Cyclists should do a theory test!

Grandpa Hassan

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.

And we're back to licencing again. This thread is going round in ever decreasing circles.

Here's a good link to real life example of why licencing does not work and is not cost effective. In a city, incidentally, which would be able to administer it a lot more effectively than we could!

http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=0be4970aa08c1410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD


The City of Toronto has investigated licensing cyclists on at least three occasions in the recent past:

• 1984: focus on bike theft
• 1992: focus on riding on sidewalks, traffic law compliance and couriers
• 1996: focus on riding on sidewalks, traffic law compliance and couriers

Licensing in the nineties has been most often discussed in response to concerns for pedestrian safety on sidewalks, where incidents of collisions, near misses, and a lack of courtesy have made many pedestrians, including seniors feel insecure.
Each time the City has rejected licensing as a solution to the problem under discussion.
The major reasons why licensing has been rejected are:

• The difficulty in keeping a database complete and current
• The difficulty in licensing children, given that they ride bikes too
• Licensing in and of itself does not change the behaviour of cyclists who are disobeying traffic laws.

grundie

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

And we're back to licencing again. This thread is going round in ever decreasing circles.

Here's a good link to real life example of why licencing does not work and is not cost effective. In a city, incidentally, which would be able to administer it a lot more effectively than we could!

http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=0be4970aa08c1410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD


The City of Toronto has investigated licensing cyclists on at least three occasions in the recent past:

• 1984: focus on bike theft
• 1992: focus on riding on sidewalks, traffic law compliance and couriers
• 1996: focus on riding on sidewalks, traffic law compliance and couriers

Licensing in the nineties has been most often discussed in response to concerns for pedestrian safety on sidewalks, where incidents of collisions, near misses, and a lack of courtesy have made many pedestrians, including seniors feel insecure.
Each time the City has rejected licensing as a solution to the problem under discussion.
The major reasons why licensing has been rejected are:

• The difficulty in keeping a database complete and current
• The difficulty in licensing children, given that they ride bikes too
• Licensing in and of itself does not change the behaviour of cyclists who are disobeying traffic laws.

I'm not advocating licensing. I'm advocating a system whereby the Guards can quickly and easily take action against bad cyclists.

Assume all adult cyclists can be trusted to begin with and give them a "Permit to Cycle" with five lives. If they do wrong simply take away a life or two. Leave children as the responsibility of their parents.

The database issues are a red herring. The RSA has no issues managing a database for car drivers licences.

The reason why bad cyclists behaviour doesn't change is because they know that they have little to fear. It is too hard/time consuming for the Garda to enforce, if the Guards had an easy way to punish violators then things might change.

Clearlier

grundie wrote: »

I'm not advocating licensing. I'm advocating a system whereby the Guards can quickly and easily take action against bad cyclists.

Assume all adult cyclists can be trusted to begin with and give them a "Permit to Cycle" with five lives. If they do wrong simply take away a life or two. Leave children as the responsibility of their parents.

The database issues are a red herring. The RSA has no issues managing a database for car drivers licences.

The reason why bad cyclists behaviour doesn't change is because they know that they have little to fear. It is too hard/time consuming for the Garda to enforce, if the Guards had an easy way to punish violators then things might change.

What's the reason for bad motoring behaviour? That's a bit of a leading question so I'll flesh it out a little. Some cyclists are badly behaved, some motorists are badly behaved. Why would you think that imposing rules on cyclists that are imposed on motorists would make any difference? It's important because there's no point incurring a cost if there's no benefit. Some people are just idiots, it doesn't really matter whether they're walking, cycling or driving.

Grandpa Hassan

grundie wrote: »

I'm not advocating licensing. I'm advocating a system whereby the Guards can quickly and easily take action against bad cyclists.

Assume all adult cyclists can be trusted to begin with and give them a "Permit to Cycle" with five lives. If they do wrong simply take away a life or two. Leave children as the responsibility of their parents.

