Cyclists should do a theory test!

keith16

I am cyclist and I did a theory test.

222233

I was recently driving through a busy area at peak traffic time, one of the lanes allows for a continuous amber (yield and go if clear etc). I was coming off of my turn, I had a green light and a cyclist literally went straight through the amber light meaning I was inches from knocking him off his bike, he then preceded to make some angry, strange hand movements... I have also noticed cyclists running red lights, veering in and out of cars and leaning on cars. NOTHING MAKES ME MORE ANGRY.

Cyclists should have to sit a driving test, forget a theory test and they should be prosecuted with fines/penalty points for breaking the rules of the road.

endacl

222233 wrote: »

I was recently driving through a busy area at peak traffic time, one of the lanes allows for a continuous amber (yield and go if clear etc). I was coming off of my turn, I had a green light and a cyclist literally went straight through the amber light meaning I was inches from knocking him off his bike, he then preceded to make some angry, strange hand movements... I have also noticed cyclists running red lights, veering in and out of cars and leaning on cars. NOTHING MAKES ME MORE ANGRY.

Cyclists should have to sit a driving test, forget a theory test and they should be prosecuted with fines/penalty points for breaking the rules of the road.

:mad: Yeah. Grrrr! Cyclists are all bad! :mad:

On the other hand, the points you raise have already been addressed. In this and many other threads...

222233

endacl wrote: »

:mad: Yeah. Grrrr! Cyclists are all bad! :mad:

On the other hand, the points you raise have already been addressed. In this and many other threads...

Sorry if I am repeating but it infuriates me that if I knock someone down for their own stupidity I will be prosecutable and have to live with that guilt.

mikemac1

222233 wrote: »

Cyclists should have to sit a driving test, forget a theory test and they should be prosecuted with fines/penalty points for breaking the rules of the road.

I'm a cyclist and have passed a car test and a motorcycle test.

Now I need to do a test for cycling? Sure I was cycling when I was 8 years

222233

mikemac1 wrote: »

I'm a cyclist and have passed a car test and a motorcycle test.

Now I need to do a test for cycling? Sure I was cycling when I was 8 years

If you obey the rules of the road, then Im sure you are fine as you can drive you are probably aware of how to use public roads I would assume

IrishHomer

What about pedestrians?

Every pedestrian in Midlands walks on the wrong side of the road, won't use pedestrian crossings, but will walk out in front of traffic and expect right of way!

anncoates

PeadarCo wrote: »

So your asking for a poll tax. We've about 4.5 million odd in the country and pretty much everyone will make a "righteous" statement and some point during the year, whether its Cyclists/Drivers/Pedestrians/Fianna Fail/Fianna Gael/Sinn Fein/Denis O Brian/Man United/Liverpool/etc are the Devil incarnate/Hitler/criminal/God/perfect/ etc. Sounds a very easy way to raise money.

That's a lot of effort, to be fair.

Just say what about car drivers dur dur durrr etc.

Matt_Trakker

Can we not just have a system where cyclists and drivers have to take theory tests?
Cyclists wouldn't need a cycling test, but then every 5 years or so everyone would have to take a refresher course of some kind.
Be a bit of a money spinner too for the gubberment.

Just doing a test once always seemed a bit pointless to me, like do any of you remember your algebra theories from your Leaving Cert? Or the definition of The Law of Diminishing Returns?

Continuous assessment is the way to go.
Plus it'll be a handy way to legally get all those old people off the roads....unless they pass of course....it's mad, like, people who passed their exams in the 40s/50s can still drive based on an exam they did 60 or 70 odd years ago. That's just wrong.

mikemac1

Zipping up bus lanes
Blaring noise
Bullying others drivers
Flying through red lights
Stopping and parking wherever they like

Those feckin HSE ambulances :mad:

222233

Seeing as we provide cycle lanes, why aren't cyclists using these lanes paying taxes for the money it cost to make them, I'm not allowed drive in them?

beauf

lickme wrote: »

A lot of cyclists have no concept of the rules of the road...Should be made do some sort of simulation test or something...

