Those damn cyclists again!

Grayson

Caliden wrote: »

You're still getting stuck on one particular detail.

What I'm trying to ask, would a bike licence make sense?

If not, why not?
If so, why so?

Let's just assume for the sake of argument that it's over 18's only that need to carry it and some beginner road safety is taught in schools for those under 18.

That would mean that people under the age of 18 couldn't get a bike because they wouldn't be licensed. Or they would be allowed cycle without one. And that would be bizarre if you forced adults to licence something but gave children free reign

Caliden

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Agreed, I'm simply giving a pedestrian's point of view - a speeding object breaking traffic lights where pedestrians have a green man, especially in a crowded area, is dangerous. That applies whether it's a car, bike, or indeed another pedestrian. Putting people at risk in this manner should carry consequences regardless of the type of vehicle one is operating - if you're driving something capable of moving fast enough to injure somebody, it should have a reg plate so that your ass can be fined if you're caught doing something dangerous. Otherwise there's no deterrent to this kind of thing.

I think that's all motorists are looking for as well.

Responsibility and accountability.

Some cyclists seem to getting hung up on the point of being identifiable though and prefer their anonymity.

magicmonkeys

Cars don't pay to use the roads, there's no such thing as road tax. It's motor tax.

Jawgap

sarkozy wrote: »

There was an article in the Guardian, relating to the UK, which has a similar cycling environment to our own, which reported that in court rulings on cyclist/driver collisions, 60-70% of judgements were in favour of the cyclist. This is the clearest statistic available in the UK (and a strong indicator for Ireland) of who is more often than not responsible for these incidents. This is evidence that needs to be repeated often, worked into policy, and then into actual implementation.


.....

This one from The Guardian......

Risky cycling rarely to blame for bike accidents, study finds

The study, carried out for the Department for Transport, found that in 2% of cases where cyclists were seriously injured in collisions with other road users police said that the rider disobeying a stop sign or traffic light was a likely contributing factor. Wearing dark clothing at night was seen as a potential cause in about 2.5% of cases, and failure to use lights was mentioned 2% of the time.

The 64-page analysis found that police attributed responsibility for collisions more or less evenly between drivers and cyclists overall, but this was skewed by the fact that when child riders were involved their behaviour was named as a primary factor more than three-quarters of the time.

Baron Kurtz

I cycle and I'd have no problem having to get a licence for my bike. Even some way of identifying cyclists ie a plate, might rule out the large proportion of cyclists who aren't prepared to keep to the rules. They might not bother if it's too much hassle. But ruling out any element of leisure cycling like Dublin Bikes and making it difficult to sign up wouldn't work at all. The DB riders I find are in the majority when it comes to cycling offences.

seamus

Caliden wrote: »

I think that's all motorists are looking for as well.

Responsibility and accountability.

Some cyclists seem to getting hung up on the point of being identifiable though and prefer their anonymity.

The end has to justify the means. What problem will registration of bicycles solve, and how will that offset the obvious costs and implementation issues that it brings.

How do you propose that you enforce this obligation to have a registration plate on bicycles, and how is it easier to enforce than the rules of the road? What makes you think that a person who doesn't care about the rules of the road is going to give two craps about having a plate on his bike?

sarkozy

Put it another way: cycling is the only form of transport that does not require a license. Therefore: people have a 'right' to cycle within the bounds of the road traffic acts. Therefore: drivers need to learn to shed their belief in their 'right' to drive, because drivers can only have an 'entitlement' to drive based on passing a series of tests and paying the required expenses.

This ought to invert the status quo, but it doesn't because people continue to believe that money talks. Rather, paying for lessons, tests, licenses, tax and insurance is and should be the signal to accept you have been so trusted to operate a vehicle of considerable weight and mass, propelled by means of an internal explosions whose energy is converted by means of an engine into lateral motion with a high degree of momentum causing it to become a dangerous weapon in certain circumstances, and therefore you must take your responsibility to treat with utmost care all and especially the more vulnerable road users very seriously.

Similar, but not equally the same for cyclists vis-a-vis pedestrians.

I don't disagree with cycling lessons, but I far more approve of cycling culture which starts from birth (as in the Netherlands) where lessons really aren't necessary.