The database issues are a red herring. The RSA has no issues managing a database for car drivers licences.

The reason why bad cyclists behaviour doesn't change is because they know that they have little to fear. It is too hard/time consuming for the Garda to enforce, if the Guards had an easy way to punish violators then things might change.

Sounds pretty much like a licence to me. The Guards already can pull over and fine cyclists on the spot. Unless your 'permit to cycle' is a formal licence, it provides nothing more than we already have. And what about Dublin bikes, which is only expanding further. They just dont have the appetite to enforce. Same as they cant be bothered to pull over cars that run the red.

There does not need to be any legislative change. There just needs to be an appetite for enforcement.

And a database would be impossible. There are more bikes than cars in the country which change hands more often and, more often than not, are shared. Just look at every rusty hybrid in every college campus in the country. Every bike that is pulled out of a shed for a summer ride. Would be completely inefficient and unworkable.

The problem is that advocates of licenes, or your 'permit to ride' idea focussed just on the lycra clad commuter or courier, forgetting that they are a minority of cyclists.

grundie

Clearlier wrote: »

What's the reason for bad motoring behaviour?

Some people just don't care, or have their own interpretation of the rules.

That being said... Based on my own experiences I'd say far fewer car drivers break rules than cyclists. That is because they know that due to active enforcement of the rules they could suffer the consequences, which at best will inconvenience them and at worst land them in jail.

I cycle to work a few times each week and most (yes, most) cyclists I encounter seem to think that red lights are for someone else. On a few occasions I've been shouted at for stopping at a red light and holding up cyclists behind me. Car drivers for the most part would never ignore a red because, consequences.

The only way to force cyclists to obey the rules of the road is to make it easy for the authorities to take action against violators. There has to be consequences for rule breakers. The alternative is build a proper grade separated cycle network like those in Denmark or the Netherlands, but that's not likely.

kylith

Good point about the Dublin Bikes. They would either have to completely scrap the scheme, costing thousands to dispose of the bikes and lost revenue, not to mention the negative publicity regarding the scrapping of one of the most successful bike schemes in Europe, or every tourist would have to be given a cycling proficiency test and licenced when they land in Dublin just in case they decide to hire a bike during their stay.

grundie

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Sounds pretty much like a licence to me. The Guards already can pull over and fine cyclists on the spot. Unless your 'permit to cycle' is a formal licence, it provides nothing more than we already have. And what about Dublin bikes, which is only expanding further. They just dont have the appetite to enforce. Same as they cant be bothered to pull over cars that run the red.

There does not need to be any legislative change. There just needs to be an appetite for enforcement.

And a database would be impossible. There are more bikes than cars in the country which change hands more often and, more often than not, are shared. Just look at every rusty hybrid in every college campus in the country. Every bike that is pulled out of a shed for a summer ride. Would be completely inefficient and unworkable.

The problem is that advocates of licenes, or your 'permit to ride' idea focussed just on the lycra clad commuter or courier, forgetting that they are a minority of cyclists.

I'm talking about a permit for the cyclist not the bike. A simple system that says "We trust you, but if you mess about then no more cycling for you". Guards can issue all fines they want to a cyclist but short of a special court order there is no way to stop someone from riding a bike at all due to consistent rule violations.

Make getting the permit a rite of passage thing. Prepare teenagers for it, make it as significant as getting a car licence.

Grandpa Hassan

grundie wrote: »

I'm talking about a permit for the cyclist not the bike. A simple system that says "We trust you, but if you mess about then no more cycling for you". Guards can issue all fines they want to a cyclist but short of a special court order there is no way to stop someone from riding a bike at all due to consistent rule violations.

Make getting the permit a rite of passage thing. Prepare teenagers for it, make it as significant as getting a car licence.

I suspect that everyone would just 'forget' to carry it, and then you are back to square one

RainyDay

grundie wrote: »

That being said... Based on my own experiences I'd say far fewer car drivers break rules than cyclists. That is because they know that due to active enforcement of the rules they could suffer the consequences, which at best will inconvenience them and at worst land them in jail.

