Cyclists should do a theory test!

RainyDay

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Voluntary insurance is a good thing for sure, but it needs to be mandatory both for their own protection and other road users (motorised, other cyclists and pedestrians alike)

It's a bit strange how deaths caused by cyclists don't happen here in Ireland (just 1 death in the last 15-20 years), but you seem to see cyclists (10kg-20kg) as an equal risk to cars (1000kg-3000kg). Are you experienced in risk assessment, I wonder?

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Really? The best argument you can come up with is "I saw another boy do it so I should be able to do it too"?

Well in case it's not obvious... neither example is acceptable. The difference is that if a motorist is caught doing these things they can be held accountable and prosecuted

No, that's not the arguement at all. If you need to simplify it in your terms, it would be closer to some thing like "I saw another boy do it and no-one stopped him, so no-one's going to stop me either" which is the reality of the situation.

Thousands of cyclists are held accountable and are prosecuted.
http://irishcycle.com/2014/10/07/3200-irish-cyclists-summoned-to-court-in-ten-years/
It's a bit cumbersome, but it does happen.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Your example highlights the problem of a lack of enforcement - not a lack of ability to do so.

Correct. It does highlight a lack of enforcement. The same lack of enforcement that will be around after your theoretical regstration system for cyclists comes into place. So what's the point in a registration with no enforcement. Or would you like to divert resources from the existing poorly enforced motorists to focus on cyclists?

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

[EDIT] Oh and having watched your video, many of the cars you are using as an example in your point had already entered the junction before the light went red - I think the real issue is the green to red sequence is very short for such a busy junction!

You may want to sit down for this. This may come as a bit of a shock, but the purpose of the amber light is to give you a warning that there is a red light coming, so you don't get caught in the junction on a red light. I know this approach is not well-understood by motorists, given the behaviour that we normally see on the road, where amber is generally seen as 'put the boot down and hope there are no pedestrians or cyclists around'.

Pinch Flat

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

For sure.. they should be removed from the roads as well. You seem to think that this is a motorist vs cyclist issue.. it's not. It's a law-abiding vs non-law abiding issue.

Im not a betting man, but if I was......the primary thread is about cyclists doing a theory test.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Hence why your point about many(?) cyclists being motorists as well is just as irrelevant. Using the roads on a push bike is a very different scenario than as a motorist, and regardless you're assuming that many have had training in a car.. not a wise move surely before letting hoards of people out among busy traffic and heavy vehicles.

Yes 70%-80% of cyclists are motorists.

The correct way to approach this of course would be to have all children school in the rules of the road, cycle craft and slant a mandatory period as a cyclist before graduating to a motorised vehicle. This has mentioned on the thread before.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Well if they expect to be able to use the roads on an equal footing to other road users, they should be covered accordingly.

Why? They can already and there's no appetite on the current government to implement this. With the exponential numbers taking out cycling Ireland membership, it'll be likely many more cyclists will be insured anyway.

MadDog76

Pinch Flat wrote: »

So, did you report the drivers? 4-5 times sounds very low btw - confirmation bias much?

I reported 3 drivers in the last 8 months and another one was pulled over by an unmarked Garda car that was driving behind me ........ haven't been able to report any cyclists as yet because I have no way of identifying them.

smash

RainyDay wrote: »

It's not error. It is a lack of attention, a lack of control, a lack of giving a toss in many cases.

It is certainly not lack of giving a toss. People don't want to injure or kill others, or themselves, or have their cars smashed or their insurance to rise.

RainyDay wrote: »

No, you're talking about the 5%, which is a fairly future approach if you are actually interested in saving lives at all. I'm focusing on the 95%, because that's where attention will save most lives.

The thread is about the 5%

RainyDay wrote: »

I am quite incredulous, that you see a pedestrian crossing with a 'green man', you see 'Traffic even had to stop before hitting them' - and your concern is with the pedestrian's behaviour. Amazing victim-blaming.

Victim blaming? Where's the fcuking victim in that video? The guy recording is an asshole. He sees cars approaching and he walks in front of them! Someone breaks the lights so it's ok to walk in front of them and almost cause a serious accident?

RainyDay wrote: »

I'm starting to understand where you're coming from. Would you like to post a link to the video that you appeared in?

I've never appeared in one. I just have a strong opinion about these kinds of videos. They're sad and pathetic and the people recording usually have serious attitude problems.

RainyDay wrote: »

And now you're criticising cyclists for how they might behave in a particular hypothetical scenario, though that doesn't seem to have actually happened. Paranoid much?

