Cork SRR - Cyclist in Middle Lane

Iwannahurl

Donnelly117 wrote: »

Should have known this thread would soon boil down to a cars vs cyclists debate sooner or later... Since I've seen this hundreds of times on boards I think ill call it a day on this one...

Sooner, as in post #20 which you thanked: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87913076&postcount=20

blackwhite

Iwannahurl wrote: »

See post #236 and subsequent.

All of which is completely irrelevant to the topic.

blackwhite

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Sooner, as in post #20 which you thanked: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87913076&postcount=20

That post certainly isn't Cyclists V Motorists.
It very clearly refers to the "lunatic fringe" - now if you think that the word "fringe" means that he is refering to all, or even most, cyclists then you really need to go back to school and brush up on your English comprehension.

But don't let anyone get in the way of the usual agenda-pushing.... it's not like you ever let small inconveniences like common sense or facts get in the way of your soap-box anyway

Red Belly

Followed this for a while with amusement. I cycle and I drive. The cyclist was probably within his rights but put himself in a dangerous situation or was forced into a dangerous situation by poor road design/planning. By slowing down and/or tailing back, the drivers acted responsibly and accommodated the situation the cyclist found himself in despite probably being pissed off about it.

This is a good news story: "Cyclist in dangerous situation, possibly not of his own making, survives because of responsible drivers reacting appropriately".

rb

The Bishop Basher

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Inevitably I caught up with her at the next junction (a roundabout, inevitably) because it is inevitably clogged with cars every morning. Curiosity got the better of me, and I went up to her window indicating that I wanted to ask her something. She rolled down the window and we had a brief chat.

Yeah. So you picked a fight.

You're not cycleddub by any chance are you ?

Iwannahurl

Swanner wrote: »

Yeah. So you picked a fight.

You're not cycleddub by any chance are you ?

No and no.

Iwannahurl

blackwhite wrote: »

it's not like you ever let small inconveniences like common sense or facts get in the way of your soap-box anyway

You've found me out. I'm always making stuff up and I never back up my arguments with evidence.

Red Nissan

It made Joe Duffy's show today. Large momentum building against cyclists, or at least their attitude on the roads.

Anan1

Red Nissan wrote: »

It made Joe Duffy's show today. Large momentum building against cyclists, or at least their attitude on the roads.

There's always a large momentum on Joe Duffy. Meanwhile, more and more people are cycling. Which, incidentally, means fewer cars.

Red Nissan

Anan1 wrote: »

There's always a large momentum on Joe Duffy. Meanwhile, more and more people are cycling. Which, incidentally, means fewer cars.

I used to cycle, loved it but eventually gave it up, too many near misses, I hitting two cars and three cars hitting me ~ a bit of paint damage and a few buses sort of events.

I'm forced to walk for medical reasons and I can't cross the road, the volume of traffic is just horrendous, pedestrian crossing will ALWAYS see at least one car that will not see me and not see the stopped traffic and drive through, cyclist are silent and I'm scared by them several times a day as whiz past at considerable speed.

blackwhite

Red Nissan wrote: »

It made Joe Duffy's show today. Large momentum building against cyclists, or at least their attitude on the roads.

The vast majority of cyclists have a fairly decent attitude on the road. The problem is a visable minority that ignore the rules of the road (red lights in particular), ignore common courtesy, and generally act the dick. The problem arises because most motorists seem to only notice the ones acting the c**t.

The fact that the Joe Duffy show prefers to weed out the more rational callers before giving them airtime will generally tend to result in a lynch mob being formed.

There does seem to be a major defensiveness amongst many "good" cyclists about any criticism of any cyclists - most likely because so many of the people doing the criticising like to generalise about "all cyclists" - but even in instances when the criticism is justified it seems to be taken as criticism of the collective, not the individual who was being a dick.

**I drive nearly every day and cycle once or twice a week - I'd love to be able to cycle to work, but until we move to an office with a shower the distance I commute (uphill for most of the way there as well) would make it very unpleasant for my coworkers :P

The Bishop Basher

I never had a problem with cyclists in the past but they are becoming more and more of a nuisance lately. Everything from the hordes of lycra clad "tour de France" wannabes taking up huge sections of road at the weekends to the arseholes on their daily commute who seem to take delight in taking up a full lane and slowing you down to 30km when in reality there's plenty of room for everyone if they'd just move in and demonstrated a sense of common courtesy. Not all cyclists are like this obviously but the bad ones do seem to be growing in numbers.