Really? Active enforcement? Are you living on another planet?

Look around you and see almost every car driver in the city routinely breaking the speed limit on the journey. Look at what % of car drivers are using their phone. Look at what percentage fail to indicate, or drive with a broken brake light.

Having said all that, could you please be specific as to what benefit or outcome you expect to arise from this licensing system - is it going to save lives, or reduce injury rates, or what? And please consider the 'opportunity cost' as part of this analysis - what will be the impact of diverting Garda time to give out 'strikes' from the road user group that kills 200+ people each year and maims thousands of others.

ArmaniJeanss

grundie wrote: »

I'm talking about a permit for the cyclist not the bike. A simple system that says "We trust you, but if you mess about then no more cycling for you". Guards can issue all fines they want to a cyclist but short of a special court order there is no way to stop someone from riding a bike at all due to consistent rule violations.

Make getting the permit a rite of passage thing. Prepare teenagers for it, make it as significant as getting a car licence.

All those foreign cycling tourists we are trying to attract to the greenways we are building, do we just tell them to fcuk off now?
Or is your license permit plan an EU/Worldwide idea?

REXER

Training of cyclists should start early with school children so that they are not at so much risk on the roads.

Here,s a great idea from the 3rd world that works very well and has for a long time since being set up in 1961.

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.737340529650528.1073741831.232876996763553&type=3

All junior school children at 10, 11, 12 years old used to spend a day at this traffic training centre learning the rules of the road and then getting out on the road in the complex on bicycles under supervision to show that they were safe in traffic.

This was always considered a great day out of school!

As for licencing, there was an annual nominal cycle tax that needed to be paid, for which you got a numbered token/disc that was then attached to you bike. This numbered token linked your bike make, model and frame number to your name and was regularly checked by the police on the roads as well as at the school cycle sheds etc.

I have a very good collection of these licences dating back to the 1920/30 that included 3 wheelers and carts as well.

Jawgap

REXER wrote: »

Training of cyclists should start early with school children so that they are not at so much risk on the roads.

Here,s a great idea from the 3rd world that works very well and has for a long time since being set up in 1961.

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.737340529650528.1073741831.232876996763553&type=3

All junior school children at 10, 11, 12 years old used to spend a day at this traffic training centre learning the rules of the road and then getting out on the road in the complex on bicycles under supervision to show that they were safe in traffic.

This was always considered a great day out of school!

As for licencing, there was an annual nominal cycle tax that needed to be paid, for which you got a numbered token/disc that was then attached to you bike. This numbered token linked your bike make, model and frame number to your name and was regularly checked by the police on the roads as well as at the school cycle sheds etc.

I have a very good collection of these licences dating back to the 1920/30 that included 3 wheelers and carts as well.

Where's the evidence cyclists are at risk on the roads?

jimgoose

Jawgap wrote: »

Where's the evidence cyclists are at risk on the roads?

Haven't there been five cyclists killed in London so far this year?

Jawgap

jimgoose wrote: »

Haven't there been five cyclists killed in London so far this year?

How many pedestrians and drivers were killed in the same period?

What was the total no. of km cycled in London during the period in comparison to other modes of road use?

Oh, and Ireland isn't London - I dare say more than 5 were killed in Beijing during the same period

jimgoose

Jawgap wrote: »

How many pedestrians and drivers were killed in the same period?

What was the total no. of km cycled in London during the period in comparison to other modes of road use?

Oh, and Ireland isn't London - I dare say more than 5 were killed in Beijing during the same period

Couldn't tell you chief. That just sounded pretty risky to me.

222233

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Seriously, how many times that this happened to you?

One time and it was in my new car so ya I was pretty p*****! Still waiting to hear back from Gardai as there are cameras, but sadly as bikes don't have regs can't be easily traced.

Jawgap

jimgoose wrote: »

Couldn't tell you chief. That just sounded pretty risky to me.

