Cyclists should do a theory test!

SpaceTime

Jawgap wrote: »

It's about €50k for a gantry sign - so more like €1.5m, not 10.

Not when you add on all the bits and pieces and sign colour consultants ...

2 stroke

Yesterday I met a man and his 5 year old daughter both cycling against trafic up a narrow one way street. I stopped, bringing all cars behind me to a standstill. I pointed out to the guy that it was a one way street, his response was that he wasn't driving. Guy should be arested for child endangerment.

Jawgap

SpaceTime wrote: »

Not when you add on all the bits and pieces and sign colour consultants ...

That's a one-off cost - you really reackon it's €8.5 million?

I know a Cork people think they're God's chosen, but do they really expect Gucci signs? Even for the piddly bit of road used to ring the town?

Jawgap

dubscottie wrote: »

Again with the motorists kill 200+ each year. As for blaming the council.. You should look at the posts on another forum here.. "Came of the bike, who do I sue" threads. Never the cyclists fault.

I asked you to prove that the 200+ deaths on the roads are all the result of motorists. Still waiting.. You are making the claim again and again so back it up with proof.

The rules of the road are not the law.. The Road Traffic Act is.

Where are these threads?

RainyDay

dubscottie wrote: »

Again with the motorists kill 200+ each year.

Indeed, the deaths just keep on coming.

dubscottie wrote: »

As for blaming the council.. You should look at the posts on another forum here.. "Came of the bike, who do I sue" threads. Never the cyclists fault.

You seem to be suggesting that there is a series of such threads and this is a common issue. I found two threads in the cycling forum, where the general consensus is that there is no liability on the council, and that previous such cases have failed, though motorists are fairly routinely reimbursed for damage caused by potholes.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=88379250
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=58211149

Are you aware of a pile of such threads, or are they just a matter of your imagination?

dubscottie wrote: »

I asked you to prove that the 200+ deaths on the roads are all the result of motorists. Still waiting.. You are making the claim again and again so back it up with proof.

That's kind-of the definition of deaths on the road, so I'm not sure why you're quibbling. I could claim that that aardvarks were to blame for deaths on the road, and push you to provide evidence that there were no aardvarks involved. This is really just clutching at straws now.

dubscottie wrote: »

The rules of the road are not the law.. The Road Traffic Act is.

That's true. Are you suggesting that the requirement to stop when safe to do so at an amber light is not covered under the Road Traffic Acts?

SpaceTime wrote: »

Not when you add on all the bits and pieces and sign colour consultants ...

Colours are set out in the Dept Transport traffic sign manual - no consultants involved.

2 stroke wrote: »

Yesterday I met a man and his 5 year old daughter both cycling against trafic up a narrow one way street. I stopped, bringing all cars behind me to a standstill. I pointed out to the guy that it was a one way street, his response was that he wasn't driving. Guy should be arested for child endangerment.

I saw a man with his 5-year-old daughter in the front seat of his car driving away from Lidl yesterday. The adult-sized seatbelt is more likely to injure her than help her in a collision. Guy should be arrested for child endangerment.

SpaceTime

Jawgap wrote: »

That's a one-off cost - you really reackon it's €8.5 million?

I know a Cork people think they're God's chosen, but do they really expect Gucci signs? Even for the piddly bit of road used to ring the town?

Ah sure throw in a bit of petty Irish parochial interregionalism.

Did I say anything about Gucci signs?

If you changed 30+ gantry sign panels (2 years after a major resigage project to make it the N40) it would cost stupidly big amounts of money and would cause disruption as its a lot more than just patching. It actually has a lot of large backlit gantry signs as well as a whole load of variable signage using rotating sections around the tunnel lead up which would need complete re-doing.

There could easily be 60 major signs involved and replacing those panels sections is serious money and would be a complete waste of funds.

That's the main reason they just put up 120 kph speed limits and left the rest as is.

