Cyclists should do a theory test!

Grandpa Hassan

steamengine wrote: »

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

oh....that's okay then

steamengine

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

oh....that's okay then

Oh, definitely not - but neither is the doubling of cycling fatalities from 5 in 2013 to 12 in 2014.

wtlltw

wexandproud wrote: »

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

Will do

StewartGriffin

RainyDay wrote: »

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.

Your logic is pathetically weak, Rainy?

A theory test is there to educate road users, why shouldn't all road users receive the same education? Your answer seems to be "let's ignore cyclists until motorists become perfect. Never going to happen.

And I can't believe your still spouting that nonsense about 188 versus 12 road deaths. So what if more drivers than cyclists are killed? You seem to think it's some kind of contest.

And have you somehow missed the huge road safety campaigns aimed at motorists this last decade?

the groutch

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?

how do you know that some of those 188 weren't caused by cyclists?

ThisRegard

SHOVELLER wrote: »

Theory test?

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

Ahem

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/cyclists-should-have-insurance-says-judge-1.2246540

Although that guy would have gotten himself arrested on a space hopper. What's relevant is that's he's a scumbag, not a cyclist. He just happened to be a scumbag on a bike.


But the judges comments about insurance are pretty stupid and irrelevant, given the guy didn't hit anyone or cause an accident, and with his history, would probably be driving without insurance, never mind cycling without it.

CramCycle

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Your logic is pathetically weak, Rainy?

A theory test is there to educate road users, why shouldn't all road users receive the same education? Your answer seems to be "let's ignore cyclists until motorists become perfect. Never going to happen.

And I can't believe your still spouting that nonsense about 188 versus 12 road deaths. So what if more drivers than cyclists are killed? You seem to think it's some kind of contest.

And have you somehow missed the huge road safety campaigns aimed at motorists this last decade?

Are people really that ignorant. Its a cost to benefit issue.

The cost of implementing a theory test for cyclists, let alone the cost of legislation and enforcement which in its entirety, which will probably do more damage to public health over time is humongous and unjustifiable at this point in time.

Should that money, if only a fraction be spent on enforcement on all road users (cyclists included), the benefits would be far more wide spread, population behaviour is infectious, you have enough people with it, then everyone will get it. Best way to do this is to enforce the negatives of not behaving correctly, where people will remember it for along time eg fines.

smash

Cyclists should have insurance, says judge

ThisRegard

2 posts up.

Qualitymark

It's really kind that people are shocked by the doubled numbers of cyclists killed last year.

But please remember that every one of the cyclists who died was killed by a car or truck.

CramCycle

smash wrote: »

Cyclists should have insurance, says judge

Yesterday judge says he would be doing womanhood a favour if he banned heels.

Longford judge tells shop that they have right to discriminate admittance based on race.

Judges, I wouldn't take everything they say as gospel.

smash

ThisRegard wrote: »

2 posts up.

D'oh.

There was a guy on the radio from cycling Ireland or some organisation who said they offer insurance from between €15-€70 a year. It's completely irrelevant to the case at hand and I'm not sure exactly what it covers other than damage to your bike but it seems like a good deal if you're a cyclist.

ThisRegard

They had the road safety officer from Mayo CoCo on Newstalk this morning talking about it, he seems to be their go to guy. He seemed to be afraid to go against Yates wind up job he was doing.

seamus

smash wrote: »

Cyclists should have insurance, says judge

Judges are experts in the law, not in anything else.

Her opinion on whether cyclists should have insurance is irrelevant. Interesting that the cyclist didn't actually cause any damage and is clearly a common-or-garden scumbag who doesn't care about the law rather than a cycling enthusiast, but she decided to take the opportunity to have a little whinge about cyclists.

I'd say she's the exact kind to sit stuck in traffic on the quays in her huge S-class, complaining about how cyclists are constantly holding up traffic.

Qualitymark

It may not have occurred to this judge that the cyclists likely to have insurance (many are already covered by their household insurance) are unlikely to be those cycling on a pavement, having a conversation on a mobile phone, and with several previous convictions.

roadrunner16

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.