From the GLA.....

More pedestrians are killed or seriously injured on London’s streets than any other road user group. Sixty-nine pedestrians were killed and another 1,054 seriously injured in London in 2012 – an average of three people a day. There were 14 cycling fatalities.

Walking??? Feck that....:)

jimgoose

Jawgap wrote: »

...Walking??? Feck that....:)

I couldn't agree more!

RainyDay

REXER wrote: »

Training of cyclists should start early with school children so that they are not at so much risk on the roads.

Here,s a great idea from the 3rd world that works very well and has for a long time since being set up in 1961.

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.737340529650528.1073741831.232876996763553&type=3

All junior school children at 10, 11, 12 years old used to spend a day at this traffic training centre learning the rules of the road and then getting out on the road in the complex on bicycles under supervision to show that they were safe in traffic.

This was always considered a great day out of school!

Do you mean something like the training options mentioned in this earlier post in this thread?

REXER wrote: »

As for licencing, there was an annual nominal cycle tax that needed to be paid, for which you got a numbered token/disc that was then attached to you bike. This numbered token linked your bike make, model and frame number to your name and was regularly checked by the police on the roads as well as at the school cycle sheds etc.

I have a very good collection of these licences dating back to the 1920/30 that included 3 wheelers and carts as well.

Any pics?

folamh

Bikes are just faster versions of pedestrians.

Jawgap

folamh wrote: »

Bikes are just faster versions of pedestrians.

Probably explains why they're more difficult to hit:D

jimgoose

Jawgap wrote: »

Probably explains why they're more difficult to hit:D

In London they're finding trucks and buses quite useful for this.

ThisRegard

Bleedin pedestrians, should be made do a theory test

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

Jawgap

jimgoose wrote: »

In London they're finding trucks and buses quite useful for this.

Well the it seems like it's the truck and bus drivers who need the training not the cyclists.

Anyway, hopefully we'll see some sanity prevail here and they'll go with the idea of allowing cyclists to turn left on red.

Oh, and btw, there's loads of evidence out there to show it's the law abiding cyclists getting ploughed - following certain laws can leave you in a very dangerous position especially in relation to HGVs - experience teaches you which laws can be sidestepped and when.

REXER

RainyDay wrote: »

Do you mean something like the training options mentioned in this earlier post in this thread?


Any pics?

I will have to dig out the discs and do a few pics!

A requirement to have a numbered metal disc attached to a bike will mean that the owner is now identifiable so can be pursued for any outstanding traffic violation that a Garda has made a record of!

SeanW

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

I suspect that everyone would just 'forget' to carry it, and then you are back to square one

Simple. Break law, no id? Bike seized.

Jawgap

SeanW wrote: »

Simple. Break law, no id? Bike seized.

The Guards already have those powers. If you can't prove who you are they can seize the bike, but they're not obliged to.

RainyDay

SeanW wrote: »

Simple. Break law, no id? Bike seized.

And same for cars, right? Every driver who breaks a red light should be stopped and forced to show ID - and if no ID then the car gets siezed. I hope they have big pounds for storage there.

Grandpa Hassan

SeanW wrote: »

Simple. Break law, no id? Bike seized.

So the same as now then

namloc1980

ThisRegard wrote: »

Bleedin pedestrians, should be made do a theory test

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

None of the road users look good there. Drivers stopping in a yellow box, motor cyclist overtaking cars already stopped in a yellow box and pedestrian crossing without looking...... theory tests for all!!

SeanW

RainyDay wrote: »

And same for cars, right? Every driver who breaks a red light should be stopped and forced to show ID - and if no ID then the car gets siezed. I hope they have big pounds for storage there.