It's bad enough witnessing this on a daily basis but for some reason the majority of cyclists posting on boards seem to translate the arrogant and defensive "we have our rights and will exercise them so screw everyone else" attitude from real life to here. Again not all but it does seem like most and it's clearly demonstrated once again on this thread.

A serious change of attitude would do much to help their cause and help us all get along and make the roads a much safer place to be but it doesn't look like happening anytime soon.

Of course there are bad drivers as well and they should be dealt with appropriately but I think the difference is you will often see motorists come down like a ton of bricks on other motorists when they admit to dangerous driving or breaking the rules on here. All we get from cyclists is defense of the indefensible, arrogance and a screw you attitude to every other road user.

Iwannahurl

Swanner wrote: »

A serious change of attitude would do much to help their cause and help us all get along and make the roads a much safer place to be but it doesn't look like happening anytime soon.

Of course there are bad drivers as well and they should be dealt with appropriately but I think the difference is you will often see motorists come down like a ton of bricks on other motorists when they admit to dangerous driving or breaking the rules on here. All we get from cyclists is defense of the indefensible, arrogance and a screw you attitude to every other road user.

Speaking purely for myself, I would not try to defend the indefensible.

I am interested in understanding road user behaviour, however. Just today I spoke to three cyclists who were travelling against the flow of traffic on a cycle path. What they were doing might not have been blatantly illegal, nor was it particularly dangerous (at least not when I encountered them) but it was certainly unorthodox and it was not what I would do. Each was a pleasant individual and far from being a reckless muppet. Each had a plausible explanation for their behaviour, which had to do with ease of access along their route.

That said, let's keep a bit of perspective on the subject. What are the primary sources of danger on Irish roads? You might find some answers here: http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/Collision-Statistics/

The Bishop Basher

Iwannahurl wrote: »

That said, let's keep a bit of perspective on the subject. What are the primary sources of danger on Irish roads? You might find some answers here: http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/Collision-Statistics/

Naturally cars are the biggest source of danger on the road. There's a lot of them and they move at speed. If bicycles were as numerous, heavy and fast as cars they'd be right up there in the stats.

_Kaiser_

Swanner wrote: »

I never had a problem with cyclists in the past but they are becoming more and more of a nuisance lately. Everything from the hordes of lycra clad "tour de France" wannabes taking up huge sections of road at the weekends to the arseholes on their daily commute who seem to take delight in taking up a full lane and slowing you down to 30km when in reality there's plenty of room for everyone if they'd just move in and demonstrated a sense of common courtesy. Not all cyclists are like this obviously but the bad ones do seem to be growing in numbers.

I've noticed this more lately too. Previously you could pretty much "ignore" a cyclist (as in move out slightly, overtake and be past them without any problems or delays to either party), but more and more I find myself being forced to dawdle behind them as they sit in the middle of the lane or 2/3 abreast until you can find a suitable gap to overtake (which given most suburban roads are lined with parked or stopped cars isn't always easy).

There's a reason why places like Holland and Germany have invested in dedicated and separated cycle infrastructure. Busy (narrow and/or poorly surfaced) roads and slow moving, poorly-lit (in many cases), cyclists with zero professional training, testing or insurance is not a good mix given the volume of traffic on the roads nowadays.

If cyclists want to share the road "equally" they should undergo the same theory and (equivalent) testing as motorists. They should also be required to be insured. If a cyclist smashes my wing mirror while undertaking or weaving between traffic there's pretty much feck all I can do about it .. yet if I clipped them I'd face the full weight of the law, personal injury claims and insurance penalties.

Donnelly117

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Sooner, as in post #20 which you thanked: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87913076&postcount=20

Eh no...the post I thanked was a discussion relevant to the topic of the thread. Now you are just bitching about a fight you picked with some guy in a car. You are past the point of discussing the original topic and now you're just here to wind people up.

