Cyclists should do a theory test!

RainyDay

smash wrote: »

The level of compliance by motorists is very high actually.

Bwaahaahaa - don't make me post the videos again, the ones showing drivers ignoring red lights, using mobile phones, overtaking cyclists too closely etc etc. Just look around you - how many drivers actually stick to speed limits?

Dr Crippen wrote: »

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.

I'm not trying to make friends. I'm trying to be practical. There is absolutely no evidence that a theory test will work to change cyclist behaviour. We see every day that it is completely ineffective in changing motorist behaviour.

I don't know much about the N-plate, but I know it's not a theory test.

Dr Crippen

RainyDay wrote: »

Bwaahaahaa - don't make me post the videos again, the ones showing drivers ignoring red lights, using mobile phones, overtaking cyclists too closely etc etc. Just look around you - how many drivers actually stick to speed limits?



I'm not trying to make friends. I'm trying to be practical. There is absolutely no evidence that a theory test will work to change cyclist behaviour. We see every day that it is completely ineffective in changing motorist behaviour.

I don't know much about the N-plate, but I know it's not a theory test.

Well actually your not being practical by your logic there should be no need for a theory test for motorists as most don't obey the rules, and yet you have no solution what so ever. You are adamant a theory test for cyclists would cost time and money, based on what, produce your evidence and calculations, back up your statement. Read up on the N plate. The N plate highlights a new driver who is liable to higher penalties for road offenses compared to a driver who qualified before the introduction of the N plate and time will show whether it works or not.

RainyDay

Dr Crippen wrote: »

Well actually your not being practical by your logic there should be no need for a theory test for motorists as most don't obey the rules, and yet you have no solution what so ever. You are adamant a theory test for cyclists would cost time and money, based on what, produce your evidence and calculations, back up your statement. Read up on the N plate. The N plate highlights a new driver who is liable to higher penalties for road offenses compared to a driver who qualified before the introduction of the N plate and time will show whether it works or not.

I didn't say anything about the value of a theory test for motorists. Why don't you try arguing with what I've actually said, instead of making stuff up.

I'm not offering a particular solution because I'm not clear what problem we are trying to fix, or why we are focusing on this issue when 200+ people are killed each year by motorists. Maybe if you could be clear on what problem we are trying to fix and what benefits would come from fixing it, we might make some progress.

smash

RainyDay wrote: »

There is absolutely no evidence that a theory test will work to change cyclist behaviour.

Well I guess if anything, there's probably evidence to suggest that it wouldn't change their behaviour at all. By your own admittance, most cyclists are motorists so a lot of them would have complete a theory test and yet they still break red lights and cut across lanes without indicating etc etc. The only thing to do is fine them and possibly make cyclists wear some form of clear identification like a reg plate system so that when caught on camera they can be prosecuted.

How about a high vis with a unique reg number printed on it? Increase visibility, revenue and implement an identification system all in one go. Dublin bikes and other such schemes can have a plate attached and fines could be issued to the account holder who was using the bike at the time.

Sheldons Brain

rubadub wrote: »

.

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.

This is just corruption.

Dr Crippen

RainyDay wrote: »

I didn't say anything about the value of a theory test for motorists. Why don't you try arguing with what I've actually said, instead of making stuff up.

No but you did write this

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

So by your statement you say a theory test is pointless. I could not disagree with you more, You are happy to let a motorist off in the car with no prior testing?



I'm not offering a particular solution because I'm not clear what problem we are trying to fix, or why we are focusing on this issue when 200+ people are killed each year by motorists. Maybe if you could be clear on what problem we are trying to fix and what benefits would come from fixing it, we might make some progress.

We are talking about introducing a theory test for cyclists? where have you been? You seem to be against most of this debate its unclear where you stand or importantly what your point is. Ultimately the title of the discussion is 'Cyclists should do a theory test' a lot of people on boards feel it could be good for the health and safety of cyclists. So far you have mentioned the cost it would incur to implement this, have you any information or figures to back this up?

This 200 plus figure you mention, how many are cyclists? How many are motorist on motorist.