Absolutely. For three reasons:

1. If a motorist drives the way the average cyclist cycles, then they deserve to have the car taken off them and be brought to court for dangerous driving (ignoring lane directions, driving on footpaths, plowing through red signals mid-cycle) whether they have a drivers license or not.
2. Motorists can have laws enforced against them by their car license plates. Caught speeding? Most likely by an automatic camera. There is no need for a motorist to be stopped, unless they're behaving like muppets (see point 1) ... in which case they must be stopped for the immediate safety of surrounding road users.
3. With the credit card sized drivers licenses, there is no real reason for not carrying it.

RainyDay

1. If a motorist drives the way the average cyclist cycles, then they deserve to have the car taken off them and be brought to court for dangerous driving (ignoring lane directions, driving on footpaths, plowing through red signals mid-cycle) whether they have a drivers license or not.

How about the motorist who drives like the way the average motorist drives? The one who breaks the speed limit on every journey, uses their phone a few times a day, for those important calls and tweets, fails to indicate on a regular basis, and scares the crap out of those cyclists and pedestrians that have the misfortune to be in front of them on the road - Will all of those lose their cars too?

SeanW wrote: »

1. Motorists can have laws enforced against them by their car license plates. Caught speeding? Most likely by an automatic camera. There is no need for a motorist to be stopped, unless they're behaving like muppets (see point 1) ... in which case they must be stopped for the immediate safety of surrounding road users.

You are absolutely correct in theory. In practice, as shown repeatedly by the videos above, most motorists break traffic laws every day on every journey - speeding, breaking red lights and more. The excuse given for breaking red lights on this thread was that drivers couldn't stop because the guy behind them was planning on breaking the red light too.

You must have noticed that the current licensing/tax/insurance system does nothing to ensure a decent standard of driving on the road, but you choose to ignore this.

up for anything

The cyclist who broke a red light today came within an inch of being killed by me. Thanks to him for the shakes I'm still experiencing. Bastard.

silverfeather

up for anything wrote: »

The cyclist who broke a red light today came within an inch of being killed by me. Thanks to him for the shakes I'm still experiencing. Bastard.

It's the shock that is most unpleasant, obviously if no one is injured.

This country's roads are dire. We need a proper system like the Dutch or something.

Tony Beetroot

silverfeather wrote: »

This country's roads are dire. We need a proper system like the Dutch or something.

Ban cars and runners.

up for anything

silverfeather wrote: »

This country's roads are dire. We need a proper system like the Dutch or something.

A proper road system is not going to cure cyclists of breaking the rules of the road which they do constantly.

qwerty1991

I know a few cyclists who say that they are just as entitled to use the road as drivers in cars so if a car gets stuck behind them, tough, it's their right to use it.

I think yep fair enough they should be allowed but then should cyclists not have to incur the same costs as a driver, eg insurance, tax etc. (Obviously less than a car, a bike is a much smaller vehicle.) I don't understand how if cyclists are using the same service as a car, then why don't they have to pay the costs and suffer the penalties as car drivers. I have never heard a cyclists saying that. They just say they are entitled to use the road and twice I mentioned about paying tax, insurance, having a penalty point system they were appalled and said but they don't have a car and its better for the environment to cycle so they should be entitled to use the road without any of that.

And I know that a lot of drivers commit traffic infractions but in Dublin city centre I see cyclists doing it 99% of the time. They see you crossing the road at the green man and continue cycling nearly hitting you, there is a plague of cyclists using footpaths making everyone move out of there way, cycling the wrong way down a one way street, the amount I have seen on their phones... Yet I never see a garda around to stop them. I would love a Garza standing at the junction around Capel street/ Grattan bridge.... It is awful there!

tritium

up for anything wrote: »

A proper road system is not going to cure motorists and cyclists of breaking the rules of the road which they do constantly.

Fyp

Grandpa Hassan

qwerty1991 wrote: »

And I know that a lot of drivers commit traffic infractions but in Dublin city centre I see cyclists doing it 99% of the time. They see you crossing the road at the green man and continue cycling nearly hitting you, there is a plague of cyclists using footpaths making everyone move out of there way, cycling the wrong way down a one way street, the amount I have seen on their phones... Yet I never see a garda around to stop them. I would love a Garza standing at the junction around Capel street/ Grattan bridge.... It is awful there!

