Cyclists should do a theory test!

RainyDay

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.

And yet, there have been no reported cases in living history of a cyclist 'getting mowed down while breaking the lights'. I have to wonder how many drivers zipped through the red light at the same time - usually 2 or 3 in my experience. Which do you think is more dangerous?

RainyDay

smash wrote: »

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

You're right, the graph doesn't match the text.

smash wrote: »

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?

You're right, the reports of cyclists causing incidents are non-existent. Now I wonder why that might be???

StewartGriffin

RainyDay wrote: »

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?


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.

You are such a simple soul Rainy.

The theory test won't fix everything like a magic fairy spell. It won't make all car drivers great drivers, but it will make some better than they had been before it. Hence it is worthwhile. And that is why it will be worthwhile for Cyclists too.

What is this melodramatic scenario you have invented about a doctor treating your wounds at the side of the road and you having to choose which one he bandages up?? Sounds like some strange teenage fantasy.
There was a lot of plane crashes last year, should we shelve all initiatives for road safety while we prioritize the air traffic?


What we're talking about here is introducing a theory test for Cyclists, because its important everyone is educated on the correct rules of our roads.

smash

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.

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

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?

2012 cyclist injuries by junction type:
T Junction 52%
Crossroads 24%
Roundabout 18%
Complex Junction 4%
Y Junction 2%

2012 cyclist injuries by manoeuvres of drivers involved:
Turning Right 21%
Turning Left 15%
Exiting / Entering 7%
Taking Avoidance Action 4%
Attempting to Overtake 2%
Changing Lanes 1%
Reversing 1%
Other 50%

Note: there was insufficient information available to report on the manoeuvres taken by cyclists at the time of the collision.

Do you reckon many of these statistics involved a cyclist breaking a light?

CramCycle

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Are they just not being reported or is the danger perhaps being slightly over stated?

It is an issue but it is far from a major problem and the relative danger compared to all other potential dangers on the road is probably quite small, the state/quality of footpaths is probably a bigger danger to pedestrians.

This said, I don't think it should be tolerated, but I am smart enough to know the idea of a theory test to license cyclists is beyond idiotic as well for the several reasons put forward, multiple times.

A far simpler, and more effective solution, is enforcement of the RTA through FPNs, this is almost here and possibly will be expanded upon.

I am not even bothered explaining again why this makes more sense.

smash

RainyDay wrote: »

And yet, there have been no reported cases in living history of a cyclist 'getting mowed down while breaking the lights'.

Just stop...
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/injured-cyclist-gets-driving-ban-for-breaking-red-light-26661405.html

Oh and here's a story to counteract your previous claim that there's no reports of cyclists injuring people:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/blind-man-mowed-down-by-cyclists-who-consistently-break-traffic-lights-29833333.html

And this guy is lucky he didn't kill himself: http://thedailyedge.thejournal.ie/cyclist-runs-red-light-2122079-May2015/

wtlltw

RainyDay wrote: »

And yet, there have been no reported cases in living history of a cyclist 'getting mowed down while breaking the lights'. I have to wonder how many drivers zipped through the red light at the same time - usually 2 or 3 in my experience. Which do you think is more dangerous?

Well my friend was involved in accident with a cyclist who jumped the lights well after they were red. Happened about 2-3 years ago and the cyclist ended up breaking her arm. The worst part about it all was that my friend felt like he was the guilty party (especially with people stopping and gawping at the aftermath without knowing what had actually happened) when the accident could have been avoided if the cyclist had just stopped at the lights. All road users should be responsible for their actions

ThisRegard

smash wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/blind-man-mowed-down-by-cyclists-who-consistently-break-traffic-lights-29833333.html

LOL, a story the Indo lifted directly from Liveline, ye can't argue against that. You gotta love the headline, "Blind man mowed down by cyclists who consistently (at least they're consistent so should be easy to catch) break red lights". He's forbidden from crossing ?

And read this nonsense

another caller to Liveline said cyclists using the Dublin Bikes scheme are like kamikaze cyclists, and they do not use hi-visibility materials or helmets.

Top class journalism, as usual, from the Indo.

seamus

StewartGriffin wrote: »

I have no idea what you are talking about here

That seems pretty clear.