Well I haven't come across a motorist sad enough to get home and trawl through footage to upload it to YouTube just so they can pat themselves on the back for showing cyclists breaking the law. I guess they just have a life... Then again if cyclists could be identified I'm sure you'd see the videos flooding in.

roadrunner16

MadDog76 wrote: »

I'd probably have a near-miss or encounter an a**hole motorist about 4/5 times in a year

I'd have that many in a month, either on the bike or in the car. The point alot of people are making is that cars have far more of an impact on the roads than bikes. the RSA stats are clear, a car is far more dangerous than a bike and cyclists are not the most dangerous road user, its poor car drivers.

Pinch Flat

MadDog76 wrote: »

I reported 3 drivers in the last 8 months and another one was pulled over by an unmarked Garda car that was driving behind me ........ haven't been able to report any cyclists as yet because I have no way of identifying them.

All those cyclists out there ready to wreak havoc on the roads and going unpunished. Might consider giving up the oul cycling lark altogether.

diomed

There is a thread on Facebook this week from a woman complaining of cyclists on the Wicklow 200 annual cycle blocking the road. She posted a photo taken from her car showing, in her words "cyclists out to the white line" on a one lane road and one cyclist over the white line.
She did not say why the cyclists were grouped four or five wide. My guess is there was an obstruction the caused the cyclists to stop. From reading her "report" you would think the cyclists blocked the road maliciously because they were inconsiderate of other road users i.e car drivers.
Her words - "disgraceful / no warning / entire road / impossible / blatant disregard / recklessly / dangerously / regular occurrence / seriously injured".

A few mornings ago I was on the road at 08:20. The road was covered with cars. In places there were lines of cars, perhaps 15 or 20 in a line, blocking the road out as far as the white line. And when I came home I saw cars on my road abandoned and locked by their drivers for the day at the side of the road, perhaps ten cars in a row, reducing the width of the single lane road to only one usable lane. Those cars were blocking the road all day.

I took 2,100 photos of the Wicklow 200/100 on the same day that the complaining woman took her one photo. In four hours the cyclists behaved well, obeying the rules of the road. There was one traffic jam that cleared after about a minute. I offered her the chance to review the 2,100 images for bad cyclist behaviour, but she didn't respond. She doesn't want evidence that contradicts her post.

You see what you want to see.

Should cyclists do a theory test? I think you will find that a high percentage of cyclist already have - they have car driving licences.

_Kaiser_

diomed wrote: »

Should cyclists do a theory test? I think you will find that a high percentage of cyclist already have - they have car driving licences.

This is complete speculation on your part, and a bit ironic that you talk about how people see what they want to see when a poster above posts a video supposed to show how ineffective that license is when it comes to motorist behaviour.

We have no idea how many cyclists - particularly new cyclists taking advantage of the Bike to Work or Dublin Bikes schemes - have done any sort of formal training with regards to the rules of the road or indeed the differences between being on the road in a car, or a push bike weaving between traffic.

Given that there's currently no legal requirement to do such a test, hold a license/certificate of competency, or have insurance for cyclists I'd say there are a significant portion out there who bought a bike and off they went.. maybe with some half-remembered lessons from their childhood.

As I said, this isn't a cyclists vs motorists issue.. it's about competence, training and most of all safety for all road users and ensuring that everyone (motorists, peds and cyclists alike) obey the rules - and yes absolutely should those who don't be fined or prosecuted if caught. Many of the behaviours most complained about (from both sides) are because the chance of spotting a Garda doing more than tax disc checks or "speeding" detections on our roads are slim. Still, now that they've introduced a red light camera in Dublin that should address many of the problems on the junction in question, and citywide if that scheme is expanded.

In short, ye can't have it both ways... if you expect to be able to use the roads as equals and be respected by motorists, then cyclists must absolutely demonstrate a competence to be there, and be covered by insurance should an incident occur (to protect themselves and others/other people's property). And just as how motorists face penalties if they break the laws, so too should cyclists face similar sanctions if they do the same.

pmasterson95

Its funny how cyclists can cut red lights then scream about motorists nearly hitting them. If they did not cut the light they prob wouldnt be in danger, but its totally the motorists fault.

Pinch Flat

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Its funny how cyclists can cut red lights then scream about motorists nearly hitting them. If they did not cut the light they prob wouldnt be in danger, but its totally the motorists fault.

Any links to back that up? I've seen no cyclist here condoning red light breaking - perhaps suggestions on implementing the Idaho stop, or turning left or right on red.

On one more than one occasion however - as recently as a few posts ago - motorists justified breaking red lights - short sequence being the excuse. Weather and fear of rear ending also a justification

_Kaiser_

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Any links to back that up? I've seen no cyclist here condoning red light breaking - perhaps suggestions on implementing the Idaho stop, or turning left or right on red.