83% of UK cyclists hold driving licences...

"Cyclist" for this purpose is someone who cycled at least once during the week in which they were asked to fill in a travel diary for the NTS.

I think you'd need to work out do people not know the rules. Or are they choosing to ignore them. How many already have a driving license.

mikemac1

222233 wrote: »

Seeing as we provide cycle lanes, why aren't cyclists using these lanes paying taxes for the money it cost to make them, I'm not allowed drive in them?

Motor tax doesn't pay for roads. It comes from central funds. The kid paying vat on a can on coke pays for roads same as you.

And if you believe you pay more because you have a tax disc on your windscreen well that money is paying for Irish Water these days

Brussels Sprout

I'm both a cyclist and a motorist and my #1 pet peeve on the roads is people breaking red lights. The only difference seems to be that some cyclists cycle through red lights at any time as opposed to some motorists who drive through them in the second or two after they have just switched to red. But yeah I'd love to see more people being pulled up on this as it's both selfish and dangerous.

222233

mikemac1 wrote: »

Motor tax doesn't pay for roads. It comes from central funds. The kid paying vat on a can on coke pays for roads same as you.

And if you believe you pay more because you have a tax disc on your windscreen well that money is paying for Irish Water these days

But I don't mind paying for my water I have always had to pay for my water! i pay massive tax at work and car tax so irrespective of whether its paying for cycle lanes or not it should be coming out of a specific paid by cyclist tax fund.

machiavellianme

222233 wrote: »

But I don't mind paying for my water I have always had to pay for my water! i pay massive tax at work and car tax so irrespective of whether its paying for cycle lanes or not it should be coming out of a specific paid by cyclist tax fund.

I like your view of the world.
Maybe we should pay the Dole by a specific paid into by those on the Dole fund, and if it runs out, then so be it. Perhaps Childrens allowance could come out of a fund raised by making children work? Creative thinking like this will set the Celtic Phoenix ablaze.

I dont have children so why should my taxes pay for schools? I've never been in a hospital, so again, I don't think I should pay for that or nurses or doctors. Also, I've never had any dealings with the law, I dont need to fund the Gardai's salaries either. In fact, what does my taxes go on? If it's not completely dedicated to cycle lanes and the bike to work scheme, then I'll be mightily angry!

rubadub

222233 wrote: »

Seeing as we provide cycle lanes, why aren't cyclists using these lanes paying taxes for the money it cost to make them, I'm not allowed drive in them?

This is why the bike to work scheme was a complete waste of time, seeing as no cyclist pays tax there was nothing to claim back. How they came up with the idea I never know...

I see plenty of cars using cycletracks & cycleways, and pedestrians, they are teeming with them. Its quite common to see pedestrians walking onto cycletracks, some of them do it to give way to the cyclist on the footpath who is avoiding the group of pedestrians on the cycletrack often the majority.

IrishHomer wrote: »

What about pedestrians?

They get off scot free, as the whingers see them as being "one of us".

So the pent up bigot cunts who in previous times may have been openly racist, sexist, homophobic have found one of the few groups they feel they can openly vent about, without feeling shame. Laughable when you think the majority of them cycled at some time in their life, and probably have some friends and family that cycle -and instruct their children to illegally cycle on the path.

Why I hate pedestrians

You know what I hate? Pedestrians. That self-satisfied, striding, boot-bedecked bunch of scum. Is it just me, or does the country suddenly seem to be full of them? I've never tried walking anywhere myself -- why would I? I'm a successful adult -- but it seems I can hardly travel down the street these days without one of them stepping off the pavement in front of me without looking, their face set in a holier-than-thou expression as they jump out of the way of my car in a burst of expletives. Something clearly needs to be done, and it's good that the government are starting to realise this.