Cookie_Monster

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

If cyclists want to share the road "equally" they should undergo the same theory and (equivalent) testing as motorists. .

the vast majority of cyclists also drive so have undergone the same training and testing

The Bishop Basher

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

the vast majority of cyclists also drive so have undergone the same training and testing

And your data source for this is ?

Even of you could prove that the majority of cyclists are also drivers, that would still leave a significant number of cyclists on the road that have had no training whatsoever.

In other words, your point is invalid.

Anan1

Swanner wrote: »

And your data source for this is ?

Even of you could prove that the majority of cyclists are also drivers, that would still leave a significant number of cyclists on the road that have had no training whatsoever.

In other words, your point is invalid.

I realize that none of us has the figures to hand, but do you really think that most cyclists don't drive?

The Bishop Basher

Anan1 wrote: »

I realize that none of us has the figures to hand, but do you really think that most cyclists don't drive?

I have no idea and nor have you. Until you can back up the claim that most cyclists drive with real figures, the point is invalid.

Anan1

Swanner wrote: »

I have no idea and nor have you. Until you can back up the claim that most cyclists drive with real figures, the point is invalid.

We both know that it's more than likely true, it just doesn't suit your argument to admit it.

Tenzor07

Great the way these topics turn into Cyclist bashing threads.. :rolleyes:

Always by the same posters. And the threads always bring up the same points again and again...

It's hilarious though! Keep the irrational funny stuff coming!

Cyclists with zero professional training, testing or insurance - Maybe the NCT should apply also, emissions testing etc? Insurance for kids on bikes...:D

Cyclists are becoming more and more of a nuisance lately - I think there was a meeting of Cycling Ireland where this was agreed on!

If bicycles were as numerous, heavy and fast as cars they'd be right up there in the stats - I don't wanna cycle a 2 ton bike that can do 120mph!

There's a reason why places like Holland and Germany have invested in dedicated and separated cycle infrastructure - Yes it was because of all the road deaths of cycle users by motorised vehicles, Hello! All on Youtube..

Oh... And they don't even pay MotorRoad Tax Joe!

The Bishop Basher

Anan1 wrote: »

We both know that it's more than likely true, it just doesn't suit your argument to admit it.

Ok Anan.

If "more then likely true" is the best you have on this, I think we'll leave it there.

dr.fuzzenstein

The problem is the sort of low-level, ingrained stubbornness and selfishness you find in this country. In other European countries you have a much better spirit of cooperation in the general population and that extends to all areas.
When doing business in Germany, I am astonished how open and easy everything is. People ask questions and request information not because they somehow want to tip over your cart and stop you from doing whatever it is you're doing, but because they need all the information at hand to make it possible and minimise problems in the future. The rules (many as they are) exist to make everything possible and ultimately easier.
The approach here is cute hoor.
Say nothing and say it often, never let the other guy see your cards, get yourself the advantage and if you can stick a pole through the other guy's wheel, great, do it.
The rules here exist to make everything difficult, expensive and make sure only the "right" people get to the top.
This attitude is reflected on the road.
It's just the way this country is, so I'd expect things to continue they way they are.
Since the cyclists here are only keyboard warriors and won't put their money where their mouth is, I'll have to do it. Expect me on a bike on a DC near Limerick, going slowly and weaving all over the place and causing a tailback, whilst wearing a shirt that says "I Am Entitled!" And then complain every driver that undertakes me to the Gards.

_Kaiser_

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Great the way these topics turn into Cyclist bashing threads.. :rolleyes:

Always by the same posters. And the threads always bring up the same points again and again...

It's hilarious though! Keep the irrational funny stuff coming!

Cyclists with zero professional training, testing or insurance - Maybe the NCT should apply also, emissions testing etc? Insurance for kids on bikes...:D

Cyclists are becoming more and more of a nuisance lately - I think there was a meeting of Cycling Ireland where this was agreed on!

If bicycles were as numerous, heavy and fast as cars they'd be right up there in the stats - I don't wanna cycle a 2 ton bike that can do 120mph!

There's a reason why places like Holland and Germany have invested in dedicated and separated cycle infrastructure - Yes it was because of all the road deaths of cycle users by motorised vehicles, Hello! All on Youtube..