You are dead set on claiming that cyclists need to do a theory test because they mix with traffic and therefore it is essential to "etiquette" to know those rules.
But pedestrians don't need to do any kind of test, presumably "just because". And I need to "get real" for even suggesting it.

Even though pedestrians are the largest single group of people suffering deaths and injuries on our roads, and they interact with the road network in a manner that results in far more conflict than general road users.

The primary issue of course here is administration. Not that it's a bad idea in general, but whether the effort involved justifies the tangible outcome at the end. In an ideal world almost every child would walk or cycle to school (and parents would have to pay to get their car within 500m of the school gates) and roadcraft would be a core part of our education system.

But in the absence of that, education needs to be targetted where the expense and effort justifies the outcome. And adding red tape to cycling doesn't. In fact our enforcement rates are so low precisely because of the amount of red tape required to enforce the rules.

Remove the enforcement red tape, behaviour will improve.

The exact same process has worked for motorists - penalty points, roadside breathtesting and random checkpoints. Enforcing the laws became easier and less tied up with red tape, and our road safety record is at its best point in the history of the state.

CramCycle

seamus wrote: »

The primary issue of course here is administration. Not that it's a bad idea in general, but whether the effort involved justifies the tangible outcome at the end. In an ideal world almost every child would walk or cycle to school (and parents would have to pay to get their car within 500m of the school gates) and roadcraft would be a core part of our education system.

Precisely, road education should be mandatory for all school children, while some claim it is, I have yet to hear of any of my nieces/nephews etc. having to do it yet. A minimum competence level should be built up at a young age. The peds/cyclists/motorists simulation in the playground is a great start.

But the absence of that, education needs to be targetted where the expense justifies the outcome. And adding red tape to cycling doesn't. In fact our enforcement rates are so low precisely because of the amount of red tape required to enforce the rules.

Again, national school and Junior Cert level. BEhaviour is viral, as children move through the system, not only do they increase the base of people with a good grounding, they also spread their behaviour to others, talking to parents about what is acceptable, knowing kids, criticising parents who do wrong, my own daughter as she grew up used to ask why people done X, Y and Z even though I had told and shown her those things were illegal and dangerous. If enough children think certain behaviours are negative, as time progresses, society will view them as unacceptable.

At the minute, all evidence, despite what all the posters on boards think, indicate that poor behaviour by cyclists and motorists alike is completely acceptable, otherwise it would not be done at the levels it is done.

Remove the enforcement red tape, behaviour will improve.

Along with education of youth, this will be the other spear in the attack (the easier and quicker one) against poor road behaviour and use, you can't teach a monkey that something is wrong but you can teach them that they will be punished if they do, it becomes the norm not to break the rules, and as new monkeys enter the group, they don't break the rules because no one else does.

RobbieTheRobber

smash wrote: »

Do you reckon many of these statistics involved a cyclist breaking a light?

Do you?

There really isn't enough evidence to say yes or no. The left turning vehicles though for example is highly unlikely to be caused by red light breaking cyclists unless the motorist is also breaking the lights.

RainyDay

StewartGriffin wrote: »

You are such a simple soul Rainy.

The theory test won't fix everything like a magic fairy spell. It won't make all car drivers great drivers, but it will make some better than they had been before it. Hence it is worthwhile. And that is why it will be worthwhile for Cyclists too.

What we're talking about here is introducing a theory test for Cyclists, because its important everyone is educated on the correct rules of our roads.

Perhaps we could short-cut the discussion by clarifying one point. You repeating 'this will work' and 'this will make some better' doesn't persuade me in the slightest. Generally, for public policy changes, we need a slightly higher standard that the opinion of a bloke on a bulletin board. We need some compelling evidence. In the light of the fairly stark evidence about the standard of driving on our roads by drivers who have passed their theory test, you really need to come up with something better than repetition.

StewartGriffin wrote: »

There was a lot of plane crashes last year, should we shelve all initiatives for road safety while we prioritize the air traffic?

Do we have the same policy makers, regulator and enforcement resources working with both road safety and air traffic?

No, so there is no prioritisation issue here.

And btw, there weren't a whole lot of plane crashes in Ireland last year.

StewartGriffin wrote: »

What is this melodramatic scenario you have invented about a doctor treating your wounds at the side of the road and you having to choose which one he bandages up?? Sounds like some strange teenage fantasy.