The thing is, it's not just that pedestrians are all smug and annoying when they bang on about "health" and "pollution". That's sickening enough, but if their smugness was the only problem I could just ignore them - after all, they and their silly 'shoes' flash past quick enough when I get going, and their smugness can't penetrate my car's tinted windows. But the thing is there's more to it than that, because have you noticed that even though pedestrians walk millions of miles on our road system every single day, they contribute nothing at all to the cost of that road system? They have thousands and thousands of miles of dedicated pedestrian-only travel routes -- pavements, they're called, or sidewalks if you're that way inclined -- which they don't pay a penny for! Whilst honest motorists are taxed left, right and centre, they don't pay anything at all for all these facilities they enjoy. It beggars belief.

And recently, of course, it's got worse. As I'm driving up the street I constantly come across pedestrians walking across my part of the road to get from one of these pavements to another. I mean, what the hell...? Do they want the shirt off my back as well? They've been given vast tracts of pedestrian-only routes, where I'm certainly not allowed to drive, but apparently this isn't enough for them. Oh no, they want to keep encroaching into my space as well. Sure, we've all heard these walking zealots who say that it's because the 'pavements' don't form a joined-up network, meaning they can't walk to where they want to go without having to step onto the road from time to time. Aw, bless their little hearts. To pedestrians I say this: get off my part of the road. If you walk there when I'm coming along then I'll happily run you down, that's all.

In the long term there's clearly only one solution to all this. If pedestrians want to walk on our streets, which we pay for with all our driving taxes, then they need to pay their share and take their part of the responsibility. Anybody who walks anywhere should undergo training, should have to pay an annual tax towards the facilities they enjoy, should display a license plate so they can be identified, and should each be made to carry insurance in case they are ever involved in any accidents. Until then, they can sod off back to Shoeville or wherever it is they go when they aren't freeloading off the rest of us.

RainyDay

222233 wrote: »

Seeing as we provide cycle lanes, why aren't cyclists using these lanes paying taxes for the money it cost to make them, I'm not allowed drive in them?

Seeing as we provide motorways, why aren't motorists using these motorways instead of the roads around them? I'm paying taxes for the money it costs to make them motorways, and I'm not allowed to cycle in them?

See how dumb it sounds now? For the record, there are a variety of reasons why cyclists choose not to use cycle lanes. It could be because the cycle lane is frequently covered in broken glass, or (between October - December) mushy leaves, or because it is frequently used by pedestrians, sometimes with (my own personal favourite) the extendable dog lead stretched invisibly across the dog lane like the old Nazi piano wire trap. Or it could be because like the older stretches of the N11 cycle lane, they are built with a dished exit from every housing leading to a rollercoaster up/down effect. Or it could be because the design of the cycle lane leads them into dangerous positions at junctions, as cars don't expect have cyclists exiting from what is effectively the path - take your pick there.

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

I'm both a cyclist and a motorist and my #1 pet peeve on the roads is people breaking red lights. The only difference seems to be that some cyclists cycle through red lights at any time as opposed to some motorists who drive through them in the second or two after they have just switched to red. But yeah I'd love to see more people being pulled up on this as it's both selfish and dangerous.

Second or two? I'd go with 'second or ten' maybe, but either way, it is a big dangerous and annoying, I agree with you. But why focus on this one particular bit of law-breaking? Why not keep on eye on the large number of motorists and small number of cyclists who will use a phone while driving?

222233 wrote: »

But I don't mind paying for my water I have always had to pay for my water! i pay massive tax at work and car tax so irrespective of whether its paying for cycle lanes or not it should be coming out of a specific paid by cyclist tax fund.

We all pay the same tax at work, and we all pay considerable VAT on our spending (including bike purchase, bike repairs and bike accessories), but really - a specific 'cyclist tax fund'? Are we going to have a specific 'sick with cancer' fund to pay for cancer treatments? And a specific 'pedestrian' fund to pay for paths? Come one now...