Oh... And they don't even pay MotorRoad Tax Joe!

You're talking about "typical responses" and then add loads of your own.

- An "NCT" for bikes might not be a bad thing really now that you've mentioned it.

- Insurance most definitely. As it stands any cyclist who damages a car or runs into a pedestrian can't really be held accountable. If they want to be seen as an equal road user, the same rules should apply to them .. including lane usage and red light adherence!

- Cyclists are putting themselves at more risk through a lack of some basic cop on vs "their rights" (as seen in the OP of this thread) and as described by others

- Idiots like yer man in that YouTube video above do cyclists no favours either.. muttering reg numbers to himself and berating motorists for perceived "injustices". He'll do that to the wrong car some day. Uploading it to YouTube to show what a "hero" he is is way out of line too

_Kaiser_

Anan1 wrote: »

I realize that none of us has the figures to hand, but do you really think that most cyclists don't drive?

Even IF that's true there's still a very big difference to cycling vs driving a car, and the rules that should be followed.

No-one would suggest I could jump into a 40 ft truck for example just because I have a car license.

Tenzor07

Cycle Insurance, NCT, Road Tax.... Maybe man with red flag walking in front of groups of cyclists to warn "Real" traffic that a bunch of sweaty middle aged men in lycra are approaching?

Anything else?

Seweryn

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

- An "NCT" for bikes might not be a bad thing really now that you've mentioned it.

- Insurance most definitely. As it stands any cyclist who damages a car or runs into a pedestrian can't really be held accountable. If they want to be seen as an equal road user, the same rules should apply to them .. including lane usage and red light adherence!

Are you for real? So if you hit a pedestrian that ran in front of you and damaged your bonnet and the windscreen, then you will be looking at the same scenario. Should pedestrians have their own insurance?

I am not going to comment on the NCT idea for bikes :rolleyes:.

dr.fuzzenstein

Seweryn wrote: »

Are you for real? So if you hit a pedestrian that ran in front of you and damaged your bonnet and the windscreen, then you will be looking at the same scenario. Should pedestrians have their own insurance?

I am not going to comment on the NCT idea for bikes :rolleyes:.

The idea is, that if a cyclist runs down a pedestrian and he's badly injured, who's going to pay?
If someone gets paralysed and will need medical care for the rest of his life, where's the money coming from?
Or is it just tough luck on the guy who dared to get in the cyclists path?

Tenzor07

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

The idea is, that if a cyclist runs down a pedestrian and he's badly injured, who's going to pay?
If someone gets paralysed and will need medical care for the rest of his life, where's the money coming from?
Or is it just tough luck on the guy who dared to get in the cyclists path?

So in this scenario the pedestrian walked into the path of a cycle user.

I am no legal expert but surely the "at fault party" was the pedestrian who walked into the path of a moving cycle?

Seweryn

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

The idea is, that if a cyclist runs down a pedestrian and he's badly injured, who's going to pay?
If someone gets paralysed and will need medical care for the rest of his life, where's the money coming from?
Or is it just tough luck on the guy who dared to get in the cyclists path?

One of the reasons we do not pay insurance fees for bikes is because the possibility of the above scenario is very low (or an expensive damage made by cyclist to someone else's property). You just made that up . Secondly if there was pedestrian at fault, again - do you want pedestrians to be insured?

Secondly, insurance for bikes (and maybe NCT or "motor" tax) would put a lot of cyclists off the road back into their cars. That would increase the congestions on our already congested roads and would increase the risk of collisions and result in higher insurance premiums for everybody. I don't think it is something we are looking for.

Anan1

Swanner wrote: »

Ok Anan.

If "more then likely true" is the best you have on this, I think we'll leave it there.

You need to focus more on seeing things from other peoples perspectives and less on trying to 'win'.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Even IF that's true there's still a very big difference to cycling vs driving a car, and the rules that should be followed.

No-one would suggest I could jump into a 40 ft truck for example just because I have a car license.

This is true, but it does help the cyclist to see things from a motorist's perspective. Remember that a cyclist is often a motorist who just happens to have taken the bike instead of the car for that journey.

