Cyclists should do a theory test!

RainyDay

Dr Crippen wrote: »

No but it could save some lives, is that worth anything?

So would wrapping everyone in bubble wrap - an equally ludicrous proposal. If you want a proposal to be taken seriously, come up with a decent cost/benefit analysis.

Dr Crippen wrote: »

Unfortunately I am not pretending, when you have dependents in the car with you, I become more attentive and aware and adhere to the rules of the road.

Strangely enough, you're not the only person in Ireland to have dependents in the car with you. Most people are familiar with that scenario. But keep up the pretence if you like. You might be managing to kid yourself, but you're not kidding me.

Dr Crippen wrote: »

But you, complain about drivers breaking lights, record it even! and then have the nerve to admit to driving over the speed limit and try to justify it?

You seem to be labouring under a misapprehension that I need to justify anything to you. I don't.

Jawgap wrote: »

What evidence is there that it will save lives?

If anything it will cost lives, because it will dissuade people from cycling by introducing a barrier - cycling is a useful activity easily incorporated into lifestyles. It helps promote a degree of fitness, is largely unpolluting and is quite low in terms of environmental impact.

If someone is put off cycling because of a test - or other 'barrier' - or because something communicates an idea that cycling is less safe than it actually is, and that person drives more than they otherwise would - is that a positive move?

And even if the idea of test was a good idea was a good one, in principle - how would you enforce it? Would an hour of Garda time be better spent checking cyclists to see if they have their test done or carrying out speed checks?

All that an more. There is also the opportunity cost arising from the missed opportunity to focus policy makers and legislators on dealing with the death toll on the road caused by motorists.

Jawgap

Dr Crippen wrote: »

What evidence is there that it will save lives?

If anything it will cost lives, because it will dissuade people from cycling by introducing a barrier - cycling is a useful activity easily incorporated into lifestyles. It helps promote a degree of fitness, is largely unpolluting and is quite low in terms of environmental impact.

So again, by your statement can you answer me the following:

1. If you believe a theory test will not save lives and it will cost lives, why is there a driver theory test and do you feel this is useless.

2. Have you any evidence that a bicycle theory test will cost lives and could you explain to me how this would occur?

It's an artifact - a barrier to help people psychologically 'value' the licence. In that regard it's useful for drivers because of the damage a tonne of metal can cause in someone's hands.

Barriers to cycling decrease participation in cycling - that's bad because, unlike driving, the externalities (pollution, accidents, time lost, etc) associated with cycling are minimal (therefore fewer people driving and fewer cars on the road would be better).

More cycling may well lead to a small measurable increase in acute hospital attendances and admissions, but the population health outcomes would be significantly improved - plus reducing things like CHD and diabetes secures significant health savings because such lifestyle driven conditions are chronic and expensive to treat.

BTW, the thing I never understood about my fellow motorists is why they are not the leading proponents of cycling - look around you driving home this evening - if even 1 in 10 of those single occupant cars switched to a bike, how much more space would their be on the roads

Dr Crippen

RainyDay wrote: »

So would wrapping everyone in bubble wrap - an equally ludicrous proposal. If you want a proposal to be taken seriously, come up with a decent cost/benefit analysis.


Strangely enough, you're not the only person in Ireland to have dependents in the car with you. Most people are familiar with that scenario. But keep up the pretense if you like. You might be managing to kid yourself, but you're not kidding me.

You seem to be labouring under a misapprehension that I need to justify anything to you. I don't.


All that an more. There is also the opportunity cost arising from the missed opportunity to focus policy makers and legislators on dealing with the death toll on the road caused by motorists.

You are behaving a little childish now I cant see bubble wrap helping anyone, in fact it would probably get caught up in the bicycle spokes, so an opposite effect.

What I see everyday is bad motorists and bad cyclists. The point made before was that motorist must complete a series of test, cyclists do not and I would like to see something introduced to reduce the possibility of cyclists having accidents or becoming embroiled in incidents with motorists, that's all and some sort of awareness campaign or theory course IN MY OPINION, might help.

You on the other hand have recommended nothing on the basis of motorist cause more accidents, how does that help?


You have mentioned twice I am pretending, children pretend when they are playing together or when imagining fun games, I don't, I understand you could be becoming a little frustrated but its not the way to get your point across, Again I will state I drive within the legal limits on the road as I don't want penalty points, a fine or to kill the people in the car with me.