Yes, it was a bit melodramatic all right. In my defence, I was a bit taken aback at having to explain such a basic concept as prioritisation and opportunity cost. I thought that these were generally well understood concepts, so it was the best I could come up with at short notice.

smash wrote: »

Just stop...
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/injured-cyclist-gets-driving-ban-for-breaking-red-light-26661405.html

Did you actually read the story? He got a broken arm. He wasn't killed - he wasn't 'mowed down'. He broke his arm. You get worse on an U.14s hurling match most Saturdays. Maybe all the hurlers should do mandatory theory tests too?

smash wrote: »

Oh and here's a story to counteract your previous claim that there's no reports of cyclists injuring people:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/blind-man-mowed-down-by-cyclists-who-consistently-break-traffic-lights-29833333.html

Liveline? Ah come on. And injured? He was 'in pain' afterwards - not exactly life-threatening stuff. Don't get me wrong - it is completely despicable that a blind man got hit by cyclists. But if this is the best you can come up with against 200+ deaths and hospitals full of maimed and injured, you're starting to get my point - right?

smash wrote: »

And this guy is lucky he didn't kill himself: http://thedailyedge.thejournal.ie/cyclist-runs-red-light-2122079-May2015/

You noticed it was a big red bus, right? And you noticed him getting up and walking away, right? Again, don't get me wrong - it's a very silly move by the cyclist - but it doesn't exactly stand up well against 200+ killed and thousands of injuries.

PS Ever wonder about why TheJournal don't highlight the large number of close shaves involving car drivers that are published to YouTube every day? I wonder why....

smash

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Do you?

There really isn't enough evidence to say yes or no. The left turning vehicles though for example is highly unlikely to be caused by red light breaking cyclists unless the motorist is also breaking the lights.

Left turning vehicle would be a motorist who didn't check their mirrors, but like you said with the other causes there's no statistics on who's at fault and there really should be.

@RainyDay I guess it doesn't really what I put in front of you because you'll change the goal posts. First it was cyclists causing injury and now you're dismissing the injuries as insignificant. Then you're stating that although a cyclist broke a light and hit a bus it doesn't matter because he walked away from it. And again you're bringing everything back to motorists causing 200+ deaths even though we are specifically discussing cyclists. As if what a cyclist does just doesn't matter because motorists do worse.

rubadub

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.

Thats nothing, I have seen groups of 40 or so roadusers breaking the law in dublin city with several gardai watching who were on foot and did nothing. Being on foot they could have got them a lot easier, a garda on a bike might have different priorities.

A lot of the time roadusers are breaking laws in a pretty benign way, the law was made to stop certain actions happening, often the action people are doing is not really what the law intended to prevent and so sensible gardai will turn a blind eye.

If the lights were broken and people were just doing their own thing nobody would bat an eyelid at some of the actions being done by various roadusers -which would be illegal if lights were working. -actually I wondered what the legal stance is when you come up to a set of broken traffic lights.

I have actually had garda give me what was seemingly a nod of approval while breaking the law, they obviously know why I was doing it and appreciated it.

RainyDay

smash wrote: »

@RainyDay I guess it doesn't really what I put in front of you because you'll change the goal posts. First it was cyclists causing injury and now you're dismissing the injuries as insignificant. Then you're stating that although a cyclist broke a light and hit a bus it doesn't matter because he walked away from it. .

My main point about the bus was that it was red - London, not Dublin. I'm sure that situation has happened in Dublin of course. And I'm sure cyclists in Ireland have caused some injuries from time to time.

But in the overall context of 200+ deaths from motor vehicles, it is is insignificant.

smash wrote: »

As if what a cyclist does just doesn't matter because motorists do worse.

Yep, that's pretty much it, in a nutshell.

Any traffic-related initiatives will take time from legislators, policy makers, regulators and enforcers. There is only a limited amount of time available. So do we want to prioritise the minor issue or the major issue?

smash

RainyDay wrote: »

My main point about the bus was that it was red - London, not Dublin. I'm sure that situation has happened in Dublin of course. And I'm sure cyclists in Ireland have caused some injuries from time to time.

But in the overall context of 200+ deaths from motor vehicles, it is is insignificant.