But what I do believe to be necessary is compulsory cycling lessons and a compulsory period of cycling time in order to qualify for a driving license.

SeanW

magicmonkeys wrote: »

Cars don't pay to use the roads, there's no such thing as road tax. It's motor tax.

I pay tax on my road usage as a motorist. Cyclists to do not for their bikes. "Road tax" is fine, an accurate description of the tax, even if it is only applied to motorists.

blackwhite

Baron Kurtz wrote: »

I cycle and I'd have no problem having to get a licence for my bike. Even some way of identifying cyclists ie a plate, might rule out the large proportion of cyclists who aren't prepared to keep to the rules. They might not bother if it's too much hassle. But ruling out any element of leisure cycling like Dublin Bikes and making it difficult to sign up wouldn't work at all. The DB riders I find are in the majority when it comes to cycling offences.

Dublin Bikes (which I use quite a bit) would be an easy one to police. Simply put a unique number on the corner of the big Coke Zero sticker. DB know who has rented any bike at any given time, so the number would make it quite easy to identify anyone who was spotted breaking the law.

TBH, I'm not sure why they didn't do it when introducing the scheme.

gramar

Jawgap wrote: »

One down, two to go.......

Also the study cited says in a particularly type of accident (serious ones) in a particular type of location (junction) failing to look properly on the part of cyclists was a significant contributory factor......hardly supports your more general statement that "60% of accidents between cars and bicycles the cyclist were at fault or more at fault"......

That wasn't even one of the three I saw.

The statistics were very much dependent on the city, country, cycling lanes. legislation re: being properly illuminated etc cycling culture and awareness for example it would be a lot higher in Holland than in Spain where I can assure you the cyclist is very much a second class citizen.

Turtwig

Continuous retesting of motorists would help ensure motorists are actually clued in with the rules of the road and good etiquette. As it is once people pass their tests they forget rules that they aren't frequently reminded of. Myself included.

Nothing pisses me off more than seeing motorists overtake a single cyclist on the blind incline of the hill. Most delays " motorists" envision are only a few minutes. If you can't plan for these then the problem is with you not the cyclist or pedestrian or tractor or slow car that slows you down. We have no idea why a car may be driving slow. It could be for a plethora of reasons. If everyone had a bit more patience the roads would be a better and likely safer place for us all. Unless it's a matter of life and death what is the rush? Why are two minute delays so inconvenient. Surely you can plan a journey with leeway allowed and if you arrive early that's a bonus.

Irishcrx

Irishcrx wrote: »

It's also grinds my gears that they slow down my trip into work by 5-10 minutes everyday by taking up the lanes , slowing down traffic , slowing down crossing lanes and they have free use of the roads while the rest of us have to pay for them.

You pay motor tax not road tax. I'd propose leaving your house 5-10 minutes earlier. The roads aren't reserved just for people in cars. I do agree with the red lights though. I hate cyclists who break red lights

No Pants

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Would you oppose reg plates for bicycles then, so that light breakers could be flagged and fined automatically instead of just when a Garda happens to witness the incident?

Flagged and fined automatically how?

Jawgap

SeanW wrote: »

I pay tax on my road usage as a motorist. Cyclists to do not for their bikes. "Road tax" is fine, an accurate description of the tax, even if it is only applied to motorists.

So, should people who pay more tax get better or greater access?

What about that portion of general taxation that goes towards building and maintaining roads? Or should 'road tax' not just be raised until it covers the full cost of roads, and that portion of the health budget attributable to traffic collisions?

Maybe road tax raised should only be spent in the counties in which it is raised?

sarkozy

gramar wrote: »

That wasn't even one of the three I saw.

The statistics were very much dependent on the city, country, cycling lanes. legislation re: being properly illuminated etc cycling culture and awareness for example it would be a lot higher in Holland than in Spain where I can assure you the cyclist is very much a second class citizen.

In Beijing, cyclists are prohibited from having lights at night because, it's believed, drivers confuse them for cars, which makes things more dangerous. Apparently.

Go figure.

Jawgap

gramar wrote: »

That wasn't even one of the three I saw.