Lastly I don't want you to justify anything, I never even mentioned it but I don't have the patience to debate with hypocrites, which I am afraid you might be?

pmasterson95

Just ended up clicking into cyclist thread by accident. They are bitching about a french rule banning earphones? By god do cyclists ever not whine? They are either whining about motorists, whining about the rules of the road (why do we have to if motorists dont?) or whining about pedestrians. By god it must be awful depressing complaining that much

Knasher

pmasterson95 wrote: »

By god it must be awful depressing complaining that much

I don't think I've ever seen a motorist vs cyclist thread created in AH by a cyclist, but I've seen three created from the motorists perspective in the last month.

pmasterson95

Knasher wrote: »

I don't think I've ever seen a motorist vs cyclist thread created in AH by a cyclist, but I've seen three created from the motorists perspective in the last month.

Well thats due to the cyclists ignorance and feeling that all rules and events seem to conspire against them and their method of transport. And as was illustrated a while ago a motorist thread in the cycling area was actually locked and forced to AH as it wasn't pro cyclist to be allowed in that forum.

jimgoose

The theory test forces people to at least have some familiarity with the RotR. The driving test examines basic competency in operating the machine, as well as observation, hazard perception/reaction, etc. It's not that complicated, and not that comprehensive. That's the way with these things, that virtually everybody has to do. If anyone feels like doing an advanced test, which lasts over an hour and is marked using a chainsaw, be my guest - motorist, pedalling-bicyclist or pedestrian - but know that if I had my way it would be preceded by something like the Navy SEAL Hell Week, during which sense would be fcukan BATE into prospects!

Knasher

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Well thats due to the cyclists ignorance and feeling that all rules and events seem to conspire against them and their method of transport.

It doesn't change the fact that these threads are almost always started by people wanting to have a go at cyclists. When the OP actually has a valid complaint, like the guy who was hit crossing a bridge, I can't remember a single cyclist defending his actions. But even then these threads very quickly devolve into the motorists having a bit of a moan about the cyclists.

All I ask for is a bit of respect when we share the road, but as the ever reoccurring thread on "road tax" demonstrates, even that is a stretch for some people.

Hell the premise of the other recent thread on cyclists was on licensing. Literally asking for a government body to be set up so that motorists could whine about cyclists to it, and yet cyclists are the whiny ones?

Jawgap

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Just ended up clicking into cyclist thread by accident. They are bitching about a french rule banning earphones? By god do cyclists ever not whine? They are either whining about motorists, whining about the rules of the road (why do we have to if motorists dont?) or whining about pedestrians. By god it must be awful depressing complaining that much

Wonder why you didn't check out the thread supporting the introduction of FPNs......


........but of course that doesn't fit in to your narrative

lickme

I love the opinions on my thread! :pac:

StinkyMunkey

To keep everyone happy, why not once a year take a concept like the one in the film "The Purge" and apply it to cyclists. Think of it as an annual cull on cyclists, it will keep their numbers down. The only issue is the repairs on your car after could be quiet exspensive.

RainyDay

Dr Crippen wrote: »

You are behaving a little childish now I cant see bubble wrap helping anyone, in fact it would probably get caught up in the bicycle spokes, so an opposite effect.

Yes, the bubble wrap is a remarkably silly idea - but not that far off your idea of a theory test that has already been proven to be ineffective.

Dr Crippen wrote: »

What I see everyday is bad motorists and bad cyclists. The point made before was that motorist must complete a series of test, cyclists do not and I would like to see something introduced to reduce the possibility of cyclists having accidents or becoming embroiled in incidents with motorists, that's all and some sort of awareness campaign or theory course IN MY OPINION, might help.

So you have bad motorists, who have completed their test and license. And your proposal to 'fix' cyclists is to introduce another test/license system, though the first one is not achieving the objective you want to achieve. Really, this will about as much use as a chocolate teapot.

Dr Crippen wrote: »

You on the other hand have recommended nothing on the basis of motorist cause more accidents, how does that help?

That's untrue. I haven't recommended 'nothing'. I have recommended that a theory test for cyclists would be completely ineffective, expensive and a dangerous distraction from the death toll on the roads.

Dr Crippen wrote: »

You have mentioned twice I am pretending, children pretend when they are playing together or when imagining fun games, I don't, I understand you could be becoming a little frustrated but its not the way to get your point across, Again I will state I drive within the legal limits on the road as I don't want penalty points, a fine or to kill the people in the car with me.

Your advice on 'how to get my point across' is not needed thanks. Please don't patronise me. I don't need advice on 'how to get my point across' from someone whose main debating technique is 'repeat my opinion, again and again'.

Dr Crippen wrote: »

Lastly I don't want you to justify anything, I never even mentioned it but I don't have the patience to debate with hypocrites, which I am afraid you might be?