Clearlier wrote: »

I think that it's more likely to do with personal experience. As I hinted at in my earlier post when I cycle I see drivers do dumb things on pretty much every journey I make but I rarely see cyclists do anything wrong. When I drive I see cyclists doing dumb thing all over the place but rarely see cars do much wrong.

The above is because when I cycle I move at a similar speed to most cyclists so I don't encounter very many and when I drive I move at the speed of the traffic around me so I only see the behaviour of a few drivers. I doubt that my experience is unique hence why so many drivers think that most cyclists are bad and many cyclists think that most drivers are bad.

Edit to add that most (adult) cyclists are drivers and have some appreciation of the stupid things that cyclists do but most driver are not cyclists and have a limited appreciation of the dumb things that drivers do.

I'm not sure I get the 'similar speed' thing, given the ability of many motorists to spot law-breaking cyclists while being largely blind to law-breaking motorists. Maybe it is more to do with your last point, that most drivers are not cyclists, and feel it is OK to attack another group of people, simply because they choose a different mode of transport on a particular day?

anncoates wrote: »

What about righteous emissions? The exchequer could make millions of euro from cyclists.

Brilliant idea - would this apply to the OP and all the other anti-cycling nonsense in this thread too?

222233 wrote: »

I was recently driving through a busy area at peak traffic time, one of the lanes allows for a continuous amber (yield and go if clear etc). I was coming off of my turn, I had a green light and a cyclist literally went straight through the amber light meaning I was inches from knocking him off his bike, he then preceded to make some angry, strange hand movements... I have also noticed cyclists running red lights, veering in and out of cars and leaning on cars. NOTHING MAKES ME MORE ANGRY.

So let me understand your logic here - one cyclist did something bad or dangerous, so you are convinced that ALL other cyclists need to be punished? And everytime I see a driver doing something bad and dangerous, are you going to come up with a new licensing/testing/insurance system, given that it clearly points to the current system being failed?

222233 wrote: »

Cyclists should have to sit a driving test, forget a theory test and they should be prosecuted with fines/penalty points for breaking the rules of the road.

Do tell - how's that theory test, driving test, fines and penalty point system working out with motorists, given that they kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others?

222233 wrote: »

Sorry if I am repeating but it infuriates me that if I knock someone down for their own stupidity I will be prosecutable and have to live with that guilt.

Has there been any one case where a driver has been prosecuted for an injury caused by a cyclist's own stupidity?

222233

I still stand to my point if I am answerable in court or can be issued with penalty points as a driver, then so should cyclists, they too need to able to be punished and definitely need insurance !!

Jawgap

222233 wrote: »

I still stand to my point if I am answerable in court or can be issued with penalty points as a driver, then so should cyclists, they too need to able to be punished and definitely need insurance !!

Yeah, not needed and not going to happen.....

222233

Jawgap wrote: »

Yeah, not needed and not going to happen.....

Insurance for cyclists is not needed????

So its okay for them to scrape the side of my car and cycle off or its okay for them to sue me because they fell off their bike and have no insurance to cover injuries?

Jawgap

222233 wrote: »

Insurance for cyclists is not needed????

So its okay for them to scrape the side of my car and cycle off or its okay for them to sue me because they fell off their bike and have no insurance to cover injuries?

No, not ok to damage property and cycle off but if they cycle off and you get no details it's immaterial whether they have insurance or not.

If you get them you can still sue and they still have to pay if found liable.

If they fell off their bike and you're not liable why would you be paying over anything

222233

Jawgap wrote: »

No, not ok to damage property and cycle off but if they cycle off and you get no details it's immaterial whether they have insurance or not.

If you get them you can still sue and they still have to pay if found liable.

If they fell off their bike and you're not liable why would you be paying over anything

Have seen it happen, where they don't take there feet out of those special pedal things and fall in traffic, what if its my car that hits them.

Jawgap

222233 wrote: »

Have seen it happen, where they don't take there feet out of those special pedal things and fall in traffic, what if its my car that hits them.