The statistics were very much dependent on the city, country, cycling lanes. legislation re: being properly illuminated etc cycling culture and awareness for example it would be a lot higher in Holland than in Spain where I can assure you the cyclist is very much a second class citizen.

......so is that a 'no' - you can't / won't link to the studies? Or the thread where you posted them originally?

Beasty

Irishcrx wrote: »

Twice in the last week I've been forced to swerve into an outer lane and nearly collide with another car because someone was cycling to far on the inside on the road

perhaps the drivers of those other cars should start a thread here "reckless motorist swerved out in front of me and I had to slam the brakes on to avoid a collision"

GreeBo

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

While I don't agree with most of the OP's point, it is a bit mad that anyone can go down to Halfords, buy a bike, and set off among busy traffic without any knowledge of the rules of the road, testing, or even insurance to cover themselves if anything happens!

No doubt all the cycling heads will be along shortly to say that it works fine in Europe etc and that's true.. but we don't have the public transport or cycling infrastructure that cities like Amsterdam do. Like it or not we are a very car dependent country - even more so if you live outside Dublin.

I think the OP's complaint probably relates to the idea that cyclists are no longer required to use cycle lanes (where provided). I'm aware that many of these are shyte, but add in a load of untrained cyclists to already busy traffic lanes and it's no wonder there's problems!

And yes, I'm aware that there are quite a lot of ignorant dumbass drivers too - the difference is that you have some comeback there with mandatory insurance, license plates etc.

Equally mad that anyone can open their front door and just start propelling themselves along the road/path/cycle lane/green areas etc.

Loads of cycle lanes are dangerously laid out, even if they were all in perfect condition I wouldnt use them, as soon as they get near a junction all planning logic goes out the window and you are forced to hope that the "merge" leaves no one dead.

Previous cycling commuter, now a driver.

Caliden

seamus wrote: »

The end has to justify the means. What problem will registration of bicycles solve, and how will that offset the obvious costs and implementation issues that it brings.

How do you propose that you enforce this obligation to have a registration plate on bicycles, and how is it easier to enforce than the rules of the road? What makes you think that a person who doesn't care about the rules of the road is going to give two craps about having a plate on his bike?

The sole purpose of Garda Traffic Watch is to deal with complaints from the public. They have better things to do than stand at every traffic light to ensure people are obeying the lights.

Members of the public can make a call to Garda Traffic watch to make a complaint about a motorist and provide them with a number plate.

Where is the avenue to complain about a cyclist?

If a car is stolen you have a number plate to look out for (if it isn't removed/changed). Cyclists have nothing and those who steal bikes will happily cycle away because no number plate means no easy means of identification.

No Pants wrote: »

Flagged and fined automatically how?

ANPR camera.

BFDCH.

seamus wrote: »

You know what they say about assumptions. Never assume any other road user is going to do anything until they've started doing it.
Observe. There's a cyclist to your left, bearing down on the two in front of him. The most likely possible outcomes of this situation are:

1. He slows down and waits
2. He checks behind him, sees you, and waits
3. He check behind him, sees you and overtakes anyway
4. He just overtakes without checking

So within half a second you should be able to deduce that 50% of the most likely things to occur result in you taking evasive action, or flattening a cyclist. Regardless of the fact that you have right-of-way, the logical choice here is to slow down until you're sure of what the cyclist is going to do, before you proceed to pass them.

The rule for all roads users is the same - better to yield your right-of-way and drive away annoyed, than to aggressively defend your right-of-way and not drive away at all.

Does the motorist have a right of way here? is it not the same as any other road user, in that the person further ahead on the road has right of way, the driver behind should only over take when it is safe to do so

papu

SeanW wrote: »

I pay tax on my road usage as a motorist. Cyclists to do not for their bikes. "Road tax" is fine, an accurate description of the tax, even if it is only applied to motorists.

No you pay a rate appropriate to the size of your engine and the emissions it produces. It is most definitely not an accurate description, a more apt description would be Co2 emissions tax, pollution emissions tax etc etc. The motor tax does not solely pay for the roads.