As I mentioned I am a cyclist and firmly believe this would actually do more good than harm.

CramCycle

Dr Crippen wrote: »

As I mentioned I am a cyclist and firmly believe this would actually do more good than harm.

I would disagree with you, every place/jurisdiction that has put licensing or mandatory helmet laws or similar in place have seen a reduction in the number of cyclists (or the laws repealed by the authorities very soon afterwards) but not a reduction in the percentage of injuries which would indicate that systems like this will fail.

Introduce it at national school level, part of the curriculum, thats it, it is the only sensible solution from a safety perspective, from a cost perspective, from every perspective.

Almost every study of this suggestion has come up with the following, paraphrased:
- A licence is not required for police to enforce the existing road traffic law
- Testing and licensing would be expensive and take attention away from enforcement of the existing road traffic rules for cyclists
- Cyclist education (through education for all) and increased police enforcement, would be a more cost-effective approach for improving safety.

Dr Crippen

I very much agree at introducing it at national level, couldn't agree more but how and where? Have any other countries done this, i would be interested in reading up on that.

In regards the helmet laws surely they have been effective from a life saving point of view? I have come off the bike a few times and without the helmet I was looking at far more serious injuries than I received.

I see one driving school with this section for cyclists which I thought was good

http://www.drivingschoolireland.com/pedal-cyclist.html

Knasher

Dr Crippen wrote: »

In regards the helmet laws surely they have been effective from a life saving point of view? I have come off the bike a few times and without the helmet I was looking at far more serious injuries than I received.

I choose to wear one, because I think they are better than not. But, as I understand it, their effectiveness is very much debatable. They are really only effective for a very narrow band of low impact accidents. At the same time there are studies showing that motorists will treat cyclists wearing helmets with less regard than those without.

What has been shown is that mandatory helmets result in a large drop in the number of people cycling. So making something of questionable benefit, and provable cost, mandatory seems like poor policy.

check_six

Dr Crippen wrote: »

We are talking about introducing a theory test for cyclists? where have you been? You seem to be against most of this debate its unclear where you stand or importantly what your point is. Ultimately the title of the discussion is 'Cyclists should do a theory test' a lot of people on boards feel it could be good for the health and safety of cyclists. So far you have mentioned the cost it would incur to implement this, have you any information or figures to back this up?

This 200 plus figure you mention, how many are cyclists? How many are motorist on motorist.

As I mentioned I am a cyclist and firmly believe this would actually do more good than harm.

Ah here, have a look through the thread for the thinking behind this first. It's not as simple as you imagine.

In summary: Thoughts about "Cyclists should do a theory test"

- who are the 'Cyclists' who qualify to do a test? 4 year olds graduating from stabilisers? Tourists on Dublin Bikes? People who have already done a driving test and driver theory test? Someone who has just found an old bike in the shed and fancies a spin?

- If there is a test, when do you do it? when you are 18? How come you can cycle around before that? Maybe you can't. Maybe the oncoming health crisis in our youth should be exacerbated by ferrying them around in cars the whole time.

- how do you keep track of who has done a cycling theory test? Do you need a cycling licence? who administers the licence? Who pays to do the administration? This sort of stuff would need a huge organisation to run, think about how Irish Water was set up recently.

- cycling is booming because it's an easy way to get around, and stay healthy while you're at it. Also the government are trying to encourage people to cycle by giving tax breaks on new bikes. They need to get more people out of cars because congestion is only going to get worse. Putting a pointless barrier in the way of people will kill that boom stone dead and kickoff some major gridlock.

- lots of cyclists already have driving licences. Should there be a separate test for using a bike?

- why not do cycle/road safety courses in school? If you can get some funding, it sounds like a good idea. Just make sure it's not someone from the RSA with a "hi-vis solves everything" agenda.

smash

CramCycle wrote: »

I would disagree with you, every place/jurisdiction that has put licensing or mandatory helmet laws or similar in place have seen a reduction in the number of cyclists

Knasher wrote: »

What has been shown is that mandatory helmets result in a large drop in the number of people cycling.