I guess it might have come from where you said "then have the nerve to admit to driving over the speed limit and try to justify it" that I felt you were expecting me to justify something.

As for your patience, you seem to have endless patience for repeating your 'opinion' without giving any justification or rationale or fact or evidence.

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Just ended up clicking into cyclist thread by accident. They are bitching about a french rule banning earphones? By god do cyclists ever not whine? They are either whining about motorists, whining about the rules of the road (why do we have to if motorists dont?) or whining about pedestrians. By god it must be awful depressing complaining that much

So you dropped by to whine/bitch/complain?

jimgoose wrote: »

The theory test forces people to at least have some familiarity with the RotR. The driving test examines basic competency in operating the machine, as well as observation, hazard perception/reaction, etc. It's not that complicated, and not that comprehensive. That's the way with these things, that virtually everybody has to do. If anyone feels like doing an advanced test, which lasts over an hour and is marked using a chainsaw, be my guest - motorist, pedalling-bicyclist or pedestrian - but know that if I had my way it would be preceded by something like the Navy SEAL Hell Week, during which sense would be fcukan BATE into prospects!

You can do your SEAL Hell Week and all if you like. Then you will send your cyclist out into the real world, where (just like the motorists after their driving test) they will do pretty much whatever you like.

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

To keep everyone happy, why not once a year take a concept like the one in the film "The Purge" and apply it to cyclists. Think of it as an annual cull on cyclists, it will keep their numbers down. The only issue is the repairs on your car after could be quiet exspensive.

Isn't it interesting that if you wrote that about black people or gay people or jewish people, you could be convicted of incitement to hatred. But you think it's OK to suggest killing people based on their choice of a mode of transport. Classy guy.

Dr Crippen

RainyDay wrote: »

Yes, the bubble wrap is a remarkably silly idea - but not that far off your idea of a theory test that has already been proven to be ineffective.




So you have bad motorists, who have completed their test and license. And your proposal to 'fix' cyclists is to introduce another test/license system, though the first one is not achieving the objective you want to achieve. Really, this will about as much use as a chocolate teapot.

Whats your recommendation then?



That's untrue. I haven't recommended 'nothing'. I have recommended that a theory test for cyclists would be completely ineffective, expensive and a dangerous distraction from the death toll on the roads.

Thats not recommending any idea, its purely negating the debate?

Your advice on 'how to get my point across' is not needed thanks. Please don't patronise me. I don't need advice on 'how to get my point across' from someone whose main debating technique is 'repeat my opinion, again and again'.

Not at all, read through the posts with Jawgap we are developing ideas such as introducing something into the school curriculum, you have produce nothing positive or suggested anything. You have only delved into childish posts bordering on name calling.


I guess it might have come from where you said "then have the nerve to admit to driving over the speed limit and try to justify it" that I felt you were expecting me to justify something.

No I wasn't you misinterpreted that, I was purely pointing out your hypocrisy

As for your patience, you seem to have endless patience for repeating your 'opinion' without giving any justification or rationale or fact or evidence.

Unfortunately you have undermined yourself and your points by being a hypocrite. One the one hand you don't see the value in trying to introduce a system to educate, help and advise cyclists or future cyclists.You say its ineffective and costly. You consistently bring up the figure of 200 plus motorists etc etc and yet you by your own admission break the speed limit, have a think about that.

RainyDay

Dr Crippen wrote: »

Whats your recommendation then?

My recommendation has been fairly clear from the start of this thread, but if you really need it, I'll repeat it.

1) Prioritise our attention on road safety issues based on risk - 200 people are killed each year by motorists, so our priority should be on reducing that dramatically.
2) In terms of cyclists breaking lights or other minor transgressions, we should do nothing until we have a clear understanding of what problem we are trying to solve and what benefit will arise.

Let's just say I have a magic wand and I stop all cyclists breaking red lights from today. How will that improve quality of life for you or me?

Dr Crippen wrote: »

Not at all, read through the posts with Jawgap we are developing ideas such as introducing something into the school curriculum, you have produce nothing positive or suggested anything. You have only delved into childish posts bordering on name calling.

Developing ideas? Don't kid yourself. Cycle safety programmes have been run in schools for years now, and got extra funding last year. You're not developing anything - you're waffling about stuff you know little about.

Dr Crippen wrote: »

Unfortunately you have undermined yourself and your points by being a hypocrite. One the one hand you don't see the value in trying to introduce a system to educate, help and advise cyclists or future cyclists.You say its ineffective and costly. You consistently bring up the figure of 200 plus motorists etc etc and yet you by your own admission break the speed limit, have a think about that.