The main problem cycling around Dublin city are they state of most of the roads , motorists expect cyclists to cycle on the double yellows , or as far to the left as possible . Allot of times this isnt possible due to bad road surfaces at the edges , drains and broken glass.

Not to mention taxis stopping at the side of the road and cars parking in cycle lanes. The whole system is an absolute state , but the only group who are mortally in danger are the cyclists.

Chips Lovell

I've said this before and I'll say it again.

The most cost-effective and efficient way to deal with traffic offences, whether they're committed by motorists or cyclists, is to empower Gardaí to administer on-the-spot punishment in the form of a vigorous kick in the crotch.

Caliden

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

I've said this before and I'll say it again.

The most cost-effective and efficient way to deal with traffic offences, whether they're committed by motorists or cyclists, is to empower Gardaí to administer on-the-spot punishment in the form of a vigorous kick in the crotch.

No objections from me.

papu

Caliden wrote: »

Where is the avenue to complain about a cyclist?

Where is the avenue to complain about pedestrians , especially ones who walk out onto the road right infront of you without looking. Can we number , label and tax them too?

magicbastarder

SeanW wrote: »

I pay tax on my road usage as a motorist. Cyclists to do not for their bikes. "Road tax" is fine, an accurate description of the tax, even if it is only applied to motorists.

on what basis do you think cyclists should pay 'road tax' so? emissions? vehicle weight? road wear?

gramar

Jawgap wrote: »

......so is that a 'no' - you can't / won't link to the studies? Or the thread where you posted them originally?

That would be a 'won't' link the studies because I 'can't' be arsed looking for them. Luckily I haven't been called to the stand as an expert witness and won't look silly by not being able to back up my statements by being able to supply the source.

Any statistics yourself? I heard 9/10 cats prefer Whiskas.

Caliden

papu wrote: »

Where is the avenue to complain about pedestrians , especially ones who walk out onto the road right infront of you without looking. Can we number , label and tax them too?

One step at a time.

Turtwig

gramar wrote: »

That would be a 'won't' link the studies because I 'can't' be arsed looking for them. Luckily I haven't been called to the stand as an expert witness and won't look silly by not being able to back up my statements by being able to supply the source.

Any statistics yourself? I heard 9/10 cats prefer Whiskas.

Great so you'll just state your opinion and won't attempt to explore it. That's not a discussion.

cournioni

I have a question.

Why are motorists taxed for the use of their vehicles on public roads and cyclists are not?

Caliden

cournioni wrote: »

I have a question.

Why are motorists taxed for the use of their vehicles on public roads and cyclists are not?

Because we're polluting the environment and causing more wear and tear to the roads.

mathie

cournioni wrote: »

I have a question.

Why are motorists taxed for the use of their vehicles on public roads and cyclists are not?

Emissions?

magicbastarder

i was once told by an engineer that the wear on the roads is proportional to the third power of the weight per wheel (if someone can correct this, please do so) - so based on this, a car with ten times as much weight per wheel as a bike will be causing one thousand times as much wear to the road.

Potatoeman

I walk into work and the amount of drivers that dont indicate is staggering. There are a few spots that are particuarly bad where there are smaller roads on crossroads, where most of the traffic goes one route and most drivers dont indicate. Im surprised no one has been killed at the bridge on Dorset street lower.

gramar

Turtwig wrote: »

Great so you'll just state your opinion and won't attempt to explore it. That's not a discussion.

I think I did explore it somewhat. I gave my opinion. Cyclists should have insurance. Studies have found that a significant number of accidents are caused by cyclists and also mentioned why these statistics vary from country to country and what factors determine the level of accidents. Check my previous posts and you'll see this.

Now I'm off on me bike to terrorise pedestrians on footpaths and scream through red lights at junctions. Pedal Power!

00sully

Scruffy...The Janitor wrote: »

At risk of recycling an extremely extensively made point at this stage:

Motor tax =/= Road tax

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Most of us understand that, we just don't agree with it.

oh well THEN!!! if you don't agree with the tax you pay sure you might as well not pay it either :pac:

Irishcrx wrote: »

I'll probably get bashed by the fitness fanatics on here , but I have a serious pain my ass with cyclist entitlement when I'm driving to work in the morning. Twice in the last week I've been forced to swerve into an outer lane and nearly collide with another car because someone was cycling to far on the inside on the road , they ask all motorists to be aware of cyclists and that's fine, but cyclists also need to be aware of motorists and the danger they are causing in busy morning periods. ....