If your car hits them then you're potentially liable. If they fail to unclip and fall into your car then you are not liable and they are potentially liable for any damage caused.

We're not talking rocket science here:D

222233

Jawgap wrote: »

If your car hits them then you're potentially liable. If they fail to unclip and fall into your car then you are not liable and they are potentially liable for any damage caused.

We're not talking rocket science here:D

Most of the time they are hit through their own fault..

Grandpa Hassan

222233 wrote: »

Most of the time they are hit through their own fault..

In your opinion. Wouldn't necessarily be mine. Speeding by cars plays a big part, or overtaking too tight to them, or drifting into the cycle lane and squeezing them against the kerb (buses are bad for doing this)

There is fault on both sides, even if you have an agenda and don't want to admit that drivers are not perfect

222233

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

In your opinion. Wouldn't necessarily be mine. Speeding by cars plays a big part, or overtaking too tight to them, or drifting into the cycle lane and squeezing them against the kerb (buses are bad for doing this)

There is fault on both sides, even if you have an agenda and don't want to admit that drivers are not perfect

Im a terrible driver, will be the first to admit that and for that reason I travel slow. But cyclists...

Jawgap

222233 wrote: »

Most of the time they are hit through their own fault..

Well the there's no issue - if it's their the they'll have to bear the costs of their injuries.

Jawgap

222233 wrote: »

Im a terrible driver, will be the first to admit that and for that reason I travel slow. But cyclists...

Shouldn't be too long before you lose your licence then;)

222233

Jawgap wrote: »

Shouldn't be too long before you lose your licence then;)

That won't be happening I drive within my capabilities and I obey the rules of the road, i just don't park in small parking spaces is all!

Jawgap

222233 wrote: »

That won't be happening I drive within my capabilities and I obey the rules of the road, i just don't park in small parking spaces is all!

Well then, you can't be that terrible a driver.

RainyDay

222233 wrote: »

I still stand to my point if I am answerable in court or can be issued with penalty points as a driver, then so should cyclists, they too need to able to be punished and definitely need insurance !!

222233 wrote: »

Insurance for cyclists is not needed????

So its okay for them to scrape the side of my car and cycle off or its okay for them to sue me because they fell off their bike and have no insurance to cover injuries?

222233 wrote: »

Have seen it happen, where they don't take there feet out of those special pedal things and fall in traffic, what if its my car that hits them.

Here's a mad idea - instead of worrying about theoretical issues that could possibly arise from time to time, could we focus on the carnage on the road caused by motorists - 200+ people killed each year and thousands more maimed?

222233 wrote: »

Most of the time they are hit through their own fault..

Not true, but I'm sure that you're interested in any mere facts;

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study
http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/cyclists-cause-less-than-10-of-bikecar-accidents.html
ece

222233

I really don't care being honest, i have an opinion and that is that. My opinion I don't have to be right but thats how I happen to feel

Jimoslimos

I cycle.

Like most cyclists, I also drive.

When I cycle, any accident I have will most likely affect me physically. Financial cost isn't that much of a consideration (my road bike only cost a couple of hundred quid), although that might be different for some folk with fancy bicycles. I know that if I'm involved in a collision (through my fault or not) that I will most likely end up injured to some degree. That could include, cars, trucks, buses, walls and pedestrians - yes even pedestrians, because either way I'm coming off my bike at speed and will hurt myself. Therefore I cycle defensively and am aware of all these hazards.

When I drive any accident I have will most likely affect me financially. City driving mostly. There is a minuscule risk that hitting pedestrians and cyclists will cause me injury. A car or larger vehicle hitting me has the potential to cause injury, but given the speeds most likely it'll just be (hopefully) nothing worse than a fender bender. As I mentioned financial cost is a factor but insurance negates this slightly. Therefore my main focus when I drive is other drivers - since their mistakes are most likely to do financial and physical damage to me.

Even as a cyclist I become less aware of other cyclists when I drive, though I do make a conscious effort to try not to.