Jawgap

SpaceTime wrote: »

Ah sure throw in a bit of petty Irish parochial interregionalism.

Did I say anything about Gucci signs?

If you changed 30+ gantry sign panels (2 years after a major resigage project to make it the N40) it would cost stupidly big amounts of money and would cause disruption as its a lot more than just patching. It actually has a lot of large backlit gantry signs as well as a whole load of variable signage using rotating sections around the tunnel lead up which would need complete re-doing.

There could easily be 60 major signs involved and replacing those panels sections is serious money and would be a complete waste of funds.

That's the main reason they just put up 120 kph speed limits and left the rest as is.

Ah, we've gone from 30 to 60 signs now.

Keep going and you'll soon get to your €10m valuation

SpaceTime

Jawgap wrote: »

Ah, we've gone from 30 to 60 signs now.

Keep going and you'll soon get to your €10m valuation

Meh!
Did I claim to be a motorway signage valuation expert?

Point still stands - it's not done because it's too expensive!

I have no interest in getting into Irish regional petty squabbles - it's one of the issues that keeps this country back and undermines proper infrastructure planning.

I was simply making a point about the dangers of cycling on a fast moving, urban DC / motorway with merging, grade segregated junctions.

I don't think cycling on the N40 is any safer than the M50 - the colour of the gantry signs or the letter prefix doesn't change the laws of physics.

It's the fact that you've the odd cyclist using the hard shoulder and attempting to cross merging, high speed traffic that's scary.

In some of the N40 junctions you've multiple merging lanes and 3 traffic lanes. It's by no means a safe place to be cycling on the shoulders.

You've also got sections where the hard shoulders have been removed to allow for extra lanes. Those areas (just between Mahon and Douglas) are totally unsuitable for cycling.

There are also parts of the south link into the city which have no hard shoulders as its built into an old railway cutting. That's pretty seriously dangerous to cycle on too as its almost just like a tunnel without a roof.

There should be adequate cycling provision built into new road projects but that hasn't been the case.

I'd favour building proper cycle ways that use other routes away from heavy traffic. Inhaling he exhausts of cars on a multi lane road at rush hour isn't too good for you anyway.

A lot more could be done to make use of an promote the green ways built on old rail routes around cork for example.

Public_Enema

lickme wrote: »

Cyclists should do a theory test!

Yes I think so, but that said. A lot of drivers out there, could also do with doing a theory test.

RecordStraight

2 stroke wrote: »

Yesterday I met a man and his 5 year old daughter both cycling against trafic up a narrow one way street. I stopped, bringing all cars behind me to a standstill. I pointed out to the guy that it was a one way street, his response was that he wasn't driving. Guy should be arested for child endangerment.

On the continent, in more progressive countries, it's legal for bikes to travel either way on one way streets.

Just by way of info. Makes sense if you want to cut traffic and get everybody out of traffic jams.

CramCycle

SpaceTime wrote: »

I'd favour building proper cycle ways that use other routes away from heavy traffic. Inhaling he exhausts of cars on a multi lane road at rush hour isn't too good for you anyway.

Just a point of interest, sitting in a car in rush hour, you will inhale far more toxic fumes, while true a cyclists will probably be inhaling deeper breaths by the nature of doing exercise, a motorists in rush hour traffic will be exposed to a far higher level of pollution.

SpaceTime

CramCycle wrote: »

Just a point of interest, sitting in a car in rush hour, you will inhale far more toxic fumes, while true a cyclists will probably be inhaling deeper breaths by the nature of doing exercise, a motorists in rush hour traffic will be exposed to a far higher level of pollution.

It's a point but most modern cars have pollen filters that probably capture a good % of diesel particulates.

Single biggest risk to lungs is probably poorly maintained diesel cars. Focusing only on climate change and CO2 emission forgot a kit particulate emissions.

Sitting in heavy traffic on a still day definitively can't be good for you though.

rubadub

MadDog76 wrote: »

Hahahahaha!!!!!