The Bishop Basher

Anan1 wrote: »

You need to focus more on seeing things from other peoples perspectives and less on trying to 'win'.

I'm wide open to other peoples perspectives. I'm not open to someone trying to "prove" a position based on their own assumptions and then trying to force that assumption on others.

I could go find numerous examples where you have adopted a similar position in the past but I couldn't be arsed. You know this to be the case.

Anan1

Swanner wrote: »

I'm wide open to other peoples perspectives. I'm not open to someone trying to "prove" a position based on their own assumptions and then trying to force that assumption on others.

I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm a motorist - I haven't been on a bike in years. But common-sense is common-sense, and the only thing preventing you from admitting that most cyclists probably also drive is that it doesn't suit your argument.

The Bishop Basher

Anan1 wrote: »

I'm not trying to prove anything. .

Of course you are. That's why you're posting on here same as everyone else. At least be honest with yourself about it.

Anan1 wrote: »

But common-sense is common-sense, and the only thing preventing you from admitting that most cyclists probably also drive is that it doesn't suit your argument.

No. I'm saying I don't know. And in the absence of any kind of factual data it's impossible for me to call it either way.

I backed out of this thread already as a result of your inabiliity to let a point go. I should have stayed away. This time I will.

dr.fuzzenstein

Seweryn wrote: »

One of the reasons we do not pay insurance fees for bikes is because the possibility of the above scenario is very low (or an expensive damage made by cyclist to someone else's property). You just made that up . Secondly if there was pedestrian at fault, again - do you want pedestrians to be insured?

Secondly, insurance for bikes (and maybe NCT or "motor" tax) would put a lot of cyclists off the road back into their cars. That would increase the congestions on our already congested roads and would increase the risk of collisions and result in higher insurance premiums for everybody. I don't think it is something we are looking for.

It works both ways indeed.
Cyclist breaks red light (Yes I know, it never happens, but let's just assume this outlandish scenario is theoretically possible), runs down pedestrian, pedestrian falls, hits his/her head of a kerb and is now dead/paralysed.
This will costs millions. Who pays?
The same goes the other way round.
Pedestrian does not pay attention to cyclist, steps out in front of him, cyclist swerves, same end result.
Who pays for him when he becomes a vegetable?
Don't say it never happens, because pedestrians and cyclists do get killed and it's not always cars (though, of course it mostly is, but this is not an impossible scenario).
In the country you can add horses into the mix. No sane rider would ever go out without being insured. I'm sure 50 years ago people laughed at the idea of being insured on a horse, but now it's essential.

As for bike training:
In Germany we did bicycle training, the schoolyard was turned into a mini traffic system with lights and signs and everything, we did practice runs and had to pass a test. It only makes sense to me.
Incidents like described in the OP only make a point for more regulation and the reaction of a lot of cyclists only will ensure it happens sooner rather than later.

Seweryn

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

It works both ways indeed.
Cyclist breaks red light (Yes I know, it never happens, but let's just assume this outlandish scenario is theoretically possible), runs down pedestrian, pedestrian falls, hits his/her head of a kerb and is now dead/paralysed.
This will costs millions. Who pays?
The same goes the other way round.
Pedestrian does not pay attention to cyclist, steps out in front of him, cyclist swerves, same end result.
Who pays for him when he becomes a vegetable?
Don't say it never happens, because pedestrians and cyclists do get killed and it's not always cars (though, of course it mostly is, but this is not an impossible scenario).
In the country you can add horses into the mix. No sane rider would ever go out without being insured. I'm sure 50 years ago people laughed at the idea of being insured on a horse, but now it's essential.

As for bike training:
In Germany we did bicycle training, the schoolyard was turned into a mini traffic system with lights and signs and everything, we did practice runs and had to pass a test. It only makes sense to me.
Incidents like described in the OP only make a point for more regulation and the reaction of a lot of cyclists only will ensure it happens sooner rather than later.

Bicycle training - absolutely yes. But here in Ireland we do not have compulsory driving lessons with professional instructors, never mind cycling training! Yes, I know it is mad, but true. So before we go into that, we should introduce any professional driving training. For drivers in particular and I believe you agree on this.