You should be bashed by the grammar police also

I look forward to the introduction of the quays cycle corridor. By then cars and buses won't be delaying me on my commute anymore

Cars using bus lanes. Motorbikes using cycle lanes. Ban them all!

CramCycle

gramar wrote: »

Check my previous posts and you'll see this.

Your previous posts claimed 60% of accidents were caused by cyclists and then when challenged, you could only find one report that actually implied that number is incorrect i.e. 60% motorists fault.

Lets not get hung up on inaccuracies and facts though.

gramar

CramCycle wrote: »

Your previous posts claimed 60% of accidents were caused by cyclists and then when challenged, you could only find one report that actually implied that number is incorrect i.e. 60% motorists fault.

Lets not get hung up on inaccuracies and facts though.

No, lets not! Should I be posting on boards while I'm cyclinnnnnnnnnnnn.................dsfasfasfffafaf

Sir Arthur Daley

Its better take in the roads till this is sorted.

Ratzo Rizzo

I was driving from Dundrum towards junction 13 on the M50 a couple of weeks back and there was a guy cycling on the road despite the fact that a cycle lane exists on the path, a path largely untroubled by pedestrians or any other impediment to cyclists. I rolled down my window at the lights and asked why he wasn't using the cycle lane and he explained he was turning right further down the road on to Ballinteer Avenue.
It never ceases to amaze me at the number of cyclists who show a wilful disregard to their own safety yet are quick to point out motorists poor driving habits and how they endanger a cyclist's life... :rolleyes:

seamus

BFDCH. wrote: »

Does the motorist have a right of way here? is it not the same as any other road user, in that the person further ahead on the road has right of way, the driver behind should only over take when it is safe to do so

Where the cyclist is using the cycle lane, he is for all intents and purposes a vehicle in a separate lane, and therefore must yield to traffic in the other lane if he intends to move out of the cycle lane.

Where the cyclist is not using a cycle lane, then yes the following motorist must treat the cyclist like any other vehicle and provide the full width of the roadway for the cyclist's usage.

gramar

Here's one:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/05/20/136462246/when-bikes-and-cars-collide-whos-more-likely-to-be-at-fault

TonyStark

jelenka wrote: »

I don't mind cyclists on the road, I'd say more of them are vigilant and don't break the rules, but i absolutely hate it when 2 cyclists cycle next to each other having a chat, leaving no room to overtake them.

Legally they are entitled to cycle to abreast.

Even to pass one cyclist safely with the recommended clearance you would need to go partially over the white line. Otherwise you are not leaving the cyclist enough space.

SteM

Caliden wrote: »

This question is for cyclists, do you not agree though that it is a bit crazy that a someone can just hop on a bike and go around without any knowledge of signs, car stopping distances (some seem to think we can stop on a penny) or any of that?

Now I'm not lumping all cyclists in the same group and there are cyclists who take the time to educate themselves on the rules of the road.

There are definitely cyclists that obey the laws but for each one of them there are at least 2 more that don't. Cycling is definitely one of the more dangerous ways to commute to work and I see some really stupid driving by people overtaking cyclists on blind bends or coming within inches of their bike every day of the week.


I just think that there should be some sort of bike licence. Now it may seem really stupid but RSA ads alone are not enough to keep people safe. It would also help with the prosecution of people who have no right to call themselves a cyclist and are the reason cyclists get a bad name.

Do you think this 'bike license' will stop some people from cycling poorly? Just like having a drivers license stops some drivers from driving poorly? You go on about cyclists needing to know drivers stopping distances but if you look at the roads any day of the week you see drivers that don't know their own stopping distances!

RSA ads alone are not enough - using the road requires education for both drivers and cyclists.