Recreational drug use is different to recreational alcohol drinking

Wow, apt smiley, you certainly are very one confused individual. Alcohol IS a recreational drug.

Keep that head firmly buried in the sand Mr. Cop-out

RainyDay

Public_Enema wrote: »

Yes I think so, but that said. A lot of drivers out there, could also do with doing a theory test.

Eh the drivers HAVE done a theory test, which confirms how useless it is.

cournioni

Met another idiot cyclist cycling straight at me going the wrong way on a one way street.

But then it's probably my fault because cars cause more fatalities on the road than bicycles.

ThisRegard

cournioni wrote: »

me going the wrong way on a one way street.

But then it's probably my fault

Sounds like it was being honest.

JJayoo

Ireland should follow the example of Denmark and provide children with bike playgrounds. These allow young children to learn how to cycle and practice manoeuvring around real world obstacles such as different gradients, different surface types, wet conditions, other cyclists. The also learn the rules of the road and become familiar with hazards and road signs.

cournioni

ThisRegard wrote: »

Sounds like it was being honest.

You're very clever altogether. If you put as much time into educating fellow cyclists how to conduct themselves on our roads as you did into thinking up that post then we might not have as many cyclists creamed out of it after breaking red lights.

RainyDay

cournioni wrote: »

Met another idiot cyclist cycling straight at me going the wrong way on a one way street.

But then it's probably my fault because cars cause more fatalities on the road than bicycles.

Were you worried that he was going to kill you or your car in the collision?

Pinch Flat

RainyDay wrote: »

Eh the drivers HAVE done a theory test, which confirms how useless it is.

Not all of them have done the theory test

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/learner-drivers-face-penalty-points-if-unaccompanied-1.2029309

RainyDay

cournioni wrote: »

You're very clever altogether. If you put as much time into educating fellow cyclists how to conduct themselves on our roads as you did into thinking up that post then we might not have as many cyclists creamed out of it after breaking red lights.

Could you identify one case where a cyclist got 'creamed out of it after breaking red lights' please?

Grandpa Hassan

cournioni wrote: »

You're very clever altogether. If you put as much time into educating fellow cyclists how to conduct themselves on our roads as you did into thinking up that post then we might not have as many cyclists creamed out of it after breaking red lights.

I commute 10 miles each way to work every, and have seen some idiocy in my time, from all types of road user (IMO, taxis win the particular idiocy competition, but that's beside the point), and I have never seen a cyclist get 'creamed out of it' after breaking a red light.

Which is consistent with the Guardian link posted earlier in this thread that covered a report by Transport for London which found that less than 2% of cycle accidents are caused by cyclists breaking a red

steamengine

There seems to be quite a cavalier attitude to the consequences of breaking red lights by some cyclists on this thread. This from a cycling publication,speaks for itself.

http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/jump-red-light/

Endangering pedestrians

Aside from a potential fine, there’s a question of endangering pedestrians. According to statistics provided by TfL, between 1998 to 2007, 4% of pedestrian injuries were the result of red light jumping by cyclists. With the remaining 96% involving motor vehicles.

Endangering themselves

What about endangering themselves? Between 2001 and 2005, two cyclists were killed by red light jumping. In the same period, seven motorcyclists were killed in the same way. More recently, there is only one case recorded where a cyclist “most likely” jumped a red light, though this wasn’t given as the cause of death.

Grandpa Hassan

steamengine wrote: »

There seems to be quite a cavalier attitude to the consequences of breaking red lights by some cyclists on this thread. This from a cycling publication,speaks for itself.

http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/jump-red-light/

Can you point out the 'cavalier' components of that article?

steamengine

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Can you point out the 'cavalier' components of that article?

I was referring to some posters cavalier attitude towards breaking red lights. If the cap fits.......etc.,

MadDog76

rubadub wrote: »

Wow, apt smiley, you certainly are very one confused individual. Alcohol IS a recreational drug.

