit themselves is Parnell Square West. After a succession of lights that slows their passage from O'Connell St and Parnell Street, they have a run of it to the top of the square to the Dorset Street junction where they make up for lost time by putting the foot down and breaking the speed limit. This is unfair against pedestrians crossing to the Rotunda, Museums or Maldron Hotel ( not to mention cyclists turning to the North of the square, or cars pulling out from parking spaces ) , as there are few safe places to cross safely, so they end up running the gauntlet against the speeding traffic. Traffic which will only be required to stop at the next set of lights so they gain nothing.

This is just one example, there are many more around the city centre like it. I see this every day without fail. As the others have said its all road users taking liberties and doing as they please, putting pressure on garda resources. Its not one group alone.

reprazant

chopper6 wrote: »

I'm not talking about some kid messing round on a Raleigh Burner...most parents these days wont let kids cycle further than the gate anyway.

I'm talking about adults using bicycles in the city centre,cyclists who regularly travel major roads on thier way to work or whatever.

One way of starting the ball rolling would be that bicycle hire scheme in town...in order to hire one of those bikes you need to pass a competancy test first..if only a written one at a testing centre.

That makes no sense at all. So rather than teach people the proper way to cycle when they are starting off, you are of the opinion that you should wait until they are completely grown up and cycling in the city? What of kids and teenagers cycling to school? Just ignore them and wait for any bad habits to be fully ingrained before telling them what you should do?

beauf

kylith wrote: »

...Yes, there are cyclists that break red lights but I think these are becoming fewer. ....

In fairness it must be something like 70~80% of cyclists and much less of drivers who go on amber. Depends on the junction though. Some junctions are more prone to it than others. So depending on your route you might see more or less of it.

kylith

beauf wrote: »

In fairness it must be something like 70~80% of cyclists and much less of drivers who go on amber. Depends on the junction though. Some junctions are more prone to it than others. So depending on your route you might see more or less of it.

I wouldn't say that that percentage of cyclists break the lights. While I'm walking along the canal in the mornings I only see one or two go through red lights, whereas there might be six or eight waiting for green.

I think the highest percentage of cyclist-light-breaking would be at pedestrian crossings. Most cyclists I've seen would slow to a crawl and see if anyone is crossing before going through, again it's the minority that blast through at full speed with no thought.

beauf

The canal is on my cycle commute route and on some lights I'm usually the only cyclist who stops. Maybe it feels like more because I have to over take the same cyclists a few times.

Then again when I'm driving at the lights from parkgate st to the quays, as the lights turn red, there always 2 or 3 drivers who always roll over on amber/red to fill the yellow box, when I'm trying to get out into it, from the Aisling Hotel.

Its what you notice I guess.