This attitude of motorists that cyclists make the roads dangerous and are a nuisance is rampant, Yes there are cyclists that break lights and per amount of cyclists the amount of broken red lights is way higher, completely agree with that. But numerous people have pointed out in this thread the RSA statistics, car drivers kill more pedestrians than any other road user, They are killed the most. They are more likely to be seriously injured. Yet people are calling for cyclists to be better educated on the roads ? It seems that a large number of people believe that the problem lies elsewhere and not with their own behavior.

steamengine

Qualitymark wrote: »

It's really kind that people are shocked by the doubled numbers of cyclists killed last year.

But please remember that every one of the cyclists who died was killed by a car or truck.

According to the RSA report (Page 17) everyone of the cyclists was not killed by another vehicle.

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

Vehicle Involved: Half of the fatal collisions involved collision with a car (6), there were two with a HGW, one with a van and one with a bus. In two cases no other vehicle was involved.

ThisRegard

steamengine wrote: »

According to the RSA report (Page 17) everyone of the cyclists was not killed by another vehicle.

Everyone but two were is how I read your post? Or did you just phrase it badly?

StewartGriffin

A theory test isn't about juggling death or injury stats, it's about ensuring all road users are educated to a certain standard regarding the rules and etiquette of sharing a road with other people.

seamus

He meant to say, "Not every one of the cyclists was killed by another vehicle">

smash

Qualitymark wrote: »

It may not have occurred to this judge that the cyclists likely to have insurance (many are already covered by their household insurance) are unlikely to be those cycling on a pavement, having a conversation on a mobile phone, and with several previous convictions.

Not all cyclists are assholes, but there are people who cycle who are assholes. Not all drivers are assholes, but there are people who drive who are assholes. That's it in a nutshell. Trying to distinguish and segregate the classes just isn't worth while.

seamus

StewartGriffin wrote: »

A theory test isn't about juggling death or injury stats, it's about ensuring all road users are educated to a certain standard regarding the rules and etiquette of sharing a road with other people.

So all pedestrians should do one too, right? They're road users.

steamengine

ThisRegard wrote: »

Everyone but two were is how I read your post? Or did you just phrase it badly?

Are you just being 'pedaltic' now ?

StewartGriffin

seamus wrote: »

So all pedestrians should do one too, right? They're road users.

Walking on a country roadside? Crossing at a pedestrian crossing? Get real. seamus.
If I walk by the railway track do I need a traindrivers license?

Qualitymark

steamengine wrote: »

According to the RSA report (Page 17) everyone of the cyclists was not killed by another vehicle.

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

[/I][/B]

You're right.

Thanks to all the people who are worried about the doubled number of cyclists killed. But please remember that 10 of the 12 who died last year were killed by a car, van, bus or truck.

rubadub

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.

Do you actually think cyclists are not aware they are breaking the law? its like suggesting a theory test for burglars informing them robbing houses is against the law.

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Walking on a country roadside? Crossing at a pedestrian crossing? Get real. seamus.

Many pedestrians are unaware there are even laws applying to them. Whenever I bring up "jaywalking" laws there are usually posters claiming there are no such laws here -just showing how ignorant they are and how unenforced the law is. I see lots of dangerous crossing on the N11 with cars skidding to stop for people running across roads, sometimes illegally. A lot of cyclists I encounter on footpaths are avoiding groups of people walking on cycletracks. I have seen jaywalking pedestrians roaring at cyclists who were similarly breaking the law in a similarly safe & benign way, which any sensible garda would not bother to go after either person.

ThisRegard

StewartGriffin wrote: »

If I walk by the railway track do I need a traindrivers license?

Well if at any time you actually walk on it it has been argued here lately that you should be paying train track tax.

smash

steamengine wrote: »

According to the RSA report (Page 17) everyone of the cyclists was not killed by another vehicle.

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

One of them was in a 120kmh zone. That's a motorway... What was a cyclist doing on a motorway?

Are there any definitive reports on cyclist injuries and deaths? Even reading the 2012 stats it doesn't state who was at fault and even though giving the details of vehicle manoeuvres at the time of collision, it states "there was insufficient information available to report on the manoeuvres taken by cyclists at the time of the collision."

It's also worth noting that the majority of accidents involving cyclists were people cycling for leisure, not those who cycle to and from work.

seamus

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Walking on a country roadside? Crossing at a pedestrian crossing? Get real. seamus.
If I walk by the railway track do I need a traindrivers license?

Pedestrians are the ones doing all the dying on the roads and yet I am the one who needs to "get real".