On one more than one accession however - as recently as a few posts ago - motorists justified breaking red lights - short sequence being the excuse. Weathervane fear of rear ending also a justification

The video in question shows a lot of cars that were halfway across the junction when the light turned yellow/red (and yes it is a very short sequence IMO for a wide busy junction like that).

Also, the same video has been selectively edited by whoever it was that is mumbling reg numbers to himself. For all we know he cut out dozens of cyclists flying through the same red lights too - in fact the very first clip (4 seconds in) shows a cyclist doing exactly that! (and again at 1:51, 4:13 and 4:30). The cyclist at 2:02 is well out across the line as well.

Pinch Flat

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

The video in question shows a lot of cars that were halfway across the junction when the light turned yellow/red (and yes it is a very short sequence IMO for a wide busy junction like that).

Again, it's interesting that you condone the behaviour of the red light breaking. There's a whiff of 2 legs good, 4 legs bad off that.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Also, the same video has been selectively edited by whoever it was that is mumbling reg numbers to himself. For all we know he cut out dozens of cyclists flying through the same red lights too - in fact the very first clip (4 seconds in) shows a cyclist doing exactly that! (and again at 1:51, 4:13 and 4:30). The cyclist at 2:02 is well out across the line as well.

*** dons tin foil hat *** No, I don't think it any conspiracy by a cyclist, he's just a peeved pedestrian that tries to pass that junction with his young kid going to school. I've no idea whether he can cycle or drive. Anyway for balance, here's some of his other videos os and (shock :eek:) cyclists breaking reds (which he kindly counts for us). I'm sure if we ask him nicely he'll provide a few hours of unedited footage for scrutiny :rolleyes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWC8sT06Zi0

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Pe8otqTl7E

*** takes off tin foil hat ***

Anyway, the Gardai have reacted to this, per the link below. BTW, anyone that thinks a cyclist can escape from a motor bike cop has a very high opinion of how fast they can travel.

http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/we-write-about-cars-jumping-lights-in-dublin-then-this-happens-at-the-same-lights/

I'm sure that guards will be open to all discussions on sequence duration, weather, rear ending or whatever excuse people come up with for breaking a red

Galway K9

Can i also re-iterate to help each other out, that if we see anything suspecious , we report it to the Gaurds immediately and take a photo, i would advise to not get involved for your own safety.

smash

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Anyway for balance, here's some of his other videos os and (shock :eek:) cyclists breaking reds (which he kindly counts for us).

Are the cyclists identifiable? Do they have a reg number which is published that inadvertently labels the owner as some sort of criminal?

People buy and sell cars all the time. To publish the car registration details like this, it DOES label the owner as a law breaker but for all that guy knows the car could have changed hands twice since filming which means that now the new owner is labelled as a law breaker.

rubadub

MadDog76 wrote: »

Yes, I have asked 3 Gardai at separate occasions ....... they all answered a variation of "No way of catching them as they weave ahead of you in traffic and no way of identifying them to send out a penalty notice" ......... cyclists need to be registered in some way with the State so that they can be held accountable for their actions on our roads ....... just like motorists.

Maybe it was how you worded the alleged question.

I would be asking are there any cases they do not enforce it, and why not.

Laws are made for a reason, to stop specific acts from taking place, many other benign acts will fall under the often vague description the law has described. My belief is that the likes of 5 year olds on tricycles on footpaths, and cyclists taking off early for their own safety and to aid the flow of traffic are viewed as benign by sensible gardai, and this is why they do not prosecute every single illegal act which you appear to want to happen.

I have seen gardai give nods of approval to cyclists breaking lights, myself included. I have gotten waves from gardai in cars as I illegally mounted a totally empty and very large footpath on a busy stretch of road for my own safety and to aid the flow of traffic.

I also frequently illegally cross the road near my house rather than use the pedestrian lights provided. This is to aid the flow of traffic rather than hold up the traffic which is not anywhere near me at my time of crossing.

smash

rubadub wrote: »

I have gotten waves from gardai in cars as I illegally mounted a totally empty and very large footpath on a busy stretch of road for my own safety and to aid the flow of traffic.

I also frequently illegally cross the road near my house rather than use the pedestrian lights provided. This is to aid the flow of traffic rather than hold up the traffic which is not anywhere near me at my time of crossing.

I'd be inclined to think that it's to speed up your journey to your destination rather then to ease traffic flow. In the same way motorbikes drive up between cars rather than wait behind them.

jimgoose

Pinch Flat wrote: »

...Anyway, the Gardai have reacted to this, per the link below. BTW, anyone that thinks a cyclist can escape from a motor bike cop has a very high opinion of how fast they can travel...