Yep, that's pretty much it, in a nutshell.

Any traffic-related initiatives will take time from legislators, policy makers, regulators and enforcers. There is only a limited amount of time available. So do we want to prioritise the minor issue or the major issue?

So statistics or stories from outside of Ireland don't matter either, because they don't fit your agenda. Not worth you reading this then: http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/57065/cyclists-almost-likely-injure-pedestrians-cars

RainyDay

smash wrote: »

So statistics or stories from outside of Ireland don't matter either, because they don't fit your agenda. Not worth you reading this then: http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/57065/cyclists-almost-likely-injure-pedestrians-cars

Did you actually read the article you linked to?

While cars kill five times more pedestrians than bicycles

@BloomingCyclist @thetimes @Velocentric Yeah, all you really need to know are pedestrians killed by cyclists = 1, peds killed by cars = 253

The Times readily acknowledges that cars are responsible for a far higher number of deaths and serious injuries "in absolute terms".
One pedestrian was killed by a cyclist and 78 were seriously injured in 2012. At the same time, 253 pedestrians were killed by drivers in urban areas and 4,426 were seriously injured.

You're pretty much doing my job for me. There has not been a case of a pedestrian killed by a cyclist in Ireland in ten+ years. While 2,000+ people have been killed by motorists.

smash

RainyDay wrote: »

Did you actually read the article you linked to?

You're pretty much doing my job for me. There has not been a case of a pedestrian killed by a cyclist in Ireland in ten+ years. While 2,000+ people have been killed by motorists.

I like how you omitted the statistics based on distance traveled. Which was the point of the article.

CramCycle

smash wrote: »

I like how you omitted the statistics based on distance traveled. Which was the point of the article.

Which in of itself is skewing the statistics, as in the majority of roads cyclists use, there are pedestrians nearby or on them, whereas motorists use many roads in the UK that pedestrians do not have access to including motorways, ring roads, tunnels. How would the stats change if you removed the distance covered on motorways?

rubadub

Also

Most collisions occur "when pedestrians step out into the road without seeing or hearing a cyclist"

I expect some of that would be illegally "jaywalking", and it should be phrased "without checking to see or hear if it was safe".

I would like to see the pedestrian on pedestrian death toll per billion km too, and pedestrian on cyclist and motorists (swerving to avoid etc).

Last time I was injured was due to a pedestrian illegally crossing a road who knocked me off my bike. He strolled off not a bother on him, he barely faltered, I was badly scraped limping away. I have had several close calls with pedestrians like this.

smash

CramCycle wrote: »

Which in of itself is skewing the statistics, as in the majority of roads cyclists use, there are pedestrians nearby or on them, whereas motorists use many roads in the UK that pedestrians do not have access to including motorways, ring roads, tunnels. How would the stats change if you removed the distance covered on motorways?

Statistics can be skewed for most agendas. The point is that RainyDay asks for links or figures and then dismisses them and openly admits that it doesn't matter what's put in front of him because figures are higher for motorists, even when it's not who were discussing.

RainyDay

smash wrote: »

I like how you omitted the statistics based on distance traveled. Which was the point of the article.

The point of the article was to twist statistics to have a dig at cyclists. That is fairly obvious to anybody. Just like in Ireland, the figures for the UK show that motorists are killing left right and centre, while deaths caused by cyclists are statistically insignficant.

smash wrote: »

because figures are higher for motorists, even when it's not who were discussing.

Don't make me come down there and explain prioritisation and opportunity cost again. Which bit of it are you having trouble grasping?

smash

RainyDay wrote: »

Don't make me come down there and explain prioritisation and opportunity cost again. Which bit of it are you having trouble grasping?

Well the issue I have is that we're discussing cyclists. You're going off topic and shouting about motorists. I've stated a few times now that there is no statistic to say who's at fault for the accidents involving cyclists. All I want to know is the percentage of accidents involving cyclists where the cyclist is at fault. But all you want to do is talk about cars.

RainyDay

smash wrote: »

Well the issue I have is that we're discussing cyclists. You're going off topic and shouting about motorists. I've stated a few times now that there is no statistic to say who's at fault for the accidents involving cyclists. All I want to know is the percentage of accidents involving cyclists where the cyclist is at fault. But all you want to do is talk about cars.