It's a pity that you still fail to understand dangerous driving and what causes deaths on the road. I'm not going to try and educate you any more, as you seem to be fairly impervious to facts.

Dr Crippen

RainyDay wrote: »

My recommendation has been fairly clear from the start of this thread, but if you really need it, I'll repeat it.

1) Prioritise our attention on road safety issues based on risk - 200 people are killed each year by motorists, so our priority should be on reducing that dramatically.

Again this should include cyclists, as they are road users also. Give some examples what you would prioritise because you don't really address or outline anything in that point

2) In terms of cyclists breaking lights or other minor transgressions, we should do nothing until we have a clear understanding of what problem we are trying to solve and what benefit will arise.

Wow, other minor transgressions? like not indicating when turning, changing lanes without signalling, breaking red lights the kind of thing motorists do? Lets discuss the problems we are trying to solve, instead of mud slinging, accusing people of being dramatic or how did you put it 'ludicrous'

It will mean that cyclists as road users are complying with the rules of the road and to try and ensure a greater level of safety for them, surely that's the goal? Or are you happy with them continuing to do this?



Developing ideas? Don't kid yourself. Cycle safety programmes have been run in schools for years now, and got extra funding last year. You're not developing anything - you're waffling about stuff you know little about.

Ha really, I mentioned including something in the curriculum as part of a short course or Module this would be relevant to schools. I am a teacher and never have I ever seen this done in school and the school has to incorporate this themselves and apply for funding, its not part of the curriculum or even promoted by the department of education.


It's a pity that you still fail to understand dangerous driving and what causes deaths on the road. I'm not going to try and educate you any more, as you seem to be fairly impervious to facts.

No thanks, I know what dangerous driving is there are many factors such as road condition, driver performance and not driving within the speed limit and you going over the speed limit are part of that culture. So you by speeding, and then criticizing other road users are a hypocrite.

Moving the goalpost, by saying "what if you go 1 mile an hour over the limit" or watching other cars pass you by, does not in any way make that right.

Therefore, you are a hypocrite and I recommend not educating anyone in the skill of hypocrisy, its as simple as that. If you are concerned about deaths on the road, stay within the limit and for gods sake practice what you preach!

"Hypocracy of all kinds grinds my gears, regardless of the source" (Your words)


Originally Posted by Casey78
I bet you never break red lights....
I bet you never break the speed limit in your car... (again your retort)


All through this I have stated I am a cyclist and a motorist. I have been unbiased in my assessment of both sets of road users, stating in a previous post that daily I see good and bad road users.

I don't like saying this but you seem to be coming from a totally pro cyclist point of view. Using language like:

'In terms of cyclists breaking lights or other minor transgressions, we should do nothing until we have a clear understanding of what problemwe are trying to solve and what benefit will arise'

I am still laughing at this comment to be fair, it beggars belief, am I wrong in saying you posted a video of motorists breaking lights, why not balance that up with cyclists doing the same, just for an unbiased perspective


Bwaahaahaa - don't make me post the videos again, the ones showing drivers ignoring red lights, (your post)

check_six

RainyDay wrote: »

That's untrue. I haven't recommended 'nothing'. I have recommended that a theory test for cyclists would be completely ineffective, expensive and a dangerous distraction from the death toll on the roads.

Dr Crippen wrote: »

Thats not recommending any idea, its purely negating the debate?

I'd suggest that the question is whether a theory test should be brought in for cyclists or not. Arguing for "not" is not negating the debate, it is the essence of debating.

When determining if bringing in a theory test is worthwhile you must weigh up the positives and the negatives. Look at it from both points of view and look at any consequences.

You have to examine the problem you are trying to solve. Is the theory test the solution to fix that issue?

Could some other route have the effect you are looking for?

From what I have read here the plan is that a theory test would aim to stop cyclists doing anything contrary to the Rules of the Road. The general gist is that it couldn't do any harm, could it?

Well, yes, it could do some harm. This is slightly counter-intuitive so I can see why people are struggling to get their heads around it. Putting a barrier to cycling reduces the numbers cycling. (This barrier could be significant enough to stop all children cycling at all). Reduction in numbers means an increase in danger for remaining cyclists as other vehicles don't expect them to be on the roads. Reduction in numbers cycling also has the effect of an increasingly unhealthy population not getting enough exercise and putting pressure on health services. Motor vehicle congestion will increase as well with cyclists switching over to their cars for transport.

So if you have this barrier of the theory test lots of things happen, but the one thing you want to happen, more law-abiding cyclists, doesn't naturally follow.

