Cyclists should do a theory test!

ThisRegard

smash wrote: »

I honestly just don't care any more about this whole argument. It's nonsense. This all stemmed from you saying that you paid to use the roads through your taxes. You didn't. Your taxes paid solely for road construction and maintenance.

They don't.

smash

ThisRegard wrote: »

They don't.

I know.

ThisRegard

smash wrote: »

I know.

I mean that the taxes don't purely pay for roads.

RainyDay

smash wrote: »

I honestly just don't care any more about this whole argument. It's nonsense. This all stemmed from you saying that you paid to use the roads through your taxes. You didn't. Your taxes paid solely for road construction and maintenance.

Yes, we can agree that it's nonsense all right. For the record, I don't think I said that I paid to use the road through my taxes. I did say;
1) I pay tax - motor tax, income tax, CGT, VAT (including bike purchase, repair and accessories)
2) Roads are funded from general taxation

I've no idea how you worked out that "Your taxes paid solely for road construction and maintenance" - what kind of accounting trick is that? Maybe my taxes paid for your hospital bed, or your university lecturer? Or maybe it paid for my road - who knows? The money goes into one pot, and comes out of one pot. Any attribution of what any particular tax goes towards is pure fiction.

It is helpful that we have clarified that you have absolutely no evidence of any entitlement to use the road arising from payment of motor tax though - thanks for your patience in working through that one.

wexandproud

MadDog76 wrote: »

To answer the Op's question ......... yes, of course cyclists should do a Theory Test ....... obviously.

what would be gained by it , if you only read the various threads about cyclists behaviour and you would realise that most motorists who comment on there dont have a basic grasp of the rules of the road . Of course their are cyclists who ignore the rules , the same as their are motorist who choose to do the same but their is an alarming amount of motorist dont even know the rules.

smash

RainyDay wrote: »

I've no idea how you worked out that "Your taxes paid solely for road construction and maintenance" - what kind of accounting trick is that?

Oh Jesus Christ... I know what taxes pay for, my comment was in relation to the part of your taxes that goes towards road infrastructure. That part of you taxes is used solely for development and maintenance, no for road usage! Clear?

RainyDay wrote: »

It is helpful that we have clarified that you have absolutely no evidence of any entitlement to use the road arising from payment of motor tax though - thanks for your patience in working through that one.

I provided you with the legislation that you asked for over and over and I provided you with the meaning of entitled and how I used the phrase in relation to the legislation in that it gives you a right to use your vehicle on a public road. Now leave it out.

RainyDay

smash wrote: »

Oh Jesus Christ... I know what taxes pay for, my comment was in relation to the part of your taxes that goes towards road infrastructure. That part of you taxes is used solely for development and maintenance, no for road usage! Clear?

Nope - completely unclear. I really have no idea what point you are trying to make here.

smash wrote: »

I provided you with the legislation that you asked for over and over and I provided you with the meaning of entitled and how I used the phrase in relation to the legislation in that it gives you a right to use your vehicle on a public road. Now leave it out.

I didn't ask for legislation over and over. I asked for evidence of entitlement, which if it existed, would probably be within legislation.

You provided the legislation which showed that there is absolutely no reference to or concept of entitlement relating to motor tax. You also helpfully provided the dictionary definition of entitlement as "a title, right, or claim to something". You correctly pointed out that "Entitlement gives you a right" and that "In order to receive the right to use the vehicle on a public road, you must be compliant with the law" and that "The law states that a vehicle must have a valid motor tax license if it is to be used" - but you still haven't shown any entitlement.

A legal obligation to pay tax does not create an entitlement. There is no entitlement.

MadDog76

wexandproud wrote: »

what would be gained by it , if you only read the various threads about cyclists behaviour and you would realise that most motorists who comment on there dont have a basic grasp of the rules of the road . Of course their are cyclists who ignore the rules , the same as their are motorist who choose to do the same but their is an alarming amount of motorist dont even know the rules.

What do we stand to lose by cyclists being forced, in some way, to prove that they've at least read the Rules of the Road ........ even once!?!

Why should motorists have to do a Theory Test in order to share the road with people who may never have even heard of a yellow box junction?!?

wexandproud

MadDog76 wrote: »

What do we stand to lose by cyclists being forced, in some way, to prove that they've at least read the Rules of the Road ........ even once!?!

Why should motorists have to do a Theory Test in order to share the road with people who may never have even heard of a yellow box junction?!?

we would loose nothing but it would not necessarily improve the situation , as the ones who act the bo##ocks would do so any way, and this point is proven by the behaviour of motorists who are supposed to know the rules of the road .