Trent Houseboat

Replace religious instruction in state funded schools with road safety theory and practical lessons.

smash

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

Replace religious instruction in state funded schools with road safety theory and practical lessons.

My class were brought on 2 safety courses in an RSA facility where we were split in to 3 rotating groups or cyclists, pedestrians and motorists and sent around a little course.

Trent Houseboat

smash wrote: »

My class were brought on 2 safety courses in an RSA facility where we were split in to 3 rotating groups or cyclists, pedestrians and motorists and sent around a little course.

That's interesting, there was noting like that in my day.

Was it a case of:
"Group 1 wear high viz and helmets.
Group 2 wear high viz.
Group 3 look out for high viz."?

smash

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

That's interesting, there was noting like that in my day.

Was it a case of:
"Group 1 wear high viz and helmets.
Group 2 wear high viz.
Group 3 look out for high viz."?

I'm not sure that most schools would have done it seeing as it was 20 years ago now, but I know that a lot of schools these days require students to have a high vis as part of the uniform policy and they do teach them about road safety. Even in junior school.

RainyDay

smash wrote: »

One of them was in a 120kmh zone. That's a motorway... What was a cyclist doing on a motorway?

He was drunk - stupid guy.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/coroner-s-court/intoxicated-cyclist-killed-by-car-after-entering-motorway-1.2235969

smash wrote: »

Are there any definitive reports on cyclist injuries and deaths? Even reading the 2012 stats it doesn't state who was at fault and even though giving the details of vehicle manoeuvres at the time of collision, it states "there was insufficient information available to report on the manoeuvres taken by cyclists at the time of the collision."

Details usually come out in a Coroners inquest or court case. I can't recall a single case where a cyclist did something wrong that resulted in the death of anyone else. Can you?

smash wrote: »

It's also worth noting that the majority of accidents involving cyclists were people cycling for leisure, not those who cycle to and from work.

Where does it say this? I can't find any reference to leisure cycling.

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

Replace religious instruction in state funded schools with road safety theory and practical lessons.

Something like this scheme, perhaps?
http://www.dlrcoco.ie/aboutus/councildepartments/transportation/findit/newroadsafetysection/cyclists/cyclingtrainingscheme/

smash

RainyDay wrote: »

Details usually come out in a Coroners inquest or court case. I can't recall a single case where a cyclist did something wrong that resulted in the death of anyone else. Can you?

This has nothing to do with the post which questioned who was at fault at the time of the collisions. I also stated injuries and deaths.

RainyDay wrote: »

Where does it say this? I can't find any reference to leisure cycling.

You're looking at the wrong document then: http://rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Crash%20Stats/Review_of_Cyclist_Injuries_2012.pdf page 10

RainyDay

StewartGriffin wrote: »

A theory test isn't about juggling death or injury stats, it's about ensuring all road users are educated to a certain standard regarding the rules and etiquette of sharing a road with other people.

So it's not going to save lives or reduce injuries. It's not going to change behaviour. It is purely for academic benefit - to make you feel better about cyclists.

Maybe it's me, but I'd prefer to focus public policy and spending on things that work.

CramCycle wrote: »

Are people really that ignorant.

Yes. Yes they are?

the groutch wrote: »

how do you know that some of those 188 weren't caused by cyclists?

Are you suggesting that we should spend public money on a new testing initiative, just because I can't prove that there was no cyclist fault in every one of the 188 road deaths involving motorists?

How about we go the other way? How about you have a look over the daily and weekly reports of deaths on our road, and come up with 1 case where a cyclist caused the death of another person over the last 10 years or so.

StewartGriffin wrote: »

A theory test is there to educate road users, why shouldn't all road users receive the same education? Your answer seems to be "let's ignore cyclists until motorists become perfect. Never going to happen.

My answer is most definitely not 'let's ignore cyclists until motorists become perfect'. My answer is about focusing resources, time and attention where they will actually achieve some good. You have not outlined any benefit that will arise from your proposed theory test. What problem are you trying to fix here.

StewartGriffin wrote: »

And I can't believe your still spouting that nonsense about 188 versus 12 road deaths. So what if more drivers than cyclists are killed? You seem to think it's some kind of contest.