A simple solution for more law-abiding cyclists is to bring in Fixed Penalty Notices and have a bit of visible enforcement of them. This does not become a barrier for a kid wanting to hop on a bike. It doesn't become a barrier for someone digging an old bike out of the shed to cycle to work on a sunny day. It doesn't reduce cycling numbers, and it doesn't encourage people to jump in the car. There are plans in place to introduce FPNs in the next few months (same plans have been rolling around for years now, however!).

Everything in this post has been mentioned a number of times already in this thread, by the way, but the debate still trundles on.

Tony EH

And what will FPN's really achieve at the end of the day? I don't think that will solve bad cycling either TBH, just as a theory test won't do anything either (except cost money for the cyclist).

As I've said earlier in the thread, the number of actual accidents involving cyclists are very small, especially when compared to motor vehicles. It just isn't worth Garda time.

I've talked to various members of the Gardai on occasion about cyclists red light jumping and cycling on paths, etc and the impression I got was that the Gardai aren't particularly worried about them, as it isn't a significant enough issue to warrant their attention. Most (if not all) will turn a blind eye to a cyclist breaking a pedestrian crossing if there are no people crossing the road for example, because it's a simple application of common sense.

Running red lights into crossing traffic is another thing altogether, but if you're dumb enough to do that, you won't be doing it for too long I guarantee you.

Burning Bridges

Mad Frenchies


In an effort to make cycling safer:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2097882/Paris-allow-cyclists-run-red-lights-bid-cut-accidents.html

Grandpa Hassan

Burning Bridges wrote: »

Mad Frenchies


In an effort to make cycling safer:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2097882/Paris-allow-cyclists-run-red-lights-bid-cut-accidents.html

I actually think that it is inevitable everywhere as the relentless increase in cyclists holds drivers up at junctions for longer and longer..

Motorists moan, but dont realise that their journey would be quicker if cyclists were permitted to go on a red.

Tony EH

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

I actually think that it is inevitable everywhere as the relentless increase in cyclists holds drivers up at junctions for longer and longer..

Motorists moan, but dont realise that their journey would be quicker if cyclists were permitted to go on a red.

And that's all this shit (and the previous and all subsequent threads) is about. People whinging about a frankly, insignificant, issue. An issue blown out of all reasonable proportion, because someone in a traffic jam saw a cyclist go through a red light and nothing happened. :pac:

dubscottie

RainyDay wrote: »

200 people are killed each year by motorists, so our priority should be on reducing that dramatically.

You don't know the exact circumstances of each of each persons death so don't keep banging out the old "cars kill 200 every year" drivel when trying to make a point.

Jawgap

dubscottie wrote: »

You don't know the exact circumstances of each of each persons death so don't keep banging out the old "cars kill 200 every year" drivel when trying to make a point.

According to the a National Safety Council the leading causes of traffic related road deaths and injuries are speed and alcohol consumption - two things wholly within the control of drivers.

papu

dubscottie wrote: »

You don't know the exact circumstances of each of each persons death so don't keep banging out the old "cars kill 200 every year" drivel when trying to make a point.

Yeah but we know that they weren't killed by someone on a bike.

CramCycle

papu wrote: »

Yeah but we know that they weren't killed by someone on a bike.

But alot of cyclists are drivers, so in theory they could have been killed by cyclists, fits in better with the tabloid scare mongering.

RainyDay

Dr Crippen wrote: »

No thanks, I know what dangerous driving is there are many factors such as road condition, driver performance and not driving within the speed limit and you going over the speed limit are part of that culture. So you by speeding, and then criticizing other road users are a hypocrite.

Moving the goalpost, by saying "what if you go 1 mile an hour over the limit" or watching other cars pass you by, does not in any way make that right.

Therefore, you are a hypocrite and I recommend not educating anyone in the skill of hypocrisy, its as simple as that. If you are concerned about deaths on the road, stay within the limit and for gods sake practice what you preach!


I bet you never break red lights....
I bet you never break the speed limit in your car... (again your retort)


All through this I have stated I am a cyclist and a motorist. I have been unbiased in my assessment of both sets of road users, stating in a previous post that daily I see good and bad road users.

I don't like saying this but you seem to be coming from a totally pro cyclist point of view. Using language like:

'In terms of cyclists breaking lights or other minor transgressions, we should do nothing until we have a clear understanding of what problemwe are trying to solve and what benefit will arise'

I am still laughing at this comment to be fair, it beggars belief, am I wrong in saying you posted a video of motorists breaking lights, why not balance that up with cyclists doing the same, just for an unbiased perspective


Bwaahaahaa - don't make me post the videos again, the ones showing drivers ignoring red lights, (your post)

I'm getting tired of this now. You have repeatedly failed to outline what problem you're trying to solve and what benefit will arise from solving it. You have repeatedly failed to explain why a theory test which has proven itself to be completely ineffective in ensuring good driving from motorists could be expected to have any positive impact for cyclists.