CramCycle

MadDog76 wrote: »

What do we stand to lose by cyclists being forced, in some way, to prove that they've at least read the Rules of the Road ........ even once!?!

Why should motorists have to do a Theory Test in order to share the road with people who may never have even heard of a yellow box junction?!?

According to my morning commute it is where the last car through the red light sits until they have successfully blocked off crossing traffic and the light sequence goes around again :pac:

check_six

MadDog76 wrote: »

Why should motorists have to do a Theory Test in order to share the road with people who may never have even heard of a yellow box junction?!?

The Theory Test has only existed for 9-10 years. There are a lot of people out there who did a driving test which didn't involve going anywhere near a yellow box junction. There are a lot of people out there who never did a driving test full stop and still got a licence.

You're not going to block a yellow box junction with a bike, but you just might just manage it with a car.

Pinch Flat

CramCycle wrote: »

According to my morning commute it is where the last car through the red light sits until they have successfully blocked off crossing traffic and the light sequence goes around again :pac:

I might need to read the ROR again, I thought with yellow boxes the challenge was to see how many cars you can fit in them?

wexandproud

CramCycle wrote: »

According to my morning commute it is where the last car through the red light sits until they have successfully blocked off crossing traffic and the light sequence goes around again :pac:

stopping in the box is usually accompanied with various forms of hand waving to indicate its not my fault ... the driver in front stopped its his fault ...this is usually done with a stupid grin on their face

MadDog76

CramCycle wrote: »

According to my morning commute it is where the last car through the red light sits until they have successfully blocked off crossing traffic and the light sequence goes around again :pac:

Did you see the red light as you whizzed through it? :P

MadDog76

check_six wrote: »

The Theory Test has only existed for 9-10 years. There are a lot of people out there who did a driving test which didn't involve going anywhere near a yellow box junction. There are a lot of people out there who never did a driving test full stop and still got a licence.

You're not going to block a yellow box junction with a bike, but you just might just manage it with a car.

14 years ago actually ........... anyway what's your point?

We didn't always use seatbelts in cars ......... it used to be acceptable to drink & drive ........ times have changed.

Btw the "yellow box junction" reference in my post wasn't actually about "yellow box junctions"! It was to highlight the fact that we don't know for certain if a cyclist (any cyclist) has even read the Rules of the Road.

wexandproud

MadDog76 wrote: »

14 years ago actually ........... anyway what's your point?

We didn't always use seatbelts in cars ......... it used to be acceptable to drink & drive ........ times have changed.

Btw the "yellow box junction" reference in my post wasn't actually about "yellow box junctions"! It was to highlight the fact that we don't know for certain if a cyclist (any cyclist) has even read the Rules of the Road.

im a cyclist and i know what the yellow box is and what its for and how to use them but its still motorists who block them , maby they dont know

MadDog76

wexandproud wrote: »

im a cyclist and i know what the yellow box is and what its for and how to use them but its still motorists who block them , maby they dont know

Eh ........ that's your reply? :rolleyes:

Ok ........ well done on the yellow box junction thingy but can we move on from a moot point at this stage ........... wish I'd never mentioned them!!

Grandpa Hassan

MadDog76 wrote: »

What do we stand to lose by cyclists being forced, in some way, to prove that they've at least read the Rules of the Road ........ even once!?!

Why should motorists have to do a Theory Test in order to share the road with people who may never have even heard of a yellow box junction?!?

You'd lose nothing. But it couldn't be compulsory. Would be impossible to legislate for.

Maybe attendance at a cycle theory day should be a mandatory punishment for someone pulled over by the Gardai for breaking the rules.

MadDog76

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

You'd lose nothing. But it couldn't be compulsory. Would be impossible to legislate for.

Maybe attendance at a cycle theory day should be a mandatory punishment for someone pulled over by the Gardai for breaking the rules.

The law can always be made compulsory ........ that's the point in having laws!

LadyFenghuang

MadDog76 wrote: »

The law can always be made compulsory ........ that's the point in having laws!

Love is the law baby!

No I would be all for cyclists having to do a course and a theory and practical test. Hear me out. A LOT of cyclists are YOUNG people. We need to protect them by doing more than making them wear helmets. I cycled to secondary school a lot and for the first two years of college. I came off hard twice. Once it was no one's fault. The road was LITERALLY in bits. There was more hole than road.

And that is another issue.Ireland has specific ahem challenges for both motorists and cyclists. FOR YEARS there was a road near me which when they put cycle paths in no two cars could pass going the opposite direction without going into the paths because they never widened the road to accommodate the two modes of transport. It was local common knowledge, and motorists would beep to give warning of traffic. The most terrible thing was though it was right by two schools. So there were a lot of young cyclists.