Are cyclists that precious about their hair or something? I don't really get it. It's like motorists going on strike because their cars have to have airbags. It's for safety reasons...

check_six

Dr Crippen wrote: »

In regards the helmet laws surely they have been effective from a life saving point of view?

There are no helmet laws in Ireland. Wear them if you like.

Knasher wrote: »

What has been shown is that mandatory helmets result in a large drop in the number of people cycling. So making something of questionable benefit, and provable cost, mandatory seems like poor policy.

Australia have mandatory cycle helmet laws and they caused the failure of their version of Dublin Bikes in Melbourne. Also the rate of people cycling dropped off when you'd think it would be increasing with Aussies doing so well in the big cycle races (Cadel Evans winning the Tour de France, etc.)

CramCycle

smash wrote: »

Are cyclists that precious about their hair or something? I don't really get it. It's like motorists going on strike because their cars have to have airbags. It's for safety reasons...

Maybe take a few minutes to read up about it then, there is a helmet megathread over in the cycling forum for example.

rubadub

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

This is just corruption.

What is your definition of corruption? It seemed like common sense to me.

Dr Crippen wrote: »

In regards the helmet laws surely they have been effective from a life saving point of view? I have come off the bike a few times and without the helmet I was looking at far more serious injuries than I received.

I have come off the bike a few times without a helmet, I was looking at seriously cracking the helmet if I had been wearing one. My head did not touch the ground but the wide helmet might have.

If I was to wear a helmet 24/7 I imagine I would crack about 3-4 a year. As I have read up a bit about helmets if I did crack one I would not be going around saying my skull would have been smashed wide open and call people mad for not wearing them.

It is supposed to be far more beneficial to wear a cycling style helmet in a car than on a bike, even when considering airbags and seatbelts.

Thinking of it fundamentally and not following trends it would make more sense to me to wear a cycling style helmet while driving or while drinking, mandatory drinking helmets make far more sense. I would wear one if I went mountainbiking.

CramCycle

rubadub wrote: »

I have come off the bike a few times without a helmet, I was looking at seriously cracking the helmet if I had been wearing one. My head did not touch the ground but the wide helmet might have.

I got hit from the back while cycling once, the car slammed on the brakes and shot me through the rear window of a parked car. My elbows went up with instinct but due to my helmet my head caught the rear cross bar, my head would have missed it completely. I have permanent neck pain now, I will have for the rest of my life.

There are stories of people saying helmets saved their life, and maybe they did, but it is possible the helmet stopped them reacting the way they should have without one.

Studies would indicate there is no difference at population level, other peoples experiences paint them as essential, my own, both from my crash and the few falls I have seen over the years tell me I am better without one.

Personally, people should make up their own mind. I certainly won't try and force my view on others.

RainyDay

smash wrote: »

Are cyclists that precious about their hair or something? I don't really get it. It's like motorists going on strike because their cars have to have airbags. It's for safety reasons...

Yes, some are precious about their hair. The fetish for helmets is one of the reasons why more teenage girls drive themselves to school than cycle to school. Beware of unintended consequences of public policy measures. Saying 'it's for safety reasons' doesn't make it a good idea, particularly in the absence of good data showing benefits.

Dr Crippen wrote: »

We are talking about introducing a theory test for cyclists? where have you been?

Really? Where have I been?

I've been on this thread for the past week showing with clear facts and evidence that your 'wouldn't do any harm' idea would be a pointless and probably dangerous diversion. Is there any chance that you'd go back and read the discussions that have already taken place so I don't have to explain it all over again to your good self.

Dr Crippen wrote: »

You seem to be against most of this debate its unclear where you stand or importantly what your point is. Ultimately the title of the discussion is 'Cyclists should do a theory test' a lot of people on boards feel it could be good for the health and safety of cyclists.

'A lot of people on boards feel' - is that the standard for new public policy now? As far as I can make out, there are equally 'a lot of people on boards who don't feel' - but you seem to be ignoring them. You seem to be ignoring lots of things.

If you don't know where I stand, go back and read the hundreds of previous posts, and you'll get a pretty clear understanding of where I stand. You know all those great ideas running round in your head right now? Others have come out will all those ideas over the past week, and I've clarified my position on all of them.