Exagerrate much?

tritium

qwerty1991 wrote: »

I know a few cyclists who say that they are just as entitled to use the road as drivers in cars so if a car gets stuck behind them, tough, it's their right to use it.

They're technically in the right. Its also often safer to take the lane rather than ride in the gutter just to not inconvenience someone who will have a clear passing opportunity in the next five minutes anyway....

I think yep fair enough they should be allowed but then should cyclists not have to incur the same costs as a driver, eg insurance, tax etc. (Obviously less than a car, a bike is a much smaller vehicle.) I don't understand how if cyclists are using the same service as a car, then why don't they have to pay the costs and suffer the penalties as car drivers. I have never heard a cyclists saying that. They just say they are entitled to use the road and twice I mentioned about paying tax, insurance, having a penalty point system they were appalled and said but they don't have a car and its better for the environment to cycle so they should be entitled to use the road without any of that.

Roads are paid for from general taxation so cyclists have already paid for them. The other charges you mention are car specific for a reason usually....

And I know that a lot of drivers commit traffic infractions but in Dublin city centre I see cyclists doing it 99% of the time. They see you crossing the road at the green man and continue cycling nearly hitting you, there is a plague of cyclists using footpaths making everyone move out of there way, cycling the wrong way down a one way street, the amount I have seen on their phones... Yet I never see a garda around to stop them. I would love a Garza standing at the junction around Capel street/ Grattan bridge.... It is awful there!

You do know its not technically illegal to use a phone while cycling. Stupid yes, illegal no.....

While driving a car however is another matter, would indeed be nice if the guards started enforcing that

Amazed, as a driver, cyclist and pedestrian how many posters want a more severe application of the law for cyclists than motorists in their tonne + of potentially lethal metal. While some cyclists do indeed break the law, honestly, how many of the drivers here can say they've never crept above the speed limit, used their phone while driving or parked illegally. Maybe they should consider the glass house they're in and put down the stones.....

qwerty1991

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Exagerrate much?

I am not exaggerating, honestly.And I'm not against cyclists at all, I think the government should invest more money into cycle lanes etc. as it is a great form of transport, especially with the right infrastructure.

But I do have serious issues with cyclists breaking traffic laws. Yes other other users do it too, but in my personal experience it is cyclists that are the ones that nearly injure me. For example, the odd time I have seen cars break the lights is just as they turn red, following on the other cars before anyone has even started crossing the road. (Yes it is totally wrong and i am not trying to justify it) Whereas in my experience cyclists will go straight through a red when all vehicles are stationary and there are people crossing the road which is far more dangerous imo.

I do think there should be a little test, over half the time cyclists are very good using hand signals etc but if you are using a vehicle on the road/ footpath then you are capable of seriously injuring someone. So I think a little test or something is needed. If a pedestrian walks into you, its not going to hurt you whereas if a cyclist cycles into you, its very dangerous depending on the speed.

RainyDay

qwerty1991 wrote: »

I know a few cyclists who say that they are just as entitled to use the road as drivers in cars so if a car gets stuck behind them, tough, it's their right to use it.

They are entitled to use it, like any other road user. Just like the cars that hold me up every day on my cycle commute are entitled to use the road, and if I get stuck behind a car, tough, it’s their right to use it.

qwerty1991 wrote: »

I think yep fair enough they should be allowed but then should cyclists not have to incur the same costs as a driver, eg insurance, tax etc. (Obviously less than a car, a bike is a much smaller vehicle.) I don't understand how if cyclists are using the same service as a car, then why don't they have to pay the costs and suffer the penalties as car drivers. I have never heard a cyclists saying that. They just say they are entitled to use the road and twice I mentioned about paying tax, insurance, having a penalty point system they were appalled and said but they don't have a car and its better for the environment to cycle so they should be entitled to use the road without any of that.