I think having a course and theory test in schools would be a great idea.

wexandproud

MadDog76 wrote: »

Eh ........ that's your reply? :rolleyes:

Ok ........ well done on the yellow box junction thingy but can we move on from a moot point at this stage ........... wish I'd never mentioned them!!

you can roll eyes all ya want , but you posed the question if any cyclists knew or even read the rotr. my post was a reply to it

Grandpa Hassan

MadDog76 wrote: »

The law can always be made compulsory ........ that's the point in having laws!

But not much good if it's unenforcable. Which it is. Unless you are looking at applying it only within some arbitrary city limit. Or should it apply equally to an 80 year old farmer in Offaly who cycles a mile for a guiness on a Saturday night? And if not where do you draw the line? And scrapping Dublin bikes of course (or criminalising tourists). Which will never happen

MadDog76

wexandproud wrote: »

you can roll eyes all ya want , but you posed the question if any cyclists knew or even read the rotr. my post was a reply to it

No ........ I asked "How do we know if a cyclist has even read the Rules of the Road?" ......... you got confused by all the words and lil yellow boxes me thinks.

MadDog76

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

But not much good if it's unenforcable. Which it is. Unless you are looking at applying it only within some arbitrary city limit. Or should it apply equally to an 80 year old farmer in Offaly who cycles a mile for a guiness on a Saturday night? And if not where do you draw the line? And scrapping Dublin bikes of course (or criminalising tourists). Which will never happen

The same way we enforce an 80 year old farmer in Offaly needing a driving license to drive a car .........

Grandpa Hassan

MadDog76 wrote: »

The same way we enforce an 80 year old farmer in Offaly needing a driving license to drive a car .........

You're actually serious? That you would criminalise this guy for cycling to the pub. Or make him do a theory test. Truly unbelievable!!

And dublin bikes? You'd scrap those?

Anyway, never going to happen

MadDog76

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

You're actually serious? That you would criminalise this guy for cycling to the pub. Or make him do a theory test. Truly unbelievable!!

And dublin bikes? You'd scrap those?

Anyway, never going to happen

Grandpa Hassan

MadDog76 wrote: »

Ha. Funny video. Your point? Given that no cyclist would defend that behavior. And if the Gardai saw him he'd be in trouble

RainyDay

check_six wrote: »

The Theory Test has only existed for 9-10 years.

I did my test in 1986, and there was definitely a theory test. It was done orally with the examiner, some questions ["You don't enter a yellow box junction if you would block traffic that would otherwise be free to proceed" is stuck in my head, and then you had to identify signs from ROTR.

wexandproud wrote: »

stopping in the box is usually accompanied with various forms of hand waving to indicate its not my fault ... the driver in front stopped its his fault ...

Yes, that's the funny bit - it's the fault of the guy in front!

RainyDay

LadyFenghuang wrote: »

No I would be all for cyclists having to do a course and a theory and practical test. Hear me out. A LOT of cyclists are YOUNG people. We need to protect them by doing more than making them wear helmets.

You know that helmets aren't required by law, right? And that those countries that brought in mandatory helmet laws generally showed no reduced injury rates but did manage to reduce rates of people cycling - which makes cycling even more dangerous for the rest of us.

MadDog76 wrote: »

What do we stand to lose by cyclists being forced, in some way, to prove that they've at least read the Rules of the Road ........ even once!?!

We lose the opportunity to reduce the death and injury rate on the roads caused by motorists. By focusing policy makers, legislators and Garda enforcers on the question of cycle theory tests, we take resources away from cutting the 200+ deaths and thousands of injuries caused by motorists each year.

What problem will this solve again?

CramCycle

MadDog76 wrote: »

Did you see the red light as you whizzed through it? :P

I was waiting at the crossing junction, I was able to go around, you know, and not hold up traffic, unfortunately for the other 10 cars behind me, they are now the beginning of the traffic jam that will be 30 cars long within 10 minutes.

Qualitymark

A suggestion: what about if drivers who show ignorance of traffic law and good practice by, for instance,

• failing to indicate in good time
• turning without indicating
• breaking red lights
• halting on box junctions
• driving dangerously close to cyclists
• inappropriate use of horns
• driving over the speed limit
• driving in a bus lane
• using a phone while driving

were automatically sent a notice, triggered by the on-street cameras, instructing them that they're busted down to the provisional licence, and now have to pay for, retake and pass a driving test within three months to regain their full licence (which will, of course, affect their insurance)?

steamengine

RainyDay wrote: »

You know that helmets aren't required by law, right? And that those countries that brought in mandatory helmet laws generally showed no reduced injury rates but did manage to reduce rates of people cycling - which makes cycling even more dangerous for the rest of us.