You have completely failed to work out how the Quote function works. It's a big fat fail really, isn't it?

RainyDay

dubscottie wrote: »

You don't know the exact circumstances of each of each persons death so don't keep banging out the old "cars kill 200 every year" drivel when trying to make a point.

papu wrote: »

Yeah but we know that they weren't killed by someone on a bike.

We do, actually - because they haven't. No-one has been killed by a cyclist in Ireland in the past ten years. There was one case around 2004 where a pedestrian died after hitting their head on the road after encountering a cyclist going the wrong way up a one-way street. It was indirect, but was caused by the cyclist. In that time, about 3,000 people have been killed by motorists. That's a fact. It may make you uncomfortable, mainly because it exposes the pointlessness of the 'cyclists break red lights all the time' arguement, but it is a fact.

Dr Crippen

@ Rainyday Ah thanks Your still a hypocrite though!

pmasterson95

This motorists kill more so cyclists are sound is so hilariously bizzare. More people get stabbed than shot. We should ignore guns and regulate knives.

RainyDay

Dr Crippen wrote: »

@ Rainyday Ah thanks Your still a hypocrite though!

I would have hoped that a school teacher would know the difference between "your" and "you're", but perhaps you got so caught up in your personal attack that you missed it.

pmasterson95 wrote: »

This motorists kill more so cyclists are sound is so hilariously bizzare. More people get stabbed than shot. We should ignore guns and regulate knives.

Not a great analogy - more like 'no-one gets killed with nail files, but they are potentially dangerous, so we should have a mandatory theory test for all nail file owners while ignoring all those people getting killed by guns or knives'.

rubadub

pmasterson95 wrote: »

This motorists kill more so cyclists are sound is so hilariously bizzare. More people get stabbed than shot. We should ignore guns and regulate knives.

You need a licence to have a gun and none for a regular knife. If a thread started with people saying "you need a licence for a gun, surely you should have to get a licence and training to use a kitchen knife". Then you would similarly see people saying its not that great an idea, and no goverment they know of demands it, and that gun licencing is a reasonable idea.

You would still get idiots saying "shut up you, this thread is about knife licences, not guns, stop bringing them up, start your own thread, nobody is talking about guns".

You might find a thread like that hilariously bizarre too, I would expect it.

Dr Crippen

RainyDay wrote: »

I would have hoped that a school teacher would know the difference between "your" and "you're", but perhaps you got so caught up in your personal attack that you missed it.



Not a great analogy - more like 'no-one gets killed with nail files, but they are potentially dangerous, so we should have a mandatory theory test for all nail file owners while ignoring all those people getting killed by guns or knives'.

Ah rainyday are you really going for that approach? Its a pity and I am sorry to see it. The last act of a desperate person really.

I didn't attack you I just purely pointed out how you are and continue to be a hypocrite by your motoring behaviour and then filming motorist driving badly too. I just wish you could see that

When you don't like peoples opinions or points you revert to childish behavior.

I wont post anymore I think I might have upset you, happy cycling and be careful out there on your bike or in your car.

Jawgap

pmasterson95 wrote: »

This motorists kill more so cyclists are sound is so hilariously bizzare. More people get stabbed than shot. We should ignore guns and regulate knives.

No, we shouldn't ignore one in favour of the other - we should regulate both differently which is effectively what happens.

Bikes and cars are qualitatively different - society as a whole benefits from more people cycling (healthier population, less pollution, fewer road injuries, improved balance of payments etc), therefore the barriers to cycling should be minimised.

More car drivers, means more cars - which, beyond a certain fairly low level, is bad for society - as it means congestion, collisions, pollution etc and every car and every drop of fuel has to be imported.

shane7218

Almost knocked over this morning by someone cycling through a red light when pedestrians were crossing. A lot of cyclists in Dublin need to be made watch this video http://youtube.com/watch?v=it-dTcFGsFc because they cant seem to follow the rules of the road.

Jawgap

shane7218 wrote: »

Almost knocked over this morning by someone cycling through a red light when pedestrians were crossing. A lot of cyclists in Dublin need to be made watch this videohttp://youtube.com/watch?v=it-dTcFGsFc because they cant seem to follow the rules of the road.

.......and to balance that out, I crossed a road or two this morning and no one almost knocked me over

RainyDay

shane7218 wrote: »

Almost knocked over this morning by someone cycling through a red light when pedestrians were crossing. A lot of cyclists in Dublin need to be made watch this video http://youtube.com/watch?v=it-dTcFGsFc because they cant seem to follow the rules of the road.