The issue I have is that we're discussion a theory test for cyclists. Any such road safety measure will take resources away from other road safety initiatives, such as the ones aimed at reducing the death toll caused by motorists.

You're right - I've never seen any statistic to say who's at fault for accident involving cyclists. I can only imagine that the reason why no such statistics exist is that the answer is patently obvious, and doesn't need any research or statistics.

StewartGriffin

RainyDay wrote: »

The issue I have is that we're discussion a theory test for cyclists. Any such road safety measure will take resources away from other road safety initiatives, such as the ones aimed at reducing the death toll caused by motorists.

But the issue I have is that I would like to see the majority of cyclists behave better towards other road users.

That applies to motorists and pedestrians, but also to good cyclists, who are possibly the most put out by the behaviour of bad cyclists.

I think a theory test will help this. And I think sooner or later, it will be introduced.

RainyDay

StewartGriffin wrote: »

But the issue I have is that I would like to see the majority of cyclists behave better towards other road users.

Fully agree - I'd love to see it happen too. If I had a magic wand that could achieve this without taking resources away from other road safety measures, I'd jump at the chance.

StewartGriffin wrote: »

That applies to motorists and pedestrians, but also to good cyclists, who are possibly the most put out by the behaviour of bad cyclists.

I'm not so sure about this. Most cyclists don't seem to care less about what others do, whether they are cars or bikes or whatever.

StewartGriffin wrote: »

I think a theory test will help this.

Now this is where we disagree. I don't believe that a theory test will have any impact on behaviour at all. Cyclists don't break red lights because they're unsure of the law. They break red lights because they are impatient, or because they've made a considered safety decision to avoid getting bunched up with other cyclists. A theory test isn't going to fix this.

StewartGriffin wrote: »

And I think sooner or later, it will be introduced.

Now this is where we really disagree. There is absolutely no hint of any appetite from government, policy makers, agencies, expert consultants or pretty-much anyone who knows anything about transport for it. If you want to make a case for it, come up with some evidence.

wtlltw

RainyDay wrote: »

You're right - I've never seen any statistic to say who's at fault for accident involving cyclists. I can only imagine that the reason why no such statistics exist is that the answer is patently obvious, and doesn't need any research or statistics.

So a cyclist gets knocked down due to their ill informed decision, then to me it is obvious. But likewise if a motorist knocked down a cyclist due their ill informed decision then likewise it's pretty obvious. I get the impression you don't see cyclists making ill informed decisions and that the motorist is always at fault. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your post.

RainyDay wrote: »

They break red lights because they are impatient, or because they've made a considered safety decision to avoid getting bunched up with other cyclists

Makes no sense, either obey the rules of the road or own up to the consequences of your actions

RainyDay

wtlltw wrote: »

So a cyclist gets knocked down due to their ill informed decision, then to me it is obvious. But likewise if a motorist knocked down a cyclist due their ill informed decision then likewise it's pretty obvious. I get the impression you don't see cyclists making ill informed decisions and that the motorist is always at fault. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your post.

You are misunderstanding my post. I see cyclists making bad decisions every day. Most of the time there are no consequences, the odd time there can be a minor consequence. I don't think I've ever seen a major consequence, but it can happen. I don't say 'the motorist is always at fault'.

I do say that I've never seen any credible report of a case where a cyclist caused a major injury to another person in Ireland over the past ten years. If there is such a report from a coroner's report or court case, I'll read it with interest. And over this period, motorists killed three or four thousand people.

wtlltw wrote: »

Makes no sense, either obey the rules of the road or own up to the consequences of your actions

I didn't mention anything about consequences, good, bad or indifferent. But I do hope that those who lecture others about obeying rules of the road NEVER break a speed limit themselves.

wtlltw

RainyDay wrote: »

You are misunderstanding my post. I see cyclists making bad decisions every day. Most of the time there are no consequences, the odd time there can be a minor consequence. I don't think I've ever seen a major consequence, but it can happen. I don't say 'the motorist is always at fault'.

I do say that I've never seen any credible report of a case where a cyclist caused a major injury to another person in Ireland over the past ten years. If there is such a report from a coroner's report or court case, I'll read it with interest. And over this period, motorists killed three or four thousand people.