Keep that head firmly buried in the sand Mr. Cop-out

Really?

So dropping E is the same as having a pint of Guinness!?!!

ezra_pound

MadDog76 wrote: »

Really?

So dropping E is the same as having a pint of Guinness!?!!

No. But alcohol is a recreational drug.

cournioni

RainyDay wrote: »

Were you worried that he was going to kill you or your car in the collision?

No, I was worried about knocking him into the pedestrians walking on the footpath. Then, I was worried about the damage his idiocy would do to him and his family. Then, I was worried about the damage he would cause to the car.

Maximus Alexander

I commute to work by bicycle, and the amount of other people I see cycling on the roads with neither a hi-vis nor a helmet confounds me. What is going on in these peoples' minds? Protect yourself, if not for your own benefit, then for the benefit of your loved ones who'll have to take care of you when you become a vegetable.

ThisRegard

cournioni wrote: »

You're very clever altogether.

Thanks.

papu

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I commute to work by bicycle, and the amount of other people I see cycling on the roads with neither a hi-vis nor a helmet confounds me. What is going on in these peoples' minds? Protect yourself, if not for your own benefit, then for the benefit of your loved ones who'll have to take care of you when you become a vegetable.

You can be easily vegetablised wearing those two pieces of optional "safety" equipment, and just because you wear them doesn't make you immune from accidents or better than any other cyclist. Cycling in an alert and assertive manner is much more safe than a high viz or a helmet.

Maximus Alexander

papu wrote: »

You can be easily vegetablised wearing those two pieces of optional "safety" equipment, and just because you wear them doesn't make you immune from accidents or better than any other cyclist. Cycling in an alert and assertive manner is much more safe than a high viz or a helmet.

I don't recall suggesting that they make you invulnerable. But if you're suggesting that they don't decrease your chances of being involved in an accident, or improve the outcome, you're having a laugh.

You know what's much better than the bolded part? Doing both.

papu

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I don't recall suggesting that they make you invulnerable. But if you're suggesting that they don't decrease your chances of being involved in an accident, or improve the outcome, you're having a laugh.

You know what's much better than the bolded part? Doing both.

I'm not having a laugh , High-viz and helmets aren't mandatory. You'd think if they were a sure fire way of decrease your chances of being involved in an accident, or improve the outcome they would be.
A high viz isn't going to help you if you're in the blind spot of a vehicle , if the driver doesn't see you coming without one they aren't paying attention and wont see you with one. The jury is out on helmets as-well you won't know that it's going to work until you have an accident, lots of cases of helmets shattering , fracturing , and actually causing whiplash injuries. It isn't as clean cut as you think, and I wouldn't think people any lesser for choosing not to wear one.

Boom_Bap

I'm guilty of not wearing a helmet. I know I am stupid for not wearing one.
I don't wear hi-Viz either, but I wear clothes/bag that are bright and have relective strips on them, and always have blinking lights.

CramCycle

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I don't recall suggesting that they make you invulnerable. But if you're suggesting that they don't decrease your chances of being involved in an accident, or improve the outcome, you're having a laugh.

You know what's much better than the bolded part? Doing both.

You really should do some research into what your saying before you say it, not anecdotes, or feelings, but actual research, they have two megathreads in the cycling forum on the two topics, I think you may be surprised about what affect both items have on relative safety levels to the population.

The chances of being in a road traffic collision would directly correlate with your cycling style and awareness, as well as the other road users on the road but lets use the excuse that they were not wearing hi vis or a helmet as the reason they were in a crash.

Stupid RSA in conjunction with the Gardai, handing out hi vis for night time riders rather than lights or just taking the bikes of them, it's f*cking ridiculous

CramCycle

Boom_Bap wrote: »

I don't wear hi-Viz either, but I wear clothes/bag that are bright and have relective strips on them, and always have blinking lights.

reflective strips are useful, more so on lower extremities (catches dimmed lights, brain recognises human motion etc.) but lights are the key there, if you have lights on, at night and the motorists doesn't see you, he excuse that they were not wearing hi vis holds as much water as a sieve.

check_six

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I don't recall suggesting that they make you invulnerable. But if you're suggesting that they don't decrease your chances of being involved in an accident, or improve the outcome, you're having a laugh.