So just so we're clear, if somebody cuts off your right arm, and also makes a small cut on your left thumb, you want the medics to give equal, fair attention to both injuries at the same time - right? You don't want them to focus on the more serious injury at all, because it's not some kind of content between your thurm and your arm.

StewartGriffin wrote: »

And have you somehow missed the huge road safety campaigns aimed at motorists this last decade?

I think I've seen most of the TV and press campaigns, which have all been aimed at changing driver behaviour. I'm not sure that they have been particularly successful though. But I don't really see the relevance of that point to this discussion. You might like to clarify this.

RainyDay

smash wrote: »

This has nothing to do with the post which questioned who was at fault at the time of the collisions. I also stated injuries and deaths.

It has everything to do with fault. You're taking a 'guilty until proven innocent' approach in blaming cyclists for incidents that didn't involve cyclists. It is interesting that you can't present details of one incident of death or serious injury where a cyclist caused injury to someone else in the past ten years.

smash wrote: »

You're looking at the wrong document then: http://rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Crash%20Stats/Review_of_Cyclist_Injuries_2012.pdf page 8

Thanks, that is helpful. The quote was a bit selective;

There was limited information available on the purpose of the trip of the cyclists who were injured in 2012. Where the purpose was stated, over 4 in 10 cyclists (44%) stated that they were cycling for leisure purposes when the collision occurred. Almost 1 in 10 (8%) were travelling to/from work, with
a minority stating they were travelling to/from home (2%) or to/from school (1%). In case of almost half of the collisions, trip purpose was unknown.

So actually, 44% of 55% were for leisure - which is about 24% overall.

smash

RainyDay wrote: »

It has everything to do with fault. You're taking a 'guilty until proven innocent' approach in blaming cyclists for incidents that didn't involve cyclists. It is interesting that you can't present details of one incident of death or serious injury where a cyclist caused injury to someone else in the past ten years.

I have no idea what you're talking about now, and I'm not sure you even know yourself if I'm honest. I'm talking about incidents outlined in a report titled "Cyclist Injuries: A Review of 2012 Casualties". So clearly I am discussing incidents that involve a cyclist, where the cyclists has been injured or killed. Not deaths caused by other road users by a cyclist.

RainyDay wrote: »

Thanks, that is helpful. The quote was a bit selective;

So actually, 44% of 55% were for leisure - which is about 24% overall.

Edited my original reply here because I was looking at the wrong thing...

"Over 4 in 10 cyclists who were injured in 2012 were cycling for leisure purposes at the time of the collision, while almost 1 in 10 were cycling to/from work."

It's 44% of the 'focus group'. And 45% of the group didn't state their reasons for the journey, or it was unknown. If you remove the unknown journeys then you'd get 80% leisure.

Grandpa Hassan

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/jun/11/female-cyclists-bad-driving-harassment-study-uk-women-men-near-miss

Female cyclists are almost twice as likely as their male counterparts to be subjected to harassment or bad driving, according to a study that describes such frightening events as an everyday experience for most UK cyclists.

Much of this gender imbalance appears to be caused by drivers’ impatience with the fact that women tend to be slower cyclists, according to the research, a finding that runs contrary to the media stereotype of speedy, Lycra-clad riders being a focus of hostility.

The study, titled the Near Miss Project, indicates drivers are more hostile or careless towards riders perceived to be holding them up, with almost a third of the reported incidents involving alarming overtaking manoeuvres.

RainyDay

smash wrote: »

I have no idea what you're talking about now, and I'm not sure you even know yourself if I'm honest. I'm talking about incidents outlined in a report titled "Cyclist Injuries: A Review of 2012 Casualties". So clearly I am discussing incidents that involve a cyclist, where the cyclists has been injured or killed. Not deaths caused by other road users by a cyclist.

Yes, I was confused. I see where you are now. So to get back to your question: "Are there any definitive reports on cyclist injuries and deaths? [...] it doesn't state who was at fault and even though giving the details of vehicle manoeuvres at the time of collision, it states "there was insufficient information available to report on the manoeuvres taken by cyclists at the time of the collision."

Cyclist deaths are widely reported in the media, at the time that the incident happens and when the coroner's inquest eventually takes place. Cyclist injuries aren't generally reported.

There is no evidence anywhere of cyclist actions being a factor in the 200-ish road deaths of people other than cyclists each year.

smash wrote: »

Edited my original reply here because I was looking at the wrong thing...