In short.
Cyclist messes up - cyclist injured/dead
Driver messes up - bodywork damaged and/or cyclist/pedestrian dead/injured

dellas1979

I was only thinking this the other day OP when a(nother) cyclist whizzed over a pedestrian crossing, while I moved on (didnt stop to check if it was safe. More over bikes are not supposed to be used on pedestrian crossings).

Sadly, there was actually a cyclist killed there 2 years ago, doing the exact same thing.

Its getting to the point of ridiculousness. The thing is, they are the ones acting the idiot, yet if I hit them, Im the one prosecuted.

This particularly bad spot is near the uni in Limerick, so I would think a lot are probably erasmus students pedding around the place.

UCDVet

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I think you should bring your very erudite opinions to the Cycling Forum, where no doubt they will be welcomed.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=410

As a cyclist, I'd welcome such a test. I'm sure lots of other decent, reasonable cyclists who want the entitlements of being treated as any other vehicle on the road would also welcome such a test.

RainyDay

222233 wrote: »

I really don't care being honest, i have an opinion and that is that. My opinion I don't have to be right but thats how I happen to feel

That's true. You are indeed entitled to hold whatever opinion you like. But don't expect public policy or traffic law to change based on opinions that have no connection to reality.

RainyDay

dellas1979 wrote: »

Its getting to the point of ridiculousness. The thing is, they are the ones acting the idiot, yet if I hit them, Im the one prosecuted.

This is often repeated, but it is pure fiction.

Has there ever been one single case where the cyclist is 'acting the idiot' breaking the lights and the driver gets prosecuted?

jjpep

222233 wrote: »

I really don't care being honest, i have an opinion and that is that. My opinion I don't have to be right but thats how I happen to feel

Yep, opinions are way more betterer than facts.... ðŸ˜

SHOVELLER

beauf wrote: »

http://dublinobserver.com/2010/10/cycle-lane-highlights-in-dublin/
http://irishcycle.com/2012/08/24/cycling-against-traffic-legally/

No excuse for cycling dangerously.

Often to get around the one way system, or to get on off cycle paths, you have to cross footpaths, due to the poor design and layout.

Well yes but I mean in general footpaths are not for cyclists.

mojesius wrote: »

I frequently get 'tutted' at by other cyclists behind me for stopping at a red light. No, the green man doesn't include you. Your light is still red.

Also, wearing headphones while cycling should be banned.


Please don't pull in front of me at the lights when I recently overtook you. You're clearly cycling at a slower pace than I am.

I should have gone to to ranting and raving forum but fcuk it

Dead right but without enforcement it will never happen. If Gardai had a more physical presence around and actually enforced the law then we would not be seeing any cyclists speeding on footpaths. I mean they now have bicycles.

http://dublinbikeblog.com/understanding/cycling-and-the-law-in-ireland/

ardmacha

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I cycle.
In short.
Cyclist messes up - cyclist injured/dead
dead/injured

Cyclist messes up - pedestrian injured, cyclist swears at pedestrian, escapes and isn't subject to any loss or prosecution whatsoever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1C-pZxAz0H0

ballyharpat

dellas1979 wrote: »

I was only thinking this the other day OP when a(nother) cyclist whizzed over a pedestrian crossing, while I moved on (didnt stop to check if it was safe. More over bikes are not supposed to be used on pedestrian crossings).

Sadly, there was actually a cyclist killed there 2 years ago, doing the exact same thing.

Its getting to the point of ridiculousness. The thing is, they are the ones acting the idiot, yet if I hit them, Im the one prosecuted.

This particularly bad spot is near the uni in Limerick, so I would think a lot are probably erasmus students pedding around the place.

I'm sure you know the rules of the road, having done your theory and full driving test, cyclists are allowed to use pedestrian crossings while on the bike, they do not have to be on foot….I think that enforcing rules of the road regarding cycling to motorists, would reduce the fatalities.
Unfortunately, there will always be dumbasses that will break red lights, cycle on footpaths, wrong way down one way streets etc, just as there will always be drivers that speed, drive drunk, use cell phones etc.