You know what's much better than the bolded part? Doing both.

If you'd like to see some thoughts on helmets and hi-vis jackets, please take a look at these threads:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057030568

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057136508

You'll see that the concerns people have regarding helmets and hi-vis are that they are promoted far more vigorously than their usefulness would merit to the disadvantage of more helpful things like good road awareness, good bike maintenance, and good lights.

Back on topic, neither helmets nor hi-vis are mentioned in the current driver theory test.

RainyDay

cournioni wrote: »

No, I was worried about knocking him into the pedestrians walking on the footpath. Then, I was worried about the damage his idiocy would do to him and his family. Then, I was worried about the damage he would cause to the car.

Tks for the clarification. The road safety stats would suggest that serious injury arising from these kinds of incidents are fairly rare. I'm not excusing the behaviour, but it's not exactly a huge issue. For the record, I regularly meet cars coming down one-way streets too, so it's not just cyclists who do dumb things.

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I don't recall suggesting that they make you invulnerable. But if you're suggesting that they don't decrease your chances of being involved in an accident, or improve the outcome, you're having a laugh.

There is pretty good research from the University of Bath showing that motorists give LESS overtaking space to cyclists with helmets. If you want motorists to give you a wide berth, the research suggests you'd be better with a blonde wig than a helmet.

Hi-vis does little or nothing for visibility in daylight, and can be LESS visible against bright sunlight than strong colours like red or blue.

Boom_Bap

CramCycle wrote: »

reflective strips are useful, more so on lower extremities (catches dimmed lights, brain recognises human motion etc.) but lights are the key there, if you have lights on, at night and the motorists doesn't see you, he excuse that they were not wearing hi vis holds as much water as a sieve.

I'd never really cycle after dark because personally I think I am putting myself in way too much danger. If I was, I'd always be lit up like a Christmas Tree.

steamengine

Like the proud mother who was watching her son marching in the St. Patrick's day parade:-

"There goes my Johnny, doesn't he look great."

"But he's marching out of step." - says another

"Not so, everyone else is out of step" - says the mother.

And so it is with the high viz and helmets, but feel free - carry on - either way it's your head and body at the end of the day.

I'll be wearing mine, just like the many millions of workers at road and rail locations, construction sites, engineering plants and elsewhere.

RainyDay

steamengine wrote: »

Like the proud mother who was watching her son marching in the St. Patrick's day parade:-

"There goes my Johnny, doesn't he look great."

"But he's marching out of step." - says another

"Not so, everyone else is out of step" - says the mother.

Did Johnny's mammy have peer-reviewed research published in reputable journals confirming that everyone was out of step?

steamengine wrote: »

And so it is with the high viz and helmets, but feel free - carry on - either way it's your head and body at the end of the day.

I'll be wearing mine, just like the many millions of workers at road and rail locations, construction sites, engineering plants and elsewhere.

You seem to be making an assumption that those who query issues around hi-vis and helmets don't wear hi-vis and helmets. In my case, your assumption is 50% wrong in summer-time anyway. Less assumptions, more evidence please.

Tenzor07

steamengine wrote: »

And so it is with the high viz and helmets, but feel free - carry on - either way it's your head and body at the end of the day.
I'll be wearing mine, just like the many millions of workers at road and rail locations, construction sites, engineering plants and elsewhere.

Don't forget the Army, Riot Police, etc? Awful dangerous occupations! :rolleyes:

Maximus Alexander

CramCycle wrote: »

You really should do some research into what your saying before you say it, not anecdotes, or feelings, but actual research, they have two megathreads in the cycling forum on the two topics, I think you may be surprised about what affect both items have on relative safety levels to the population.