"Over 4 in 10 cyclists who were injured in 2012 were cycling for leisure purposes at the time of the collision, while almost 1 in 10 were cycling to/from work."

It's 44% of the 'focus group'. And 45% of the group didn't state their reasons for the journey, or it was unknown. If you remove the unknown journeys then you'd get 80% leisure.

No, it's not 44% of the 'focus group'. It is 44% of 'where the purpose was stated'. 45% didn't state the purpose, so it is 44% of 55%, which is 24%.

smash wrote: »

Are there any definitive reports on cyclist injuries and deaths? Even reading the 2012 stats it doesn't state who was at fault and even though giving the details of vehicle manoeuvres at the time of collision, it states "there was insufficient information available to report on the manoeuvres taken by cyclists at the time of the collision."

smash wrote: »

I have no idea what you're talking about now, and I'm not sure you even know yourself if I'm honest. I'm talking about incidents outlined in a report titled "Cyclist Injuries: A Review of 2012 Casualties". So clearly I am discussing incidents that involve a cyclist, where the cyclists has been injured or killed. Not deaths caused by other road users by a cyclist.



Edited my original reply here because I was looking at the wrong thing...

"Over 4 in 10 cyclists who were injured in 2012 were cycling for leisure purposes at the time of the collision, while almost 1 in 10 were cycling to/from work."

It's 44% of the 'focus group'. And 45% of the group didn't state their reasons for the journey, or it was unknown. If you remove the unknown journeys then you'd get 80% leisure.

StewartGriffin

seamus wrote: »

Pedestrians are the ones doing all the dying on the roads and yet I am the one who needs to "get real".

I have no idea what you are talking about here, Seamus. You sound a bit hysterical.

RainyDay wrote: »

So it's not going to save lives or reduce injuries. It's not going to change behaviour. It is purely for academic benefit - to make you feel better about cyclists.

How about we go the other way? How about you have a look over the daily and weekly reports of deaths on our road, and come up with 1 case where a cyclist caused the death of another person over the last 10 years or so.

You have not outlined any benefit that will arise from your proposed theory test.

So just so we're clear, if somebody cuts off your right arm, and also makes a small cut on your left thumb, you want the medics to give equal, fair attention to both injuries at the same time - right? You don't want them to focus on the more serious injury at all, because it's not some kind of content between your thurm and your arm.

It's about education, it's not the test but the study that will have to be done to pass the test. Educated people behave differently to uneducated people.

Bringing up individual cases where someone has been killed on the road is not a good idea in a casual forum like this.

How about the doctor treats both injuries? You're the guy saying "No, No, No, leave the thumb, let it bleed away." Who told you we can't treat both?

smash

RainyDay wrote: »

Yes, I was confused. I see where you are now. So to get back to your question: "Are there any definitive reports on cyclist injuries and deaths? [...] it doesn't state who was at fault and even though giving the details of vehicle manoeuvres at the time of collision, it states "there was insufficient information available to report on the manoeuvres taken by cyclists at the time of the collision."

Cyclist deaths are widely reported in the media, at the time that the incident happens and when the coroner's inquest eventually takes place. Cyclist injuries aren't generally reported.

And yet it is rarely reported as to who was at fault.

RainyDay wrote: »

There is no evidence anywhere of cyclist actions being a factor in the 200-ish road deaths of people other than cyclists each year.

Again, this isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about incidents where a cyclist has been injured or killed.

RainyDay wrote: »

No, it's not 44% of the 'focus group'. It is 44% of 'where the purpose was stated'. 45% didn't state the purpose, so it is 44% of 55%, which is 24%.

No. Of the incidents, it is know that the journey purpose off 44% was leisure. 45% was not stated and 11% was traveling to or from work/home/school. Of the cases where a journey was stated, 80% was leisure.

Tenzor07

smash wrote: »

And yet it is rarely reported as to who was at fault.


Again, this isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about incidents where a cyclist has been injured or killed.


No. Of the incidents, it is know that the journey purpose off 44% was leisure. 45% was not stated and 11% was traveling to or from work/home/school. Of the cases where a journey was stated, 80% was leisure.