Why on earth would you expect somebody using a completely different mode of transport to ‘incur the same costs’? Are you suggesting that air travel should now cost the same as ferry travel? Or that train travel should cost the same as cycling out of some bizarre sense of ‘equality’? It sounds like you just want to punish cyclists, which will of course, lead to more and more traffic jams, as cyclists would just get back into their cars instead.
The reason that cyclists don’t pay insurance is because they don’t kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others. The reason that cyclists don’t pay motor tax is because they don’t emit carbon. And they don’t wear down the road and cause potholes.

qwerty1991 wrote: »

And I know that a lot of drivers commit traffic infractions but in Dublin city centre I see cyclists doing it 99% of the time. They see you crossing the road at the green man and continue cycling nearly hitting you, there is a plague of cyclists using footpaths making everyone move out of there way, cycling the wrong way down a one way street, the amount I have seen on their phones... Yet I never see a garda around to stop them. I would love a Garza standing at the junction around Capel street/ Grattan bridge.... It is awful there!

99%? Really? Just curious – on what percentage of your car journeys do you break the speed limit? Maybe something like 99%? And at what percentage of light changes in Dublin do you see 1 or 2 or 3 cars skiting through on a red light – maybe something like 99%?
If you’re not seeing 99% of drivers breaking the law, you are a very unobservant driver.

qwerty1991 wrote: »

I am not exaggerating, honestly.

Yes. Yes you are.

qwerty1991 wrote: »

And I'm not against cyclists at all,

Yes. Yes you are.

qwerty1991 wrote: »

But I do have serious issues with cyclists breaking traffic laws. Yes other other users do it too, but in my personal experience it is cyclists that are the ones that nearly injure me.

Your personal experience would seem to be very different from the road traffic statistics, which show that motorists kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others, while cyclists kill zero people each year.

qwerty1991 wrote: »

For example, the odd time I have seen cars break the lights is just as they turn red, following on the other cars before anyone has even started crossing the road. (Yes it is totally wrong and i am not trying to justify it) Whereas in my experience cyclists will go straight through a red when all vehicles are stationary and there are people crossing the road which is far more dangerous imo.

The odd time? Who are you trying to kid. It happens at every junction in Dublin at almost every change of lights that 1 or 2 or 3 drivers go through on red. If you’re not seeing this, you are either not very observant, or you’ve just become immune to it as it happens all the time.
But yes, you’re right to say that cyclists often break lights in a different way that cars break lights. But where is the huge danger to others here? Is there a pile of pedestrians being killed or maimed by cyclists? No – the road traffic injury statistics tell us this. And is there a huge number of cyclists risking their own lives? No – I can’t recall a single incident of a cyclist being killed as a result of breaking the lights.
So yes, it is a pain in the ass when cyclists do this, but the overall risk is minimal. Cyclists don’t kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others.

qwerty1991 wrote: »

I do think there should be a little test, over half the time cyclists are very good using hand signals etc but if you are using a vehicle on the road/ footpath then you are capable of seriously injuring someone. So I think a little test or something is needed. If a pedestrian walks into you, its not going to hurt you whereas if a cyclist cycles into you, its very dangerous depending on the speed.

We have a great system for testing drivers. And yet still, we see drivers breaking lights, speeding, on their phones all the time. ‘A little test’ will do little or nothing to improve cycling standards on the road.

grundie

RainyDay wrote: »

Really? Active enforcement? Are you living on another planet?

Look around you and see almost every car driver in the city routinely breaking the speed limit on the journey. Look at what % of car drivers are using their phone. Look at what percentage fail to indicate, or drive with a broken brake light.

Having said all that, could you please be specific as to what benefit or outcome you expect to arise from this licensing system - is it going to save lives, or reduce injury rates, or what? And please consider the 'opportunity cost' as part of this analysis - what will be the impact of diverting Garda time to give out 'strikes' from the road user group that kills 200+ people each year and maims thousands of others.