Anyone who thinks they can get away from a Garda motorcycle is living in Muppetland, unless they're on a Fireblade or similar and are well able to ride it.

Apologies if this has already been posted, but it's sort of relevant:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/government-to-settle-on-fixed-penalties-for-errant-cyclists-1.2250241

diomed

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Its funny how cyclists can cut red lights then scream about motorists nearly hitting them. If they did not cut the light they prob wouldnt be in danger, but its totally the motorists fault.

On the small drive I did in my report above at 08:20 in the morning I saw one road user break a red light, and by a significant margin (late). A car went through a red light at the top of Booterstown Avenue. It is on my car dashcam. Why did I buy a good car dashcam? To protect myself against the bad behaviour of other road users, mostly car drivers.

Two months ago on the road between Naas and Newbridge a Ford Escort overtook me. I was doing 78 km/hr in an 80 km/hr speed limit zone. As he overtook me he turned his car into me. I saw him coming and turned sharply left onto the hard shoulder, but he still hit me, although I lessened the impact. I beeped as he drove off. He braked sharply. I drove to Naas Garda station and reported him.
The next day I brought my laptop with video of the incident, five photographs of the incident, all time stamped, speed stamped, GPS stamped. The Garda also inspected the damage to the right wing of my car. When the Garda visited the driver he denied hitting me. The Garda assured him he had. He gave the Garda an e-mail for me to contact him and he would pay for the damage. The e-mail was false.

Enought of this cyclist bashing. Car drivers break red lights, change lanes without indicating, and are guilty of many offences. As I stood waiting for a bus in Mount Merrion a few weeks ago a Garda was hauling them in as fast as he could as his speed gun showed almost everyone breaking the 60 km/hr apeed limit on the Stillorgan Road.

How many cyclists killed car drivers last year?
How many car drivers killed cyclists last year?

StewartGriffin

Another thing, has anyone ever heard of a Bike Bomb? No, it's always a CAR bomb. 100 years of terrorism can't be wrong.

Cyclists should be allowed behave however they want.
Because Car drivers are worse.

:cool:

EDIT, oh, and just in case RainyDayMan is about:;););););););)

Pinch Flat

smash wrote: »

Are the cyclists identifiable?

A cyclist is required to give his details to a Garda upon committing an offence. This is the current legislation.

Saw a guy pulled at Capel Street bridge the other morning - assuming his details were taken for a summons. We've gone around the houses on this, but there is not requirement (or plans for that matter) for bikes to have reg plates either on the bike, on a hi-vis or tattooed on the cyclists forehead.

smash wrote: »

Do they have a reg number which is published that inadvertently labels the owner as some sort of criminal?

People buy and sell cars all the time. To publish the car registration details like this, it DOES label the owner as a law breaker but for all that guy knows the car could have changed hands twice since filming which means that now the new owner is labelled as a law breaker.

Perhaps take this directly with the guy who's filing and putting the videos up in the public realm? as far as I know he's committing no offence by doing so.

ThisRegard

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Another thing, has anyone ever heard of a Bike Bomb? No, it's always a CAR bomb. 100 years of terrorism can't be wrong.

Ha. However even the IRA have used bike bombs in the past, and it happens in many of those dodgy middle east places.

Pinch Flat

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Another thing, has anyone ever heard of a Bike Bomb? No, it's always a CAR bomb. 100 years of terrorism can't be wrong.

Cyclists should be allowed behave however they want.
Because Car drivers are worse.

:cool:

EDIT, oh, and just in case RainyDayMan is about:;););););););)

Totally off topic, but their use is well documented.....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_bomb

Breaking lights and bombing palaver? What next?:rolleyes:

smash

Pinch Flat wrote: »

A cyclist is required to give his details to a Garda upon committing an offence. This is the current legislation.

That's got nothing to do with them or their bike being clearly identifiable from a video posted on-line.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Perhaps take this directly with the guy who's filing and putting the videos up in the public realm? as far as I know he's committing no offence by doing so.

No he's not committing an offence, he's just acting like a dick.

Dr Crippen

In fairness cyclists really should sit a theory test like any other form of vehicle, any sort of theory course or a theory class would help all concerned.

StewartGriffin

ThisRegard wrote: »

Ha. However even the IRA have used bike bombs in the past, and it happens in many of those dodgy middle east places.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Totally off topic, but their use is well documented.....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_bomb

Breaking lights and bombing palaver? What next?:rolleyes:

Well, I live and learn!

smash

Dr Crippen wrote: »

In fairness cyclists really should sit a theory test like any other form of vehicle, any sort of theory course or a theory class would help all concerned.