Dr Crippen wrote: »

So far you have mentioned the cost it would incur to implement this, have you any information or figures to back this up?

Do you have information or figures? Do you think that perhaps you should get some of that information and figures before you go recommending a new initiative?

Dr Crippen wrote: »

This 200 plus figure you mention, how many are cyclists? How many are motorist on motorist.

Again, is there any chance that you'd think about doing a little bit of research yourself? As it happens, the figure last year was about 12 cyclists. 12 too many of course, but a very small factor overall.

So you tell me know why you want to focus on the 12, and not the other 188?

Dr Crippen wrote: »

As I mentioned I am a cyclist and firmly believe this would actually do more good than harm.

With all due respect, your firm beliefs and my firm beliefs are entirely irrelevant. What matters are the facts - for example, the fact that all motorists do a theory test, but many still drive like they are at the bumpers in Bray. Why would you think a theory test will have any effect at all on cyclist behaviour?

And more importantly, as I asked above, what actual problem are you trying to fix here?

If I suggested that all dog owners should have a theory test in hygiene to stop the problem of dog poop on the pavement, would that be a great idea? Or a theory test for all alcohol drinkers to stop alcohol abuse, would that be a great idea?

smash wrote: »

Well I guess if anything, there's probably evidence to suggest that it wouldn't change their behaviour at all. By your own admittance, most cyclists are motorists so a lot of them would have complete a theory test and yet they still break red lights and cut across lanes without indicating etc etc.

Yes, many cyclists and many motorists still do break lights and change lanes without indicating, regardless of whether they've done a theory test or not. It's good to see that you're finally seeing through the pointlessness of a theory test.

smash wrote: »

The only thing to do is fine them and possibly make cyclists wear some form of clear identification like a reg plate system so that when caught on camera they can be prosecuted.

How about a high vis with a unique reg number printed on it? Increase visibility, revenue and implement an identification system all in one go. Dublin bikes and other such schemes can have a plate attached and fines could be issued to the account holder who was using the bike at the time.

Woah there cowboy - that's a big leap you're making right there. Why is that suddenly 'the only thing to do'. How about the other option (the one the Govt is actively working on) of bringing in Fixed Penalty Notices for cyclists without any need for the additional cost or bureaucracy required for hi-vis or registration systems - just as one other example, like? There are lots of other options too.

But again, it would be helpful if we could clarify what actual problem we're trying to fix here? Is this just for academic purposes? Or will some actual benefit arise from getting cyclists to stop breaking red lights?

And btw, hi-vis jackets don't actually increase visibility, except when they have lights (such as car headlights) shining on them. There have been cases in the UK where hi-vis jackets have actually reduced visibility during periods of bright sunshine (bright yellow jacket against bright yellow sun). So you might want to tread a little bit carefully, so you're not responsible for causing deaths through unintended consequences.

Dr Crippen

check_six wrote: »

Ah here, have a look through the thread for the thinking behind this first. It's not as simple as you imagine.

In summary: Thoughts about "Cyclists should do a theory test"

- who are the 'Cyclists' who qualify to do a test? 4 year olds graduating from stabilisers? Tourists on Dublin Bikes? People who have already done a driving test and driver theory test? Someone who has just found an old bike in the shed and fancies a spin?

- If there is a test, when do you do it? when you are 18? How come you can cycle around before that? Maybe you can't. Maybe the oncoming health crisis in our youth should be exacerbated by ferrying them around in cars the whole time.

- how do you keep track of who has done a cycling theory test? Do you need a cycling licence? who administers the licence? Who pays to do the administration? This sort of stuff would need a huge organisation to run, think about how Irish Water was set up recently.

- cycling is booming because it's an easy way to get around, and stay healthy while you're at it. Also the government are trying to encourage people to cycle by giving tax breaks on new bikes. They need to get more people out of cars because congestion is only going to get worse. Putting a pointless barrier in the way of people will kill that boom stone dead and kickoff some major gridlock.

- lots of cyclists already have driving licences. Should there be a separate test for using a bike?