Jeeezee....Get a room!

roadrunner16

StewartGriffin wrote: »

A theory test isn't about juggling death or injury stats, it's about ensuring all road users are educated to a certain standard regarding the rules and etiquette of sharing a road with other people.

Fair point people still need to be educated if they want to use the roads, but the statistics clearly point that before educating one of the less deadly road users the more dangerous ones need to be re educated.

RainyDay

StewartGriffin wrote: »

It's about education, it's not the test but the study that will have to be done to pass the test. Educated people behave differently to uneducated people.

Why would you think that? Look at all the crappy driving on the roads by 'educated people'. Why would you expect it to be different for cyclists?

StewartGriffin wrote: »

How about the doctor treats both injuries? You're the guy saying "No, No, No, leave the thumb, let it bleed away." Who told you we can't treat both?

He has only one pair of hands and one pair of eyes. Which of your wounds do you want him to treat first - the one that will kill you or the one that won't kill you?

I know you're not really so dumb as to not understand the idea of prioritisation.

smash wrote: »

And yet it is rarely reported as to who was at fault.


Again, this isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about incidents where a cyclist has been injured or killed.

Incidents where cyclists are killed are widely reported. There are very, very few incidents where a coroner or a judge has blamed a cyclist.

But hey, feel free to keep spreading FUD about what might have happened, despite a complete absence of any evidence.

smash wrote: »

No. Of the incidents, it is know that the journey purpose off 44% was leisure. 45% was not stated and 11% was traveling to or from work/home/school. Of the cases where a journey was stated, 80% was leisure.

THat's not what the text says. It says fairly clearly "Where the purpose was stated, over 4 in 10 cyclists (44%) stated that they were cycling for leisure purposes when the collision occurred" - so that is 44% of 55% = 24%.

The Dark Side

Yesterday evening on Pearse Street I saw two cyclists pass through a red light during the pedestrian cycle (no pun intended).

At the top of the queue on the opposite side was a Guard on a motorbike. He just watched them sail through.

Doesn't really matter about theory tests - the cyclists knew they were breaking the law.
It doesn't even matter about the law if it's not enforced.

The culture here is the problem.

I'd imagine it will take a couple few dozen cyclists getting mowed down while braking the lights before anything is actually done about it.

ThisRegard

The Dark Side wrote: »

Yesterday evening on Pearse Street I saw two cyclists pass through a red light during the pedestrian cycle (no pun intended).

Walk up Pearse Street and count how many people drive through the various lights there, and illegally use the bus only part right by the front of the garda station. Also watch how many taxis turn the driving lane to go around by the quays into an additional line to skip ahead and queue to go by the garda station, thereby blocking one lane.

smash

RainyDay wrote: »

Incidents where cyclists are killed are widely reported. There are very, very few incidents where a coroner or a judge has blamed a cyclist.

But hey, feel free to keep spreading FUD about what might have happened, despite a complete absence of any evidence.

I'm not spreading anything, I'm asking for reports which seem to be non existent. Even when you say "very few incidents where a coroner or a judge has blamed a cyclist" then it should be in a report, no?

RainyDay wrote: »

THat's not what the text says. It says fairly clearly "Where the purpose was stated, over 4 in 10 cyclists (44%) stated that they were cycling for leisure purposes when the collision occurred" - so that is 44% of 55% = 24%.

Yet the graph clearly shows 44% total, not 44% of the stated purpose of the journey.

RobbieTheRobber

The Dark Side wrote: »

Yesterday evening on Pearse Street I saw two cyclists pass through a red light during the pedestrian cycle (no pun intended).

At the top of the queue on the opposite side was a Guard on a motorbike. He just watched them sail through.

Doesn't really matter about theory tests - the cyclists knew they were breaking the law.
It doesn't even matter about the law if it's not enforced.

The culture here is the problem.

I'd imagine it will take a couple few dozen cyclists getting mowed down while braking the lights before anything is actually done about it.

Cyclists breaking red lights is an issue but if it is so dangerous then where are the expected high number of deaths and injuries related to this activity?
Are they just not being reported or is the danger perhaps being slightly over stated?

Knasher

The Dark Side wrote: »

I'd imagine it will take a couple few dozen cyclists getting mowed down while braking the lights before anything is actually done about it.

I really think the greenwave will encourage people to obey the traffic lights, and if so I hope to see it rolled out to other cycle lanes and beyond Dublin.