Most cyclists are motorists too so they would have done a test. I think a change in attitude and a bit more law enforcement is needed most.

Pinch Flat

smash wrote: »

That's got nothing to do with them or their bike being clearly identifiable from a video posted on-line.

Well, we've situations outlined by other posters where they've sent video / photographic evidence from dash cams identifying vehicles committing offences. Have done it myself for persistent bike lane infringements. The Gardai are reluctant to follow up.

So, if all cyclists carry a large registration plate, so you think this follow up will be different for cyclists?

smash

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Well, we've situations outlined by other posters where they've sent video / photographic evidence from dash cams identifying vehicles committing offences. Have done it myself for persistent bike lane infringements. The Gardai are reluctant to follow up.

So, if all cyclists carry a large registration plate, so you think this follow up will be different for cyclists?

It's not to do with the follow up by the Gardai, it's to do with the public humiliation.

Pinch Flat

smash wrote: »

It's not to do with the follow up by the Gardai, it's to do with the public humiliation.

Ah ok. Maybe consider bringing back the stocks then. Motorists could being a range of things to throw at the errant cyclist - rotten eggs, a few cabbages. Could be quite the spectacle.

https://sarahwaurechen.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/public-shaming1.jpg

RainyDay

MadDog76 wrote: »

Classy???
About as classy as actually naming real-life people (who's families may be reading your posts) who have tragically lost their lives on our roads in a vile attempt to justify your argument ......... disgusting.

Coming from the guy who thinks the 200+ deaths on the road each year is a bit of a joke, I find it hard to take your concerns to heart.

MadDog76 wrote: »

I reported 3 drivers in the last 8 months and another one was pulled over by an unmarked Garda car that was driving behind me ........ haven't been able to report any cyclists as yet because I have no way of identifying them.

And yet, thousands of cyclists are prosecuted for cycling offences;
http://irishcycle.com/2013/08/11/over-2600-cyclists-end-up-in-court/

smash wrote: »

It is certainly not lack of giving a toss. People don't want to injure or kill others, or themselves, or have their cars smashed or their insurance to rise.

It's hard to come to any other conclusion beyond not giving a toss, given the amount of motorists who feel that their need to send a text or tweet outweighs my need to get home safely.

smash wrote: »

The thread is about the 5%

This thread is about a proposed road safety measure that will take resources away from addressing the 95%. This thread is about the 100%.

smash wrote: »

Victim blaming? Where's the fcuking victim in that video? The guy recording is an asshole. He sees cars approaching and he walks in front of them! Someone breaks the lights so it's ok to walk in front of them and almost cause a serious accident?

It's quite incredible that you see a driver breaking a red light and you accuse the pedestrian with the green light of 'almost causing a serious accident'. Just in case you need it spelt out, it is the DRIVER who is almost causing a serious accident.

smash wrote: »

I've never appeared in one. I just have a strong opinion about these kinds of videos. They're sad and pathetic and the people recording usually have serious attitude problems.

I'm not quite sure why you see an assertive approach to personal safety as an 'attitude problem' - but regardless, I have a possible solution for you. If you don't like the videos, don't hit the play button.

smash wrote: »

Well I haven't come across a motorist sad enough to get home and trawl through footage to upload it to YouTube just so they can pat themselves on the back for showing cyclists breaking the law. I guess they just have a life... Then again if cyclists could be identified I'm sure you'd see the videos flooding in.

The flood has started;
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95468311&postcount=81

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

We have no idea how many cyclists - particularly new cyclists taking advantage of the Bike to Work or Dublin Bikes schemes - have done any sort of formal training with regards to the rules of the road or indeed the differences between being on the road in a car, or a push bike weaving between traffic.

Given that there's currently no legal requirement to do such a test, hold a license/certificate of competency, or have insurance for cyclists I'd say there are a significant portion out there who bought a bike and off they went.. maybe with some half-remembered lessons from their childhood.

As I said, this isn't a cyclists vs motorists issue.. it's about competence, training and most of all safety for all road users and ensuring that everyone (motorists, peds and cyclists alike) obey the rules - and yes absolutely should those who don't be fined or prosecuted if caught. Many of the behaviours most complained about (from both sides) are because the chance of spotting a Garda doing more than tax disc checks or "speeding" detections on our roads are slim. Still, now that they've introduced a red light camera in Dublin that should address many of the problems on the junction in question, and citywide if that scheme is expanded.