A lot of drivers in Dublin need to be made to watch this video because they can't seem to follow the rules of the road;

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

Dr Crippen wrote: »

Ah rainyday are you really going for that approach? Its a pity and I am sorry to see it. The last act of a desperate person really.

I didn't attack you I just purely pointed out how you are and continue to be a hypocrite by your motoring behaviour and then filming motorist driving badly too. I just wish you could see that

When you don't like peoples opinions or points you revert to childish behavior.

I wont post anymore I think I might have upset you, happy cycling and be careful out there on your bike or in your car.

You attacked me as a person, instead of attacking my post. That's a personal attack. Shame on you for doing it, and shame on you for defending it.

Boom_Bap

The same can be said of cyclists watching that video as well, there are a few examples of cyclists doing stupid things in it as well.....even though the guy shooting is only trying to catch motorists.
And pedestrians also....in fact they guy filming breaks the green cross code by walking in front of cars before it's safe to start crossing the road.

Nonetheless, its a great example of how all people that use the roads make mistakes. ALL.

Dr Crippen

RainyDay wrote: »

A lot of drivers in Dublin need to be made to watch this video because they can't seem to follow the rules of the road;

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

You attacked me as a person, instead of attacking my post. That's a personal attack. Shame on you for doing it, and shame on you for defending it.

I have to say this , the drama you accuse others of you seem to be a little guilty of, I have no shame in pointing out your double standard.

I was calling what you posted hypocritical and by virtue that makes you a hypocrite or do you want to discuss that?

Don't be hypocritical and you will be fine, by the way you've being slinging it around all the time, attacking throughout and you have been pulled up on it,more than once. Man up!

1. "I'm not going to try and educate you any more, as you seem to be fairly impervious to facts"
2. "You have completely failed to work out how the Quote function works. It's a big fat fail really, isn't it? "
3. "I would have hoped that a school teacher would know the difference between "your" and "you're"
4. "If you can't see the difference, you're not a very good driver"

Dr Crippen

thanks to all I learned a lot from the posts and some interesting stuff was discussed, enjoy the summer and the bike rides

RainyDay

Boom_Bap wrote: »

The same can be said of cyclists watching that video as well, there are a few examples of cyclists doing stupid things in it as well.....even though the guy shooting is only trying to catch motorists.
And pedestrians also....in fact they guy filming breaks the green cross code by walking in front of cars before it's safe to start crossing the road.

Yes, lots of people making mistakes in the video, though I'm not quite sure it's fair to blame the guy filming for crossing with the green light, instead of the motorists who are blowing through the red light.

Dr Crippen wrote: »

I have to say this , the drama you accuse others of you seem to be a little guilty of, I have no shame in pointing out your double standard.

I was calling what you posted hypocritical and by virtue that makes you a hypocrite or do you want to discuss that?

Don't be hypocritical and you will be fine, by the way you've being slinging it around all the time, attacking throughout and you have been pulled up on it,more than once. Man up!

1. "I'm not going to try and educate you any more, as you seem to be fairly impervious to facts"
2. "You have completely failed to work out how the Quote function works. It's a big fat fail really, isn't it? "
3. "I would have hoped that a school teacher would know the difference between "your" and "you're"
4. "If you can't see the difference, you're not a very good driver"

I guess you might get away with that kind of patronising nonsense when dealing with schoolkids in a classroom, but you won't generally get away with it when dealing with adults.

There is no hypocracy in my position. I break the law every day when I cycle. I break the law most times I drive a car. Just like 99.99% of other road users. I don't endanger the lives of other road users, and I don't get up on my high horse about others breaking the law. It is dangerous driving that needs to be stopped, not minor traffic transgressions.

It's a shame that you don't have the judgement to see the difference, and it's a shame that you still can't see the difference between attacking a post and attacking a person.

Boom_Bap

RainyDay wrote: »

Yes, lots of people making mistakes in the video, though I'm not quite sure it's fair to blame the guy filming for crossing with the green light, instead of the motorists who are blowing through the red light.

Safe Cross Code.

Stop. Look. Listen.

He did all those but walked out into moving objects (although with a green man) to make a point. My 4 year old knows not to do that.

I don't mean to attack the video, it highlights alot of problems we have, but offers no solution. But if we are to examine the video, we need to do it for all aspects of road use.
The guy should really film the next set of lights before the McDonalds, for some reason there is a real problem there of people not seeing the lights at all.