We lose the opportunity to reduce the death and injury rate on the roads caused by motorists. By focusing policy makers, legislators and Garda enforcers on the question of cycle theory tests, we take resources away from cutting the 200+ deaths and thousands of injuries caused by motorists each year.

What problem will this solve again?

What some people who object to helmets need to experience is having their heads banged off concrete, and provided it's not sufficient to split their heads open, then perhaps they might wear one next time round. It's not necessarily about fatalities - just that some of us don't like pain and injury.

Classic last paragraph - 2 wheels good - 4 wheels bad. It's all the motorists fault would need to be backed up, just because their involved in accidents doesn't mean they caused them.

MadDog76

Qualitymark wrote: »

A suggestion: what about if drivers who show ignorance of traffic law and good practice by, for instance,

• failing to indicate in good time
• turning without indicating
• breaking red lights
• halting on box junctions
• driving dangerously close to cyclists
• inappropriate use of horns
• driving over the speed limit
• driving in a bus lane
• using a phone while driving

were automatically sent a notice, triggered by the on-street cameras, instructing them that they're busted down to the provisional licence, and now have to pay for, retake and pass a driving test within three months to regain their full licence (which will, of course, affect their insurance)?

And cyclists who break the law .......... any repercussions suggested for them?

316

MadDog76 wrote: »

And cyclists who break the law .......... any repercussions suggested for them?

They have to cycle single file for six months and not wear sun glasses.

steamengine

316 wrote: »

They have to cycle single file for six months and not wear sun glasses.

..........and their lycra filled with ants !

moneymad

moc moc a moc wrote: »

They're just as bad as Hitler in my book.

Genrikh Yagoda was one of the greatest genocidal mass murderers of all time. Poor Hitler gets an awful doing. The sh!te they teach in schools these days....
Read some more books.

RainyDay

steamengine wrote: »

What some people who object to helmets need to experience is having their heads banged off concrete, and provided it's not sufficient to split their heads open, then perhaps they might wear one next time round. It's not necessarily about fatalities - just that some of us don't like pain and injury.

Where exactly did I 'object to helmets'?

There is a huge difference between recommending cyclists wear helmets and making helmets mandatory by law. What some people who jump to conclusions need to understand is that wherever mandatory helmet laws have been introduced, they have not worked.

steamengine wrote: »

Classic last paragraph - 2 wheels good - 4 wheels bad. It's all the motorists fault would need to be backed up, just because their involved in accidents doesn't mean they caused them.

Have you actually looked at road safety statistics at all? Last year there were 200+ deaths on the road. 12 of these were cyclists, leaving 188+ involving motorists and pedestrians. So even (and it's a big leap) if we accept for the sake of argument that ALL of those 12 incidents were the fault of cyclists, the other 188 incidents had no involvement of cyclists at all. So this theory test is going to focus on possibly reducing 12 deaths, while ignoring the 188 deaths. Is that really sensible at all?

furiousox

steamengine wrote: »

..........and their lycra filled with ants !

That's below the belt!

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Build a big arena, you know, like the one they had in ancient Rome. One team would consist of motorised users, another team of self propelled vehicles and then the third team would be non vehicle users. Each team is selected the month before buy their own "type". On the last Friday of each month, they all fight to the death with medievil weapons. The winners get to chose the rules of the road for the following month, but they only have until the first Monday of the next month to decide on those rules. It makes things a lot more interesting and I think would build up a great sense of comradeship. It sure beats the hell out of debating this crap online every other day.

Knasher

http://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-city-centre-cycling-greenwave-new-traffic-light-system-2157110-Jun2015/
Looks like they are introducing a greenway in Dublin. Really good idea that actually will encourage people to obey traffic lights. Hope it is expanded elsewhere.

arybvtcw0eolkf

RainyDay wrote: »

Have you actually looked at road safety statistics at all? Last year there were 200+ deaths on the road. 12 of these were cyclists, leaving 188+ involving motorists and pedestrians. So even (and it's a big leap) if we accept for the sake of argument that ALL of those 12 incidents were the fault of cyclists, the other 188 incidents had no involvement of cyclists at all. So this theory test is going to focus on possibly reducing 12 deaths, while ignoring the 188 deaths. Is that really sensible at all?