In short, ye can't have it both ways... if you expect to be able to use the roads as equals and be respected by motorists, then cyclists must absolutely demonstrate a competence to be there, and be covered by insurance should an incident occur (to protect themselves and others/other people's property). And just as how motorists face penalties if they break the laws, so too should cyclists face similar sanctions if they do the same.

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Its funny how cyclists can cut red lights then scream about motorists nearly hitting them. If they did not cut the light they prob wouldnt be in danger, but its totally the motorists fault.

Have you seen any such examples on this thread, or elsewhere on boards? Maybe you could point out one or two examples of this kind of attitude from cyclists (outside of your own imagination)?

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

We have no idea how many cyclists - particularly new cyclists taking advantage of the Bike to Work or Dublin Bikes schemes - have done any sort of formal training with regards to the rules of the road or indeed the differences between being on the road in a car, or a push bike weaving between traffic.

Given that there's currently no legal requirement to do such a test, hold a license/certificate of competency, or have insurance for cyclists I'd say there are a significant portion out there who bought a bike and off they went.. maybe with some half-remembered lessons from their childhood.

Just curious - how many adult cyclists do you know personally that don't also drive? I don't know any, so I'm just wondering if my personal circle is dramatically unrepresentative?

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

As I said, this isn't a cyclists vs motorists issue.. it's about competence, training and most of all safety for all road users and ensuring that everyone (motorists, peds and cyclists alike) obey the rules - and yes absolutely should those who don't be fined or prosecuted if caught. Many of the behaviours most complained about (from both sides) are because the chance of spotting a Garda doing more than tax disc checks or "speeding" detections on our roads are slim. Still, now that they've introduced a red light camera in Dublin that should address many of the problems on the junction in question, and citywide if that scheme is expanded.

Yes, competence, safety, and training - but you left out one important factor - risk. Our enforcement activity should be based on the level of risk involved. We don't have the same regulation for possession of a Swiss Army penknife as an AK47 automatic rifle. We have different and appropriate levels of regulation and enforcement, depending on the risk involved.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

In short, ye can't have it both ways... if you expect to be able to use the roads as equals and be respected by motorists, then cyclists must absolutely demonstrate a competence to be there, and be covered by insurance should an incident occur (to protect themselves and others/other people's property). And just as how motorists face penalties if they break the laws, so too should cyclists face similar sanctions if they do the same.

The 'ye' bit worries me. Cyclists are not a homogenous group. Today's cyclist is tomorrow's car driver and Saturday's Luas passenger. Being a cyclist does not define people - it's just a mode of transport.

Cyclists already do face penalties when they break the law - I'm just not sure why you prioritise cyclists given the 200+ people killed on the road each year by motorists.

RainyDay

smash wrote: »

Most cyclists are motorists too so they would have done a test. I think a change in attitude and a bit more law enforcement is needed most.

I presume this change in attitude and more law enforcement would apply to motorists too?

smash wrote: »

It's not to do with the follow up by the Gardai, it's to do with the public humiliation.

It took a while, but we've got to the root of your concerns now - nothing to do with safety, just a dig at cyclists.

Dr Crippen wrote: »

In fairness cyclists really should sit a theory test like any other form of vehicle, any sort of theory course or a theory class would help all concerned.

How well does the theory test/course/class for motorists help in ensuring that they don't break the law?

RainyDay

smash wrote: »

Are the cyclists identifiable? Do they have a reg number which is published that inadvertently labels the owner as some sort of criminal?

People buy and sell cars all the time. To publish the car registration details like this, it DOES label the owner as a law breaker but for all that guy knows the car could have changed hands twice since filming which means that now the new owner is labelled as a law breaker.

I'd suggest that, if anything, these videos label the person that is driving at the time as some sort of criminal. This might be the owner at the time, or might not. It might be the current owner, or it might not. Any assumptions about ownership or otherwise are down to the viewer, not the recorder.

ThisRegard

RainyDay wrote: »

The flood has started;
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95468311&postcount=81

More likely a dribble. In the second video it's hard to make out if the car indicated to take the left and the cyclist assumed (always silly to assume anyway) it was going straight.

I couldn't count the number of times I crossed a road at such a junction only for a car to turn towards me and give me a look because I'm already half away across the road in front of them. Some think that because there's no other cars around there's no need to indicate.

smash

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Ah ok. Maybe consider bringing back the stocks then. Motorists could being a range of things to throw at the errant cyclist - rotten eggs, a few cabbages. Could be quite the spectacle.

My comment was in relation to why cyclists feel the need to upload these videos, not in relation to what motorists want to do.