- why not do cycle/road safety courses in school? If you can get some funding, it sounds like a good idea. Just make sure it's not someone from the RSA with a "hi-vis solves everything" agenda.

Ah here, I agree it's not that simple but we can simply the need for various licenses all day long, ultimately the requirement of a license ensures some sort of proficiency with rules and laws of the road. I agree with the implementation of early education which I also posted

smash

RainyDay wrote: »

Woah there cowboy - that's a big leap you're making right there. Why is that suddenly 'the only thing to do'. How about the other option (the one the Govt is actively working on) of bringing in Fixed Penalty Notices for cyclists without any need for the additional cost or bureaucracy required for hi-vis or registration systems - just as one other example, like? There are lots of other options too.

But again, it would be helpful if we could clarify what actual problem we're trying to fix here? Is this just for academic purposes? Or will some actual benefit arise from getting cyclists to stop breaking red lights?

And btw, hi-vis jackets don't actually increase visibility, except when they have lights (such as car headlights) shining on them. There have been cases in the UK where hi-vis jackets have actually reduced visibility during periods of bright sunshine (bright yellow jacket against bright yellow sun). So you might want to tread a little bit carefully, so you're not responsible for causing deaths through unintended consequences.

So you're not in favour of an identification system then... why is that?

CramCycle

smash wrote: »

So you're not in favour of an identification system then... why is that?

Because it costs a bomb and is solving an issue that does not exist and creating more problems that do not exist yet, its been explained quite clearly many times.

RainyDay

smash wrote: »

So you're not in favour of an identification system then... why is that?

For a start, because it's a big red herring and a diversion. If we want to reduce the death toll on the road, our first major priority should be to change the behaviour of motorists, given that motorists kill about 200 people each year and maim thousands of others.

Do you want me to continue with the other reasons?

smash

CramCycle wrote: »

Because it costs a bomb and is solving an issue that does not exist and creating more problems that do not exist yet, its been explained quite clearly many times.

It would pay for itself over and over. Both with a registration fee and the ability to issue fines based on acts caught on camera.

RainyDay wrote: »

For a start, because it's a big red herring and a diversion. If we want to reduce the death toll on the road, our first major priority should be to change the behaviour of motorists, given that motorists kill about 200 people each year and maim thousands of others.

Do you want me to continue with the other reasons?

We're not discussing reducing death tolls, you are. We're discussing the ability to easily identify a cyclist so a fine can be issued. This should also make cyclists more cautious on the roads.

RobbieTheRobber

smash wrote: »

Are cyclists that precious about their hair or something? I don't really get it. It's like motorists going on strike because their cars have to have airbags. It's for safety reasons...

Speaking on behalf of all cyclists yes. I have fantastic hair and as a result all other cyclists have sworn off helmets even those who wear them.

RobbieTheRobber

smash wrote: »

It would pay for itself over and over. Both with a registration fee and the ability to issue fines based on acts caught on camera.



We're not discussing reducing death tolls, you are. We're discussing the ability to easily identify a cyclist so a fine can be issued. This should also make cyclists more cautious on the roads.

No it would discourage cycling increasing motorised traffic, Increasing pollution and negating the health benefits to the portion that currently cycle who will quit.

What is the overall societal benefit from increasing penalising of cyclists?

smash

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

No it would discourage cycling increasing motorised traffic, Increasing pollution and negating the health benefits to the portion that currently cycle who will quit.

So what your saying is if the law was to actively act upon cyclists breaking the rules of the road because they're identifiable, that people would stop cycling? Instead of you know, stop breaking the law...

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

What is the overall societal benefit from increasing penalising of cyclists?

Road manners, revenue increase. There's 2 points.

jimgoose

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

No it would discourage cycling increasing motorised traffic, Increasing pollution and negating the health benefits to the portion that7 currently cycle who will quit...

Exactly. It's all good!

CramCycle

smash wrote: »

So what your saying is if the law was to actively act upon cyclists breaking the rules of the road because they're identifiable, that people would stop cycling? Instead of you know, stop breaking the law...