I didn't mention anything about consequences, good, bad or indifferent. But I do hope that those who lecture others about obeying rules of the road NEVER break a speed limit themselves.

Forget about a cyclist causing an injury to anyone else and think about a cyclist causing a major injury to themselves.

As for breaking the speed limit comment your just moving the goal posts. See my previous post my friend was at zero when a cyclist went across the bonnet of the car

RainyDay

wtlltw wrote: »

Forget about a cyclist causing an injury to anyone else and think about a cyclist causing a major injury to themselves.

Do cyclists cause major injuries to themselves? Yes indeed - whether by cycling onto the M1 when drunk and getting killed (as happened last year) or by making bad decisions around large trucks, and ending up under the wheels. But the number of these cases are very, very small. Even if, for the sake of arguement, we assume that ALL cyclist fatalities are their own fault, the numbers are very low - 12 last year out of 200-ish fatalities.

So if we want to improve safety on the roads, we know where best to focus our attention. Hint: It's not cyclists.

wtlltw wrote: »

As for breaking the speed limit comment your just moving the goal posts. See my previous post my friend was at zero when a cyclist went across the bonnet of the car

Yes, I'm sure this can happen, though it is a fairly rare event. The fact remains that it is just a tad hypocritical to lecture cyclists about breaking red lights if you (like me and most drivers) break speed limits on just about every car journey.

Qualitymark

smash wrote: »

… there is no statistic to say who's at fault for the accidents involving cyclists.

This piece may interest you:

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study

A tiny proportion of accidents involving cyclists are caused by riders jumping red lights or stop signs, or failing to wear high-visibility clothing and use lights, a [British] government-commissioned study has discovered…
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 data, which was analysed by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), showed that more than a quarter of all cycling deaths in 2005-07 happened when a vehicle ran into the rear of a bike. This rose to more than one-third in rural areas and to 40% in collisions that took place away from junctions…
With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.

316

They should be made do an eye test, perhaps this is why they constantly break lights.

RainyDay

316 wrote: »

They should be made do an eye test, perhaps this is why they constantly break lights.

I guess all these drivers shouldda gone to Specsavers so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc5VGuJvOVk

Pinch Flat

RainyDay wrote: »

I guess all these drivers shouldda gone to Specsavers so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc5VGuJvOVk

Apparently the reason by offered one of the pro-motorists on this clip previously was that people were breaking the red in this clip for a number of reasons - fear of being rear ended, bad weather and short sequence.

No - it's just car upon car breaking thelghts and is typical of any junction in an Irish town on a given day

MadDog76

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Apparently the reason by offered one of the pro-motorists on this clip previously was that people were breaking the red in this clip for a number of reasons - fear of being rear ended, bad weather and short sequence.

No - it's just car upon car breaking thelghts and is typical of any junction in an Irish town on a given day

You know what I like about that clip?
The fact that the drivers can be tracked down and held accountable for breaking the red lights ......... unfortunately when cyclists do it there is little or no way of ever tracking them down so they're rarely held accountable for their actions on the road ......... which is probably why they do it so often!

RainyDay

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Apparently the reason by offered one of the pro-motorists on this clip previously was that people were breaking the red in this clip for a number of reasons - fear of being rear ended, bad weather and short sequence.

Don't forget the 'dog ate my homework' excuse, which is about as relevant as any of the points you mention.

MadDog76 wrote: »

You know what I like about that clip?
The fact that the drivers can be tracked down and held accountable for breaking the red lights ......... unfortunately when cyclists do it there is little or no way of ever tracking them down so they're rarely held accountable for their actions on the road ......... which is probably why they do it so often!

How's that accountability working out? Given that you see the same stuff at every junction in Dublin every day, how's that accountability working out in practice? Why do you think drivers break lights so often, given your scary accountability?

MadDog76

RainyDay wrote: »

Don't forget the 'dog ate my homework' excuse, which is about as relevant as any of the points you mention.




How's that accountability working out? Given that you see the same stuff at every junction in Dublin every day, how's that accountability working out in practice? Why do you think drivers break lights so often, given your scary accountability?

You're missing the point (as you tend to do when it conveniently suits you), enforcement is a separate issue (as are motorists as a matter of fact) to the issue of cyclists being in some way registered with the State so that they can be held accountable for their illegal actions on our roads.