Dr Crippen

smash wrote: »

Most cyclists are motorists too so they would have done a test. I think a change in attitude and a bit more law enforcement is needed most.

I think some sort of course on city cycling would help, you only have to stand at the lights on westmoreland street, just outside trinity to observe cyclists riding on through the red light there. I see it every day without fail. Another point would be cyclist's weaving in and out of traffic along the north side quays which although is time saving and brave by them but essentially dangerous. I cycle myself every day and see as many incidents by cyclists as car drivers but ultimately the person in the car is less likely to be killed in those instances

smash

Dr Crippen wrote: »

I think some sort of course on city cycling would help, you only have to stand at the lights on westmoreland street, just outside trinity to observe cyclists riding on through the red light there. I see it every day without fail. Another point would be cyclist's weaving in and out of traffic along the north side quays which although is time saving and brave by them but essentially dangerous. I cycle myself every day and see as many incidents by cyclists as car drivers but ultimately the person in the car is less likely to be killed in those instances

This is it, the theory test is all about motorists so cyclists who are motorists still don't learn much about safety when cycling.

Dr Crippen

smash wrote: »

This is it, the theory test is all about motorists so cyclists who are motorists still don't learn much about safety when cycling.

I don't see any harm in it really, motorcyclists are required to do it so why not cyclists?

As a cyclist I think it would benefit a lot of people and importantly make them aware of when they are putting themselves in unnecessary danger, for instance cycling up the right hand side of a bus on the quays?

It is not a way of highlighting issues with cyclists but making them aware of the dangers of city cycling. Before someone comes on berating me, I cycle everyday in the city and find fault both with motorists and cyclists!

Grandpa Hassan

Dr Crippen wrote: »

I think some sort of course on city cycling would help, you only have to stand at the lights on westmoreland street, just outside trinity to observe cyclists riding on through the red light there. I see it every day without fail. Another point would be cyclist's weaving in and out of traffic along the north side quays which although is time saving and brave by them but essentially dangerous. I cycle myself every day and see as many incidents by cyclists as car drivers but ultimately the person in the car is less likely to be killed in those instances

Not much point cycling if you're going to sit in the queue of cars. Weaving in an out of stationary traffic when you cant get past on the left (or more often than not there are cars or motorbikes blocking the cycle lane) comes with the territory of cycling in the city.

RobbieTheRobber

smash wrote: »

My comment was in relation to why cyclists feel the need to upload these videos, not in relation to what motorists want to do.

I must have missed the meeting of all cyclists of Ireland were we agreed to upload these videos.
So obviously having missed that meeting were we agreed our collective mind, I dont know why Cyclists feel the need to upload these videos.

Pinch Flat

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I must have missed the meeting of all cyclists of Ireland were we agreed to upload these videos.
So obviously having missed that meeting were we agreed our collective mind, I dont know why Cyclists feel the need to upload these videos.

We need to speak to our cycling overlord about these misdemeanours.

Dr Crippen

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Not much point cycling if you're going to sit in the queue of cars. Weaving in an out of stationary traffic when you cant get past on the left (or more often than not there are cars or motorbikes blocking the cycle lane) comes with the territory of cycling in the city.

I would take a look at the junction before the ormonde hotel on the quays quite a bit of it takes place there.

I was of the understanding that motor cyclists had a responsibility and criteria in non moving traffic, why would it be different for cyclists?

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Motorcycles/This_is_your_bike.pdf

RainyDay

Dr Crippen wrote: »

I think some sort of course on city cycling would help, you only have to stand at the lights on westmoreland street, just outside trinity to observe cyclists riding on through the red light there. I see it every day without fail. Another point would be cyclist's weaving in and out of traffic along the north side quays which although is time saving and brave by them but essentially dangerous. I cycle myself every day and see as many incidents by cyclists as car drivers but ultimately the person in the car is less likely to be killed in those instances

Dr Crippen wrote: »

I don't see any harm in it really, motorcyclists are required to do it so why not cyclists?

When it comes to public policy and legislation, we need a bit of a stronger case than 'don't see any harm' or 'would help'. For a start, the time and resources spent setting up and enforcing a cycling theory test will mean less resources spent reducing the 200+ annual death toll on our roads. Is this really where we want to invest our road safety time and resources?

We need a better case than 'won't do any harm'. We see motorists every day breaking lights, speeding, texting - all of whom have passed their theory test. Why would think a cycling theory test would be effective at all?

smash wrote: »

This is it, the theory test is all about motorists so cyclists who are motorists still don't learn much about safety when cycling.

So theories like 'stop at a red light' - 'check for traffic behind you before changing lane' are very different for cyclists and motorists?