Road manners, revenue increase. There's 2 points.

I don't break the law now so it will make no difference to me but I still see the stupidity of the idea.

It will not increase road manners. Much like motorists, every time I report a motorist it becomes a case of you said they said and nothing happens. Same will happen to cyclists. if a serious crime is committed, Gardai can and will track down the cyclist.

Revenue is also a ridiculous point. It will never generate enough revenue to cover it's operational cost. But please, continue with your ill informed rhetoric.

smash

CramCycle wrote: »

I don't break the law now so it will make no difference to me but I still see the stupidity of the idea.

It will not increase road manners. Much like motorists, every time I report a motorist it becomes a case of you said they said and nothing happens. Same will happen to cyclists. if a serious crime is committed, Gardai can and will track down the cyclist.

Revenue is also a ridiculous point. It will never generate enough revenue to cover it's operational cost. But please, continue with your ill informed rhetoric.

Can you stop relating everything back to what you report and how nothing happens. Every car in the country has reg plates and every single day these plates are detected for various traffic offences and the drivers get fines in the post. It's an automated service and it works and it does make motorists more perceptive on the roads. For cyclists it would be the exact same!

At a busy junction at €50 a pop there'd be massive revenue generated from cyclists breaking red lights. A lot more than cars.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

smash wrote: »

...revenue...

Wrong reasons there buddy

RainyDay

smash wrote: »

It would pay for itself over and over. Both with a registration fee and the ability to issue fines based on acts caught on camera.

Is there any chance that you could run some numbers on this? The Garda speed camera contract cost us €17m in 2014, and brought in €18m in fines between November 2010 to the end of June 2014, so it is not exactly paying for itself.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/17m-for-speed-camera-firm-in-2014-314222.html

I'd be very interested in seeing your figures as to how a system for cyclists would pay for itself. Please do take into account the impact of your expected behavioral change, as the numbers of cyclists breaking the lights steadily declines over time.

smash wrote: »

We're not discussing reducing death tolls, you are. We're discussing the ability to easily identify a cyclist so a fine can be issued. This should also make cyclists more cautious on the roads.

Who is this 'we' that you speak of? Is 'we' really 'you'?

And let's just for the sake of arguement say that you do achieve your objective of 'more cautious cyclists on the roads' - what benefit arises from this? How does this make life better for you or me?

smash wrote: »

So what your saying is if the law was to actively act upon cyclists breaking the rules of the road because they're identifiable, that people would stop cycling? Instead of you know, stop breaking the law...

Well yes, it would. People are not logical. People act in all kinds of irrational ways all the time. If people acted logically, then developing public policy would be easy. They don't, so it's not. With any public policy initiative, you need to be very, very careful about unintended consequences. Good examples of this can been when mandatory cycle helmet laws were implemented in other countries. Bad policy makers expected that all cyclists would just buy helmets. Many didn't - they stopped cycling instead, leading to bigger traffic jams as they got back into their cars and poorer public health. There is a very big possibility that your proposed idea here will have similar impacts. Would you think about maybe doing some serious research as to how such measures have gone down in other countries?

smash wrote: »

Road manners, revenue increase. There's 2 points.

Revenue increase is highly questionable, given the figures quoted above for the Garda system and the absence of any figures at all from yourself.

So that leaves 'road manners'. Are we really, really going to change public policy to bring about better manners? How about a hi-vis registration system for smokers then, to stop them dropping their butts on the ground? And a hi-vis registration system for farters, to stop them farting in public places? And if those options sound ridiculous, step back and take another look at our proposal.

jimgoose wrote: »

Exactly. It's all good!

Yes, it does seem that many of these recommendations are about some kind of small-minded intention to punish cyclists for cycling, more than anything else. THanks for confirming this.

smash

@RainyDay why are you talking about speed vans now? Earlier you were more than happy with a red light camera system and my suggestion would mean that if implemented then the red light camera system would generate more revenue instead of it just catching unidentifiable cyclists and identifiable motorists. Seems like you just want to do what you want and get away with it. You have an "anyone but me" attitude.