You know what? I normally do. You're right, in this case I have done little research, so I'll bow out.

steamengine

RainyDay wrote: »

Did Johnny's mammy have peer-reviewed research published in reputable journals confirming that everyone was out of step?


You seem to be making an assumption that those who query issues around hi-vis and helmets don't wear hi-vis and helmets. In my case, your assumption is 50% wrong in summer-time anyway. Less assumptions, more evidence please.

Do you need a Masters in experimental Physics and read a thesis on whether Light consists of waves or particles before you switch on your lights at home at night ?

Everyone is out of step - really ?

papu

steamengine wrote: »

Do you need a Masters in experimental Physics and read a thesis on whether Light consists of waves or particles before you switch on your lights at home at night ?

Everyone is out of step - really ?

Light is both a wave and a particle but that is neither here nor there.

just like the many millions of workers at road and rail locations, construction sites, engineering plants and elsewhere.

Helmets worn on these locations are quite different to cyclists helmets as they are worn to protect from objects falling from the sky. These helmets aren't to protect against impacts with cars and trains on road and rail locations.

Why wear a bicycle helmet and not a fully faced helmet? Wouldn't that be much safer?

steamengine

papu wrote: »

Light is both a wave and a particle but that is neither here nor there.



Helmets worn on these locations are quite different to cyclists helmets as they are worn to protect from objects falling from the sky. These helmets aren't to protect against impacts with cars and trains on road and rail locations.

Why wear a bicycle helmet and not a fully faced helmet? Wouldn't that be much safer?

What happens if the subject rather than the object is falling from above, headfirst, off a bicycle ? Motion is relative - clearly different helmets are designed for different purposes.

Darkglasses

Boom_Bap wrote: »

I'd never really cycle after dark because personally I think I am putting myself in way too much danger. If I was, I'd always be lit up like a Christmas Tree.

I've commuted by bike at basically every hour of the day (normal daytime hours, late night, very early morning, etc.) and I can tell you every single dangerous moment I've ever had has been in broad daylight, due to maliciousness or just awful driving. In my experience (and where I live, I suppose), the safest time to cycle is after 11pm at night. Although to go out without as nearly as much lumination as a car would be stupid.

rubadub

MadDog76 wrote: »

Really?

So dropping E is the same as having a pint of Guinness!?!!

They are both recreational drugs, 1 E would be a full dose, so you could compare 1/6th or 1/8th of an E to a single pint. Most sensible doctors would consider alcohol the worse of the 2, if it was in fact MDMA you were taking.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I commute to work by bicycle, and the amount of other people I see cycling on the roads with neither a hi-vis nor a helmet confounds me. What is going on in these peoples' minds?

Maybe they have actually bothered their fucking hole to read up about the subject and feel they are safer without a helmet while commuting.

Do you wear your helmet while drinking or while driving? It's said that a cycling style helmet is more beneficial while driving than on a bike, and that IS taking into account all the standard protection afforded by seatbelts & airbags. A&E is full of alcohol related head injuries at the weekend. But its not common to see people thinking drinkers are worried about it effect their hair or making them look "uncool", while they do with cyclists.

Boom_Bap wrote: »

I'm guilty of not wearing a helmet. I know I am stupid for not wearing one.

No, only stupid for not informing yourself and then going about branding others stupid who may well have researched it properly.

Grandpa Hassan

steamengine wrote: »

What happens if the subject rather than the object is falling from above, headfirst, off a bicycle ? Motion is relative - clearly different helmets are designed for different purposes.

Faceplants are way more common. No helmet to protect against those. I've never had a friend come off and land on their head. But I know a few who have come off over the handlbars onto their face, or face-first into the side of a van / car when it has pulled out in front of them.

Full face protection is the only way forward....something like Bane in batman would probably work

Soyokakano

I don't think cyclists should take a test. I think Drivers need to learn to respect cyclists as equal road users.