Going back to the issue of insurance for cyclists - no, and no again, and the reason is in my previous post, i.e. bike insurance = less people on bikes = more cars = more accidents = A lot higher cost to the society in general. The single fatal accident you described caused by a cyclist is not something happens often (or ever?). Hundreds of people die in car accidents every year in Ireland and thousands are injured. There were no pedestrians killed by cyclists or seriously injured...
And, in a civilised country, like Germany (which I like when it comes to motoring, and we all should learn from) there is no insurance for cyclists. And it is due to common sense .

Donnelly117

Seweryn wrote: »

Bicycle training - absolutely yes. But here in Ireland we do not have compulsory driving lessons with professional instructors, never mind cycling training! Yes, I know it is mad, but true. .

Wasnt there talks of bringing this in at the same time it came in for motorbikes? I thought it was? Was it scrapped?

Tenzor07

Unintentional accidents will always happen, simply because people are not perfect. Unfortunately there is no law or amount of regulation that can change that fact.
Google ‘Strict Liability’ in the Netherlands if you are interested in Insurance
liabilities...

Unfortunately until the "car culture" changes then not much with change out on our roads, and unless the "them and us" type of attitude and general hostility to cycling as demonstrated by some of the posters here improves, then bike use will be limited to the young/fit and the brave who will hop on a bike and take the risks involved in staying upright/safe and all that involves out on the roads..

Seweryn

Donnelly117 wrote: »

Wasnt there talks of bringing this in at the same time it came in for motorbikes? I thought it was? Was it scrapped?

No idea, but at present drivers (and cyclists) do not get any sort of compulsory professional training in Ireland, which is the case in most civilised countries.
BTW, I do not know about any other country in EU that allows you to drive a car without a proper licence.

Donnelly117

Seweryn wrote: »

No idea, but at present drivers (and cyclists) do not get any sort of compulsory professional training in Ireland, which is the case in most civilised countries.
BTW, I do not know about any other country in EU that allows you to drive a car without a proper licence.

Or drive home after failing a test You have been deemed unfit to get a license yet you can head off home by yourself in the car!

_Kaiser_

Seweryn wrote: »

Bicycle training - absolutely yes. But here in Ireland we do not have compulsory driving lessons with professional instructors, never mind cycling training! Yes, I know it is mad, but true.

Err.. no it's not. Granted the standard might not be great, but the system was changed significantly over the last few years to require x number of mandatory lessons from registered/certified instructors and a revision of the rules around the "provisional" (now learner permit) license

Going back to the issue of insurance for cyclists - no, and no again, and the reason is in my previous post, i.e. bike insurance = less people on bikes = more cars = more accidents = A lot higher cost to the society in general.

Again not true, but even if it was, so what? If I want to drive a car I have to accept the costs that come with it because part of those costs are to ensure that if something happens, people will get the support they need - either personally or in terms of their property.

Given cyclists are impacted by these things as well, they should equally be required to be insured.

dr.fuzzenstein

Seweryn wrote: »

Bicycle training - absolutely yes. But here in Ireland we do not have compulsory driving lessons with professional instructors, never mind cycling training! Yes, I know it is mad, but true. So before we go into that, we should introduce any professional driving training. For drivers in particular and I believe you agree on this.

Going back to the issue of insurance for cyclists - no, and no again, and the reason is in my previous post, i.e. bike insurance = less people on bikes = more cars = more accidents = A lot higher cost to the society in general. The single fatal accident you described caused by a cyclist is not something happens often (or ever?). Hundreds of people die in car accidents every year in Ireland and thousands are injured. There were no pedestrians killed by cyclists or seriously injured...
And, in a civilised country, like Germany (which I like when it comes to motoring, and we all should learn from) there is no insurance for cyclists. And it is due to common sense .

Agreed, but you don't get that here.
The cyclist in the OP did not exactly display common sense and a lot of people defended him to the hilt because he has a legal right to be there, so it's fine and common sense doesn't come into it.
It annoys me when people say they will only do something if forced by law to do so and only not do something if it is illegal to do so.
This attitude come across over and over and over again, especially in the motoring section and from all sides, not pointing at any one group here.
Add to this the blame and compo culture and one can only assume that common sense is dead and people only look to the law and not common sense as to what they can and cannot do.
If the government outlawed breathing, the problem would sort itself in 5-10 minutes, but sadly that isn't going to happen.