Dr Crippen wrote: »

I would take a look at the junction before the ormonde hotel on the quays quite a bit of it takes place there.

I was of the understanding that motor cyclists had a responsibility and criteria in non moving traffic, why would it be different for cyclists?

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Motorcycles/This_is_your_bike.pdf

It is perfectly legal for cyclists, motorcyclists and motorists to filter on the left of slow moving traffic.

smash

RainyDay wrote: »

So theories like 'stop at a red light' - 'check for traffic behind you before changing lane' are very different for cyclists and motorists?

They must be, because cyclists very often don't do either of these things...

RainyDay

smash wrote: »

They must be, because cyclists very often don't do either of these things...

Which demonstrates nicely the pointlessness of a theory test, given the level of compliance by motorists with red lights, speed limits, indicating etc.

Dr Crippen

RainyDay wrote: »

When it comes to public policy and legislation, we need a bit of a stronger case than 'don't see any harm' or 'would help'. For a start, the time and resources spent setting up and enforcing a cycling theory test will mean less resources spent reducing the 200+ annual death toll on our roads. Is this really where we want to invest our road safety time and resources?
I am not lobbying for this, it is purely a suggestion. Also your point is a bit vague, how much time would be required, how much would it cost?, would you recommend a solution?
We need a better case than 'won't do any harm'. We see motorists every day breaking lights, speeding, texting - all of whom have passed their theory test. Why would think a cycling theory test would be effective at all?
I apologise as I tempered my language to a friendlier colloquial tone rather than berating cyclists or singling out individuals. Any theory test is effective as it makes a cyclist, motorcyclist or car driver aware of the various rules of the road. It makes everyone aware of various dangers such as blindspots in mirrors, remember not all cyclists are motorists, that is a presumption.


So theories like 'stop at a red light' - 'check for traffic behind you before changing lane' are very different for cyclists and motorists?




It is perfectly legal for cyclists, motorcyclists and motorists to filter on the left of slow moving traffic.

You are correct, yet only when safe to do so

RainyDay

Dr Crippen wrote: »

I am not lobbying for this, it is purely a suggestion. Also your point is a bit vague, how much time would be required, how much would it cost?, would you recommend a solution?

I've no idea how much it will cost or how much time will be required. I do know that every penny of cost and every minute of time will come from existing road safety resources, and will result in less time/money spent on reducing the death toll on the roads.

Dr Crippen wrote: »

I apologise as I tempered my language to a friendlier colloquial tone rather than berating cyclists or singling out individuals. Any theory test is effective as it makes a cyclist, motorcyclist or car driver aware of the various rules of the road. It makes everyone aware of various dangers such as blindspots in mirrors, remember not all cyclists are motorists, that is a presumption.

We don't need awareness - we need changes in behaviour. Why would think that awareness results in changed behaviour, given the current behaviour of motorists on the road?

smash

RainyDay wrote: »

Which demonstrates nicely the pointlessness of a theory test, given the level of compliance by motorists with red lights, speed limits, indicating etc.

The level of compliance by motorists is very high actually.

RobbieTheRobber

smash wrote: »

The level of compliance by motorists is very high actually.

Even with something like not using mobile phones whilst driving?
I can't find the survey now but I recall over half of respondents in a recent survey admitted to using mobiles whilst driving.
Last year in the first three months of the year over 10000 people were stopped for mobile phone use whilst driving.

Dr Crippen

RainyDay wrote: »

I've no idea how much it will cost or how much time will be required. I do know that every penny of cost and every minute of time will come from existing road safety resources, and will result in less time/money spent on reducing the death toll on the roads.
I don't believe your point is correct, the RSA submits its funding every year, and would include this within their budget. I also don't believe there would be any ill will in funding an awareness and safety campaign to reduce the number of cyclist deaths and injuries, for example like the gentleman who was knocked off his bike at the national museum this morning.

We don't need awareness - we need changes in behaviour. Why would think that awareness results in changed behaviour, given the current behaviour of motorists on the road?

Well that's not a great attitude to be honest, the RSA introduced the N plate for example on newly qualified drivers to introduced stricter penalties and also to make other drivers aware of a newly qualified driver. Awareness and behavior are often linked.

smash

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Even with something like not using mobile phones whilst driving?
I can't find the survey now but I recall over half of respondents in a recent survey admitted to using mobiles whilst driving.
Last year in the first three months of the year over 10000 people were stopped for mobile phone use whilst driving.

Using a mobile while driving is a different issue. It's extremely dangerous and yes, I see a lot of people doing it. Regarding red lights, speed limits and indicating though, the majority of drivers obey the rules.