A Theory Test would be a good start

steamengine

RainyDay wrote: »

I guess all these drivers shouldda gone to Specsavers so.

Sure and these cyclists too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbttAigUIjI

Pinch Flat

steamengine wrote: »

Sure and these cyclists too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbttAigUIjI

So as we've said from the outset of the thread - cyclists and motorists break lights.

I don't get your point

steamengine

Pinch Flat wrote: »

So as we've said from the outset of the thread - cyclists and motorists break lights.

I don't get your point

Well let's see them both doing it then, not just cars, as portrayed in the first video. Frankly, as a cyclist, the second video is a total embarrassment.

Pinch Flat

steamengine wrote: »

Well let's see them both doing it then, not just cars, as portrayed in the first video. Frankly, as a cyclist, the second video is a total embarrassment.

Yea I agree there's some pretty d!ckish behaviour on display. I'd be surprised if a cyclist comes on here defending it.

The video at doyles corner is taking by a local who was p!ssed off at the way the traffic lights were being ignored by all road users. Motorists were trying to defend the behaviour in that video

RainyDay

MadDog76 wrote: »

You're missing the point (as you tend to do when it conveniently suits you), enforcement is a separate issue (as are motorists as a matter of fact) to the issue of cyclists being in some way registered with the State so that they can be held accountable for their illegal actions on our roads.

How do you plan to hold them accountable without enforcement?

MadDog76 wrote: »

A Theory Test would be a good start

It would be a good way to divert attention and resources from the death toll on road caused by motorists, if that's what your trying to achieve.

MadDog76

RainyDay wrote: »

How do you plan to hold them accountable without enforcement?



It would be a good way to divert attention and resources from the death toll on road caused by motorists, if that's what your trying to achieve.

I don't personally plan to hold them accountable as I'm not the "State" or a member of any enforcement agency. :rolleyes:

How many people was it that die on our roads every year because of motorists?
Oh wait ......... 200+ wasn't it?
Think you might have mentioned that once or 200+ times in your posts ....... regardless of the actual topic being discussed. :rolleyes:

RainyDay

MadDog76 wrote: »

I don't personally plan to hold them accountable as I'm not the "State" or a member of any enforcement agency. :rolleyes:

I see. So you want to build an expensive layer of bureacracy to create an academic theoretical possibility of accountability, even though you know well that;
1) that 'theoretical accountability' doesn't stop drivers from routinely breaking traffic laws, as seen in the Phibsboro video
2) the current level of enforcement does little to prevent this behaviour, and any enforcement resources diverted to cyclist will make this bad situation even worse
3) the presence of a theory test does nothing to stop drivers from routeinly breaking traffic laws as seen in the Phibsboro videos
4) discouraging cycling and cyclists will increase traffic jams, as cyclists get back in their cars
5) most of the cyclists seen breaking lights have already done a theory test when they got their driving licence
6) ALL of the cyclists seen breaking lights know that breaking lights is against the law

Sheer genius, and great public policy development - let's ignore the evidence to satisfy some strange need for theoretical retribution

MadDog76 wrote: »

How many people was it that die on our roads every year because of motorists?
Oh wait ......... 200+ wasn't it?
Think you might have mentioned that once or 200+ times in your posts ....... regardless of the actual topic being discussed. :rolleyes:

Don't make me come down there and explain opportunity cost again? Is it really that hard to understand that any focus of legislation or enforcement resources on cycling is inevitably a reduction of the already stretched resources aimed at reducing the death toll of 200+ people on the road each year (killed by motorists).

MadDog76

RainyDay wrote: »

I see. So you want to build an expensive layer of bureacracy to create an academic theoretical possibility of accountability, even though you know well that;
1) that 'theoretical accountability' doesn't stop drivers from routinely breaking traffic laws, as seen in the Phibsboro video
2) the current level of enforcement does little to prevent this behaviour, and any enforcement resources diverted to cyclist will make this bad situation even worse
3) the presence of a theory test does nothing to stop drivers from routeinly breaking traffic laws as seen in the Phibsboro videos
4) discouraging cycling and cyclists will increase traffic jams, as cyclists get back in their cars
5) most of the cyclists seen breaking lights have already done a theory test when they got their driving licence
6) ALL of the cyclists seen breaking lights know that breaking lights is against the law

Sheer genius, and great public policy development - let's ignore the evidence to satisfy some strange need for theoretical retribution


Don't make me come down there and explain opportunity cost again? Is it really that hard to understand that any focus of legislation or enforcement resources on cycling is inevitably a reduction of the already stretched resources aimed at reducing the death toll of 200+ people on the road each year (killed by motorists).