Seweryn

Donnelly117 wrote: »

Or drive home after failing a test You have been deemed unfit to get a license yet you can head off home by yourself in the car!

Yeah, I know madness. Did not want to touch that subject .

Seweryn

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Agreed, but you don't get that here.
The cyclist in the OP did not exactly display common sense and a lot of people defended to the hilt him because he has a legal right to be there, so it's fine and common sense doesn't come into it...

All grand...

But I was pointing out the common sense of not having insurance for cyclists, which is stupid idea and would be counterproductive .

Tenzor07

There is a common law right for anyone to use the public roads. Driving a motor vehicle can create a public danger and therefore is a privilege that can be revoked.

Cyclists don’t pay fuel taxes so they don’t belong on the road.

Paying fuel taxes does not give you the right to use the roads.
Moreover, local road work is chiefly funded out of general tax revenues. Almost all Cyclists, or their parents, also drive cars and therefore pay fuel taxes. The cost of Cyclists using the road is minimal compared to the congestion and road damage created by cars and trucks.

Cyclists delay traffic.

Most traffic delay is caused by cars. Cyclists on a narrow road with traffic volumes close to capacity can create delay. Often the delay may be more apparent than real, as motorists catch up to where they would have been in the wait at traffic lights. Widening narrow roads by a few feet can eliminate the potential delay caused by Cyclists. It is impossible for anyone to use the roads without occasionally causing delay to others.

Cyclists don’t belong on the road because they ignore traffic signals and other road rules.

Just because some Cyclists ignore the rules doesn’t change the law, which says that Cyclists may use the road. The law does also say that Cyclists must follow the traffic rules. Doing so makes bicycling much safer, and increases’ cycling’s public esteem.

Engineers should design roads for motor vehicles.

Roads should be designed with all legal vehicles in mind, including bicycles.
Accounting for bicycles in designing roads is difficult and expensive.
All Cyclists require is smooth and well-maintained pavement, drain grates which are outside of the travel way or otherwise do not prevent a hazard, loop detectors which are sensitive to bicycles, and either smooth shoulders or slightly wider lanes, or both, on arterial and major collector roads.

We built bicycle paths so Cyclists should stay off the roads.

Cyclists who know how to operate in traffic can ride safely almost anywhere; those who do not get hurt everywhere. Almost all Irish Cycle lane designs make bicycling slower, more dangerous, or both for Cyclists who want to get some place. Every road is a cyclelane.

RainyDay

Swanner wrote: »

I have no idea and nor have you. Until you can back up the claim that most cyclists drive with real figures, the point is invalid.

Do you have real figures to back up your claim that most cyclists don't drive?

Seweryn

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Given cyclists are impacted by these things as well, they should equally be required to be insured.

Cyclists are not required to be insured anywhere in the world, as the risk from their actions is tiny comparing to all motorised vehicle users. End of story.
Why should they pay insurance in Ireland then? It is nonsense IMO, and you are now arguing against cyclists not paying insurance, because we pay insurance for cars.

Seweryn

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Err.. no it's not. Granted the standard might not be great, but the system was changed significantly over the last few years to require x number of mandatory lessons from registered/certified instructors and a revision of the rules around the "provisional" (now learner permit) license.

If that's the case now, fair enough. That's positive, as having no mandatory lessons is mad idea.

The Bishop Basher

RainyDay wrote: »

Do you have real figures to back up your claim that most cyclists don't drive?

If you check my posts you'll see that I never made that claim.

Seweryn wrote: »

Cyclists are not required to be insured anywhere in the world, as the risk from their actions is tiny comparing to all motorised vehicle users. End of story.
Why should they pay insurance in Ireland then? It is nonsense IMO, and you are now arguing against cyclists not paying insurance, because we pay insurance for cars.

Small risk means small premium but it doesn't negate the need for insurance. I haven't claimed once in 23 years driving. My risk is obviously miniscule so on that basis I shouldn't need insurance either. I accept that I do however because no matter how small the perceived risk, mistakes, accidents and collisions can happen to any of us.