RainyDay

Dr Crippen wrote: »

Ah here, I agree it's not that simple but we can simply the need for various licenses all day long, ultimately the requirement of a license ensures some sort of proficiency with rules and laws of the road. I agree with the implementation of early education which I also posted

There might be a typo in the bolded bit.

So yes, I agree that the licence does ensure some sort of proficiency with rules and laws of the road at the time of taking the test. Does this have any significant impact on driver behaviour in the long term?

Dr Crippen

Yes the word should be simplify, you always remember your driving test �� I believe it does impact driver behaviour but maybe that's just me.

RainyDay

smash wrote: »

@RainyDay why are you talking about speed vans now? Earlier you were more than happy with a red light camera system and my suggestion would mean that if implemented then the red light camera system would generate more revenue instead of it just catching unidentifiable cyclists and identifiable motorists. Seems like you just want to do what you want and get away with it. You have an "anyone but me" attitude.

Thanks for the clarification. In the absence of any numbers about the cost of a registration system, it was hard to see exactly where you were going with it.

So again, I'll ask;
- do you have any estimate for the costs of a registration system
- have you considered the impact of changing behaviour in your analysis
- have you considered the impact of unintended consequences (less people cycling, more people driving)
- have considered the opportunity cost of not addressing motoring issues, and the associated death toll
- have you considered the increased risk arising from wearing hi-vis in summer months

and one more - do the red light cameras already purchased work for picking out numbers printed on hi-vis jackets on the backs of cyclists?

And the final one - what problem is this going to fix again, and why would we want to fix it?

RainyDay

Dr Crippen wrote: »

Yes the word should be simplify, you always remember your driving test �� I believe it does impact driver behaviour but maybe that's just me.

I'm still not getting your original point, tbh.

Anyway, would you have any explanation for why so many drivers break red lights, break speed limits, use the phone while driving etc, given your understanding of impact of the driving test?

Dr Crippen

Well there are many many more that don't do does things either, like cyclists and those good drivers have sat a test or at least paid for lessons.

MadDog76

There!! I said it

RainyDay

Dr Crippen wrote: »

Well there are many many more that don't do does things either, like cyclists and those good drivers have sat a test or at least paid for lessons.

Is there any connection between drivers who have paid for lessons and driver behaviour in later years?

Grandpa Hassan

I'm really still not clear what the problem is exactly with cyclists which is more than them being an annoyance to some.

Pinch Flat

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

I'm really still not clear what the problem is exactly with cyclists which is more than them being an annoyance to some.

Convenient scape goat. Just over 2,000,000 cars on the road - double the number of just over 20 years ago. Half of the population now own a car and people drive everywhere - Even if the distances are relatively short. Leads to massive congestion in all our urban areas, delayed / inefficient / unpredictable journeys, frustration, spiralling motoring costs, anger - there has to be someone to blame, right?

Dr Crippen

RainyDay wrote: »

Is there any connection between drivers who have paid for lessons and driver behaviour in later years?

As a driver and a cyclist I would there is, that's my opinion based on the fact I have done the theory and driving test.

Burning Bridges

smash wrote: »

Are cyclists that precious about their hair or something? I don't really get it. It's like motorists going on strike because their cars have to have airbags. It's for safety reasons...

IF we drivers were forced to wear helmets, it would save quite a few lives, do you think that we should be forced to wear helmets in our cars?

smash

Burning Bridges wrote: »

IF we drivers were forced to wear helmets, it would save quite a few lives, do you think that we should be forced to wear helmets in our cars?

Sure. And full nomex racing suits too

Beasty

smash wrote: »

Are cyclists that precious about their hair or something? I don't really get it. It's like motorists going on strike because their cars have to have airbags. It's for safety reasons...

Firstly I'll declare an interest here - I always wear a helmet when cycling, and personally have little doubt that doing so saved my life in an accident I had last year

However have a read through this thread and you will start to appreciate it's not as straightforward as that. There are certainly circumstances where wearing a helmet can increase risks, and there are strong arguments each way on this one

Chips Lovell

smash wrote: »

Are cyclists that precious about their hair or something? I don't really get it. It's like motorists going on strike because their cars have to have airbags. It's for safety reasons...