As far as a theory test, this is not possible. I couldn't ask my 4 year old to sit one. Well, she would do it, but I don't think the person correcting would be able to interpret her scrawls like I can.
Better education is what is required. To use my 4 year old as an example again, she learned how to cross the street and observe 'pedestrian rules' in creche.

The next step should be continuation of that and extending to cycling training in primary school. If our country is turning green, we need to start educating ages ago and not just a thought now.
I know there is training centres for cycling, there was one in Clontarf when I was growing up.
There was an excellent fair in St Annes Park last weekend giving tips and education for all ages on cycling along with some practical courses and demonstrations.
We need more of this, and more awareness that these things are taking place.

RainyDay

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Safe Cross Code.

Stop. Look. Listen.

He did all those but walked out into moving objects (although with a green man) to make a point. My 4 year old knows not to do that.

I don't mean to attack the video, it highlights alot of problems we have, but offers no solution. But if we are to examine the video, we need to do it for all aspects of road use.

It's hard to know exactly what happened as you don't know how or where he was carrying the camera. Maybe he had it in his outstretched hand, so it was his hand/arm in front of the car, not his body. Either way, he probably did more to discourage cars from breaking the lights by appearing in front of them than any Garda is ever going to do, at minimal risk to himself. I've done the same at lights where cars or cyclists have broken through, just to make a point.

Tony Beetroot

Boom_Bap wrote: »

As far as a theory test, this is not possible. I couldn't ask my 4 year old to sit one. Well, she would do it, but I don't think the person correcting would be able to interpret her scrawls like I can.

A 4 year old should not sit one because a 4 year old should not be cycling on national, regional or secondary roads. What kind of a parent would subject their child to such.

NicoleW85

In my primary school in antrim, we did a cycling proficiency test at the age of 11. The playground was marked out in white paint with various road markings to mimic a t-junction, main road, roundabout & zebra crossing. We had different scenarios and did lots of practice for months before an external examiner came in and observed us. It may have been 18 yrs ago but it's all stuck with me. It's made me more aware, both as a cyclist & a driver. Education is valuable

Pinch Flat

Tony Beetroot wrote: »

A 4 year old should not sit one because a 4 year old should not be cycling on national, regional or secondary roads. What kind of a parent would subject their child to such.

Plenty of cyclists use these roads with their children

Boom_Bap

Tony Beetroot wrote: »

A 4 year old should not sit one because a 4 year old should not be cycling on national, regional or secondary roads. What kind of a parent would subject their child to such.

It's quite normal and it would probably be responsible parents that have educated their children on road safety.
But what you have said is part of the argument, if there is to be a test or training, there needs to be rules on where and when people of all ages can and can't cycle.
From what you are saying, children should be on footpaths? But if my understanding is correct, a cyclist (a child on a bike falls into this category) would be breaking the law if it's on a footpath that is not marked as a cycle lane.

Grandpa Hassan

Tony Beetroot wrote: »

A 4 year old should not sit one because a 4 year old should not be cycling on national, regional or secondary roads. What kind of a parent would subject their child to such.

Of course they will. A rural road in some out of the way village on a Sunday morning with the family. It's the other end of the scale to a lycra clad commuter in Dublin. But if you're going to legislate, it's going to apply equally.

Or would you suggest drawing an arbitrary line somewhere. Age? Type of road? Speed of bike?

tigerboon

Anyone with a driving licence is supposed to be a competent driver. As a competent driver you are supposed to drive with due care to other road users. It doesn't matter about the other person having done a theory test, training or anything else. I drive about 50 to 60,000 km every year for close on 20 years and have never had an accident. I find if your brakes, steering wheel, accelerator are working you will safely get around slower moving traffic. Pedestrian and cycle traffic never had to do these theory tests in past when people were less stuck up their own holes so can all the motor heads on this thread please cop themselves on.

Tony Beetroot

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Or would you suggest drawing an arbitrary line somewhere. Age? Type of road? Speed of bike?

You yourself can be deciding that, I wont be parenting anyone's child here.

Grandpa Hassan

Tony Beetroot wrote: »

You yourself can be deciding that, I wont be parenting anyone's child here.

You know very well that I am referring to the application of any cycle theory test law. Not parenting. Where do you propose drawing the line with respect to whom it should apply?

dubscottie

Jawgap wrote: »

According to the a National Safety Council the leading causes of traffic related road deaths and injuries are speed and alcohol consumption - two things wholly within the control of drivers.

But not the single cause. I know of 2 people that died on the roads.

One came off a motorbike having hit melted tar and a car driver that hit black ice.. Both motorists, but was it there fault? What would you say if it had been cyclists..

It would have been the councils fault etc etc...