I believe you have just spanked, owned and made this thread your bitch

NotCominBack

Knasher wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-city-centre-cycling-greenwave-new-traffic-light-system-2157110-Jun2015/
Looks like they are introducing a greenway in Dublin. Really good idea that actually will encourage people to obey traffic lights. Hope it is expanded elsewhere.

great, more cyclists on footpaths, just what we need

wtlltw

wexandproud wrote: »

im a cyclist and i know what the yellow box is and what its for and how to use them but its still motorists who block them , maby they dont know

Kindly explain.

Lights are red, I'm a motorist entering a yellow box ready to turn right.

StewartGriffin

RainyDay wrote: »

Have you actually looked at road safety statistics at all? Last year there were 200+ deaths on the road. 12 of these were cyclists, leaving 188+ involving motorists and pedestrians. So even (and it's a big leap) if we accept for the sake of argument that ALL of those 12 incidents were the fault of cyclists, the other 188 incidents had no involvement of cyclists at all. So this theory test is going to focus on possibly reducing 12 deaths, while ignoring the 188 deaths. Is that really sensible at all?

Rhett Wide Beige wrote: »

I believe you have just spanked, owned and made this thread your bitch

Firstly, doing a theory test, is not only about reducing deaths on the road, but is about people educating themselves to be better road users. so they don't continuously break laws such as running red lights, cycling on pedestrian bridges, weaving between moving cars, generally causing a nuisance.

Secondly, to question if implementing a short theory test to focus on saving 12 lives a year is "really sensible at all?" is a very odd question in my opinion.
12 deaths a year might sound insignificant to you, but it's one human being killed every month. One of these might be a relative of yours someday.

Spanked, owned and made this thread? Get the cheerleader in the tutu! Go Rhett Wide Beige - Raa! Raa! Raa!

arybvtcw0eolkf

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Firstly, doing a theory test, is not only about reducing deaths on the road, but is about people educating themselves to be better road users. so they don't continuously break laws such as running red lights, cycling on pedestrian bridges, weaving between moving cars, generally causing a nuisance.

Secondly, to question if implementing a short theory test to focus on saving 12 lives a year is "really sensible at all?" is a very odd question in my opinion.
12 deaths a year might sound insignificant to you, but it's one human being killed every month. One of these might be a relative of yours someday.

Spanked, owned and made this thread? Get the cheerleader in the tutu! Go Makikomi - Raa! Raa! Raa!

Not one bit of that makes one once of sense to me.

StewartGriffin

Rhett Wide Beige wrote: »

Not one bit of that makes one once of sense to me.

I don't know how to reply to that.

Maybe read it again?

Slower.

SHOVELLER

Theory test?

How about the cops do their jobs and actually enforce the law? No cycling on footpaths just to start with.

RainyDay

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Firstly, doing a theory test, is not only about reducing deaths on the road, but is about people educating themselves to be better road users. so they don't continuously break laws such as running red lights, cycling on pedestrian bridges, weaving between moving cars, generally causing a nuisance.

Secondly, to question if implementing a short theory test to focus on saving 12 lives a year is "really sensible at all?" is a very odd question in my opinion.
12 deaths a year might sound insignificant to you, but it's one human being killed every month. One of these might be a relative of yours someday.

You seem to be missing two important issues, Stewie?

1: The existence of a theory test hasn't stopped motorists from continuously breaking laws such as running red lights, driving on cycle paths, weaving between moving cars and generally causing a nuisance. Why would you expect it to work on cyclists?
2) Focus on the 12 cycling deaths misses an opportunity to focus on the 188 motoring deaths. Why would you be so passionate about saving 1 death a month while ignoring the 15-20 deaths a month caused by motorists? 4 or 5 of these could be a relative of yours someday.

wexandproud

wtlltw wrote: »

Kindly explain.

Lights are red, I'm a motorist entering a yellow box ready to turn right.

im not a driving instructor , go and learn the rules of the road

steamengine

RainyDay wrote: »

Where exactly did I 'object to helmets'?

There is a huge difference between recommending cyclists wear helmets and making helmets mandatory by law. What some people who jump to conclusions need to understand is that wherever mandatory helmet laws have been introduced, they have not worked.



Have you actually looked at road safety statistics at all? Last year there were 200+ deaths on the road. 12 of these were cyclists, leaving 188+ involving motorists and pedestrians. So even (and it's a big leap) if we accept for the sake of argument that ALL of those 12 incidents were the fault of cyclists, the other 188 incidents had no involvement of cyclists at all. So this theory test is going to focus on possibly reducing 12 deaths, while ignoring the 188 deaths. Is that really sensible at all?

Have you ? - for starters there were 196 road fatalities last year.

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Press%20Office/Provisional%20review%20of%20Road%20Crashes%202014.pdf