RobbieTheRobber

Ratzo Rizzo wrote: »

I was driving from Dundrum towards junction 13 on the M50 a couple of weeks back and there was a guy cycling on the road despite the fact that a cycle lane exists on the path, a path largely untroubled by pedestrians or any other impediment to cyclists. I rolled down my window at the lights and asked why he wasn't using the cycle lane and he explained he was turning right further down the road on to Ballinteer Avenue.
It never ceases to amaze me at the number of cyclists who show a wilful disregard to their own safety yet are quick to point out motorists poor driving habits and how they endanger a cyclist's life... :rolleyes:

What a crock of ****!

How does a road user endanger themselves by legally using a road?

RobbieTheRobber

gramar wrote: »

Here's one:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/05/20/136462246/when-bikes-and-cars-collide-whos-more-likely-to-be-at-fault

Eh

Ed Beighe, who mans the Arizona bike blog Azbikelaw, crunched some numbers on fault from his state and found that 44 percent of fatalities from bike-car crashes in 2009 were determined to be the fault of the cyclist, while 56 percent were the fault of a motor vehicle driver. The most common collision was when a driver struck a cyclist from behind.

44% cyclists fault
56% car drivers fault

:rolleyes:

Sir Arthur Daley

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

How does a road user endanger themselves by legally using a road?

There are alot of laws that do not make sense, does having a cycling lane and having a law that states you dont have to use it by law make total sense to you?

CramCycle

gramar wrote: »

Here's one:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/05/20/136462246/when-bikes-and-cars-collide-whos-more-likely-to-be-at-fault

In all of the studies bar the Washington post one which they do not give numbers for, for some unknown reason, referred to in that article, motorists were deemed to be more at fault than cyclists for collisions.

Ed Beighe, who mans the Arizona bike blog , on fault from his state and found that 44 percent of fatalities from bike-car crashes in 2009 were determined to be the fault of the cyclist, while 56 percent were the fault of a motor vehicle driver.

The Minnesota Department of Public Safety on contributing factors in bike-car crashes. It found that in 2009, cyclists were at fault in 49 percent of crashes, while drivers were at fault in 51 percent. Failing to yield to right of way was the most frequent cause of the snarls.

And the Washington Post recently a 2004 report from DC showing cyclists more likely than motorists to be at fault in a crash.

But a older from Hawaii had a different conclusion. Using police-reported crash data from 1986 to 1991, researchers found that motorists were at fault in approximately 83.5 percent of incidents, whereas bicyclists were at fault in only 16.5 percent of incidents.

SteM

Ratzo Rizzo wrote: »

I was driving from Dundrum towards junction 13 on the M50 a couple of weeks back and there was a guy cycling on the road despite the fact that a cycle lane exists on the path, a path largely untroubled by pedestrians or any other impediment to cyclists. I rolled down my window at the lights and asked why he wasn't using the cycle lane and he explained he was turning right further down the road on to Ballinteer Avenue.
It never ceases to amaze me at the number of cyclists who show a wilful disregard to their own safety yet are quick to point out motorists poor driving habits and how they endanger a cyclist's life... :rolleyes:

You had no reason to engage with him. He wasn't breaking the law, he doesn’t have to use cycle lanes if they're available. If you see another driver driving poorly will you make a point to roll down your windows at lights to engage with them. You may say yes but I bet you'll just keep on driving.

'Largely untroubled by pedestrians or any other impediment to cyclists' - care to explain that? So were there pedestrians on the cycle lane? Just one or two or none? Did you stop and ask the pedestrians why they were walking on the cycle lane endangering their own lives or do you just have a thing against cyclists?

Did this cyclist accuse you of endangering his life or was he just getting on with his life and leaving you to yours?

seamus

Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »

There are alot of laws that do not make sense, does having a cycling lane and having a law that states you dont have to use it by law make total sense to you?

Yes. In the same way that having a motorway but not being legally obliged to use it makes sense.

cournioni

Caliden wrote: »

Because we're polluting the environment and causing more wear and tear to the roads.

mathie wrote: »

Emissions?

Are motorists not already taxed for their pollution/usage/emissions when they fill up at the pumps? The more you use, the more you're taxed.

I agree that motorists have to be taxed for their road usage due to wear and tear and for infrastructural improvements, but shouldn't this apply to all road users (including cyclists)?