If you saw my hair you'd understand. It looks fantastic.

smash

Beasty wrote: »

However have a read through this thread and you will start to appreciate it's not as straightforward as that. There are certainly circumstances where wearing a helmet can increase risks, and there are strong arguments each way on this one

A brief glimpse of that thread didn't lead me to any reason for not wearing one other than a few saying that compulsory helmet wearing in other countries didn't save lives. This just sounds defiant and in my opinion it still isn't a reason to not wear one. For every person saying no, there seems to be 2/3 saying yes.

RobbieTheRobber

smash wrote: »

So what your saying is if the law was to actively act upon cyclists breaking the rules of the road because they're identifiable, that people would stop cycling? Instead of you know, stop breaking the law...


Road manners, revenue increase. There's 2 points.

Yes i am saying that introducing registration for cyclists is likely to reduce casual users use of bikes as a transport mode.
Just because someone is registered does not have a direct link reduction in offences.
Look at mobile phone use in cars, is this affected by registration?

Using police resources to enforce the law on cyclists would probably also not be viewed as effective use of those resources by the garda.

Jawgap

smash wrote: »

A brief glimpse of that thread didn't lead me to any reason for not wearing one other than a few saying that compulsory helmet wearing in other countries didn't save lives. This just sounds defiant and in my opinion it still isn't a reason to not wear one. For every person saying no, there seems to be 2/3 saying yes.

Well we could re-invent that thread here, but unlike air bags and seat belts in cars, the evidence is not as clear cut for helmets.

.....and for the record I always wear a helmet when cycling - I'm totally convinced it offers fantastic protection from nagging family members, ill informed commentators and the general impositions of the nanny state

I'm less convinced it will offer me any protection above about 20km/hr - and could, in preventing one type of injury (imapcts to the head), cause more serious, torsional ones to the neck.

JamJamJamJam

smash wrote: »

A brief glimpse of that thread didn't lead me to any reason for not wearing one other than a few saying that compulsory helmet wearing in other countries didn't save lives. This just sounds defiant and in my opinion it still isn't a reason to not wear one. For every person saying no, there seems to be 2/3 saying yes.

It's not about opinions, it's about a population-based observation that lives may not be saved overall. The point is that public campaigns for safe cycling may be more harmful than good if they insist that wearing a helmet is necessary. Equally, if it was illegal to cycle without a helmet, that might save no lives. However, for any individual, they should absolutely wear a helmet if they feel safer doing it and that's what they want to do. It's counter-intuitive at first, and it took a bit of reading before I was convinced, but they are some fairly sound arguments worth looking into.

Because of the slight complexity, however, the number of people saying yes or no on that thread has little reflection on what would improve road safety.

smash

Jawgap wrote: »

Well we could re-invent that thread here, but unlike air bags and seat belts in cars, the evidence is not as clear cut for helmets.

.....and for the record I always wear a helmet when cycling - I'm totally convinced it offers fantastic protection from nagging family members, ill informed commentators and the general impositions of the nanny state

I'm less convinced it will offer me any protection above about 20km/hr - and could, in preventing one type of injury (imapcts to the head), cause more serious, torsional ones to the neck.

Weight it up. Brain damage & possibly death or a neck injury which would probably happen along side the brain injury anyway.

CramCycle

smash wrote: »

A brief glimpse of that thread didn't lead me to any reason for not wearing one other than a few saying that compulsory helmet wearing in other countries didn't save lives. This just sounds defiant and in my opinion it still isn't a reason to not wear one. For every person saying no, there seems to be 2/3 saying yes.

Not just defiant but statistically, true. At a population level, in regards cyclists, it does not save lives. Everyone has their anecdotes, some for, a few against, but at a population level, it does nothing.

As for the hair thing, mine is a mess, well, what little remains, if anything my hair is a good reason to wear a helmet.

Anyway, if you had read it more throughly, the big thing was that making it compulsory reduced cyclist numbers, which increases the burden on the healthcare system in years to come as well as in high population density areas, increases traffic congestion.