You really don't have any concept of sarcasm do you!?!

Anyway ........... that's like saying "Let's ignore the rapists and just focus on the murderers" .......... I'd personally rather live in a society were we don't just ignore illegal acts because it's convenient.

Btw how many deaths was it that motorists caused ......... just in case anybody missed it?

RainyDay

MadDog76 wrote: »

You really don't have any concept of sarcasm do you!?!

No. No I don't.

MadDog76 wrote: »

Anyway ........... that's like saying "Let's ignore the rapists and just focus on the murderers" ..........

Except that it's not. But what others are proposing on this thread is a bit like saying "Let's bring in a sexual etiquette theory test for all potential rapists and hope that will make things better" or maybe "let's bring in a new registration system for all alcohol drinkers to stop 'intoxication in a public place' instead of focusing on the murderers".

MadDog76 wrote: »

I'd personally rather live in a society were we don't just ignore illegal acts because it's convenient.

No-one has suggested ignoring any illegal acts. We have existing legislation that deals with the illegal acts in question. All I'm suggesting is a sensible risk-based prioritization approach, similar to that used by every law-enforcement body worldwide.

MadDog76 wrote: »

Btw how many deaths was it that motorists caused ......... just in case anybody missed it?

About 200 each year, with thousands more maimed - so that's about 4 or 5 people killed in the week that we've been discussing the issue on this thread, just for context.

MadDog76

RainyDay wrote: »

No. No I don't.


Except that it's not. But what others are proposing on this thread is a bit like saying "Let's bring in a sexual etiquette theory test for all potential rapists and hope that will make things better" or maybe "let's bring in a new registration system for all alcohol drinkers to stop 'intoxication in a public place' instead of focusing on the murderers".


No-one has suggested ignoring any illegal acts. We have existing legislation that deals with the illegal acts in question. All I'm suggesting is a sensible risk-based prioritization approach, similar to that used by every law-enforcement body worldwide.


About 200 each year, with thousands more maimed - so that's about 4 or 5 people killed in the week that we've been discussing the issue on this thread, just for context.

Except that it actually is ........... it really really is ......... like it or not.

Sorry I missed that about the deaths on the road ......... how many was it?

RainyDay

MadDog76 wrote: »

Except that it actually is ........... it really really is ......... like it or not.

I thought it was fairly obvious why your 'ignoring rapists' metaphor didn't stand up, but if you really want me to explain it, I will.

1) Rape is a heinous crime. Breaking a traffic light on a bike isn't.
2) No-one is suggesting ignoring breaking of traffic lights by cyclists. We have existing legislation and enforcement. Cyclists do get fined for breaking traffic lights.

MadDog76 wrote: »

Sorry I missed that about the deaths on the road ......... how many was it?

I get the feeling that you think this is all a bit of a joke. These are real people dying on the roads. People like 30 year old Linda Griffin, killed by a 21-year-old male motorist while walking home at 1.30 am in Wexford last week. People like Enda Wickham, the 22 year old young man killed when his own car hit a ditch in Wexford last week. Or the 22 year old man killed when his tractor hit a ditch in Cork last week. Or the 60 year old man killed in Laois when his car collided with another car last week. Or the 55 year old man killed on the N17 when his car was hit by another car. If you want to look over the border, we could talk about the 5 year old girl killed by a car in Co Down.

These are real people, with real families.

And you want to focus attention on cyclists breaking red lights.

StewartGriffin

RainyDay wrote: »

These are real people, with real families.

Yes they are. So how about you keep them out of your long winded smug little rants and stop using them to score points in your argument?

RainyDay

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Yes they are. So how about you keep them out of your long winded smug little rants and stop using them to score points in your argument?

Which approach do you recommend?



or perhaps
http://www.polyvore.com/cgi/img-thing?.out=jpg&size=l&tid=41250118