I cannot tell you the amount of times, when I am coming off a roundabout and decide, because of the poor layout of debris strewn cycling path, that I will cycle on the road, the drivers that beep and try to force me off the road, I have had drivers actually stop half a dozen times, telling me the 'rules of the road', I should be on the cycle path-no, buddy, I don't have to be on the cycle path…..the whole system needs an overhaul, but yes, drivers that don't use indicators and cyclists lack of hand signals is another pet peeve. Testing should be mandatory for anyone over 15 riding a bicycle….

darkpagandeath

Theory test.

Can a car break the laws of physics and stop instantly ?

Answer.

Is a cars mass lower than that of a bike ?

Answer.

Clearlier

RainyDay wrote: »

I'm not sure I get the 'similar speed' thing, given the ability of many motorists to spot law-breaking cyclists while being largely blind to law-breaking motorists. Maybe it is more to do with your last point, that most drivers are not cyclists, and feel it is OK to attack another group of people, simply because they choose a different mode of transport on a particular day?

I drove in this morning and came across 6 cyclists. I encountered maybe at most a dozen cars travelling the same direction. As it happens nobody did anything too stupid this morning . The last time that I cycled in to work I came across one other cyclist. I expect that there were other cyclists that I would have come across if I had been driving but because there's not a huge difference in the speed at which I cycle compared to others I didn't see any. OTOH I probably encountered well over 100 cars during my journey.

My point was simply that when I cycle I see a lot more motorists than I do when I drive and the law of averages says that I'm much more likely to see an idiotic manoeuvre from a motorist when I encounter 100+ than when I encounter a dozen or so and vice versa with cyclists. People who cycle and drive will have some insight into this. People who drive may not.

KilOit

Love when cyclists take up the whole road when driving through the Wicklow mountains, not moving over to the side and insist on cycling in pairs so they can chat.
Nothing but a nuiscance up on the hills! Tour de France wannabes :pac:

jimgoose

I saw a chap on a bicycle this morning using a pair of motorcycle-style bar-end mirrors. Fantastic idea, and about sodding time! :cool:

rubadub

222233 wrote: »

Insurance for cyclists is not needed????

Correct, the majority of the worlds governments have decided that it's not needed, doesn't take a genius to figure out why.

222233 wrote: »

So its okay for them to scrape the side of my car and cycle off

Nope, just like its not okay for pedestrians to do the same. I have seen people scrapping buggies off illegally parked cars. People do it in supermarket car parks all the time too with trolleys, probably moreso than cyclists. Maybe we should have shop trolley insurance and theory tests of the use of them. And pedestrian insurance.

Grandpa Hassan

222233 wrote: »

So its okay for them to scrape the side of my car and cycle off?

Seriously, how many times that this happened to you?

grundie

Give every cyclist an ID card, load it with 5 'strikes'. No need for a test, just simply provide a photo, pay a small fee, acknowledge that you have read and understand the rules of the road for cyclists and the ID card is yours.

Every time a cyclist breaks a rule and a Garda sees it. the Garda takes away a strike (more if a serious violation). Once they lose all their strikes then they can't cycle on the road anymore. Just like losing a car licence for dangerous driving.

Lyaiera

grundie wrote: »

Give every cyclist an ID card, load it with 5 'strikes'. No need for a test, just simply provide a photo, pay a small fee, acknowledge that you have read and understand the rules of the road for cyclists and the ID card is yours.

Every time a cyclist breaks a rule and a Garda sees it. the Garda takes away a strike (more if a serious violation). Once they lose all their strikes then they can't cycle on the road anymore. Just like losing a car licence for dangerous driving.

The problem with that is you'd legitimise cyclists. Then they'd start expecting other road users to treat them with respect. Cheeky cyclists.