Sure, a lot of car drivers break the rules, but you are making a fallacious comparison. You are more likely to be caught breaking the rules of the road in a car than on a bike because cars can do more damage. Cyclists are more of a danger to themselves when they break the rules.

But, we are seeing a surge in the numbers of cyclists on the road, but little investment in proper cycling infrastructure. As more cyclists mingle with cars in a congested city there are going to more crashes, collisions and road-rage incidents. If the cyclist is at fault then the Guards should be able to issue the cycling equivalent of points. Cyclists have as much of an obligation to abide by the rules of the road as car drivers. I would envisage permit system having benefits that would include taking persistent rule breaking cyclists off the road, reminding cyclists that riding on public roads is not an absolute right and calming down drivers who think that cyclists can face no consequences for rule breaking.

Sure, it wouldn't be a perfect system. But the current road rule enforcement system just isn't designed to deal with the increasing numbers of cyclists we are seeing.

qwerty1991

Rainy Day I am not going to quote what you have written as the post would be too long but you are simply taking what you want from what I have said and ignoring the points I made. I never said cyclists and motorists should pay the same tax, I specifically said it should be less and I never said cyclists should pay tax for emissions?!

RainyDay wrote: »

But yes, you’re right to say that cyclists often break lights in a different way that cars break lights. But where is the huge danger to others here? Is there a pile of pedestrians being killed or maimed by cyclists? No – the road traffic injury statistics tell us this. And is there a huge number of cyclists risking their own lives? No – I can’t recall a single incident of a cyclist being killed as a result of breaking the lights.
So yes, it is a pain in the ass when cyclists do this, but the overall risk is minimal. Cyclists don’t kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others.

Also you seem to be stating that motorists are worse as they have all the statistics for killing/ injuring so therefore it is not as bad when cyclists break the rules?! The law is the law. The risk may be smaller but I still think cyclists should be penalized with a system akin to other road users (ie cars, trucks etc).

And just one last point. You have just assumed I am a driver and also stated that I am a very unobservant one. I actually don't drive at all. I walk everywhere. I have never ever nearly been injured or hit by a car but everyday at least once I have had to stop in the middle of the road whilst crossing as a cyclist has decided to cut through the lights.. I can either continue walking to make a point and be hit or just allow them to break the law and go through. Or else I have turned the corner of a footpath and met a cyclist coming around nearly hitting me. Or I have gone to cross a one way street thinking it is clear only to have a cyclist come along going in the wrong direction.

So that is where I get my 99% from. And that is why i think there should be mandatory training fro cyclists and a quasi penalty point system.

SeanW

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Exagerrate much?

No. Have you ever been a pedestrian in any of Ireland's main cities?

RainyDay wrote: »

How about the motorist who drives like the way the average motorist drives? The one who breaks the speed limit on every journey, uses their phone a few times a day, for those important calls and tweets, fails to indicate on a regular basis, and scares the crap out of those cyclists and pedestrians that have the misfortune to be in front of them on the road - Will all of those lose their cars too?

If a motorist speeds through a red light while simultaneously tweeting about their dry cleaning and menacing those road users with the right of way, then yes.

Complaining about motorist breaking (often arbitrary) speed limits while being part of a group that disregards other laws wholesale, is a bit rich, you must admit.

You must have noticed that the current licensing/tax/insurance system does nothing to ensure a decent standard of driving on the road, but you choose to ignore this.

I notice that when I am crossing a street, I don't have to worry about Red Light Jumping motorists. I noticed that the two times that I've been nearly flattened crossing roads on green-man lights, both were because of law-breaking cyclists.

Fuzzytrooper

There's one particular junction I pass twice a day up by Phibsborough in Dublin. I see motorists breaking the lights and driving through a green man every single day. I try to respect the rules of the road, lights etc when driving AND cycling but have seen as many violations of the rules by both - not indicating or checking are you clear before turning, breaking lights etc. If motorists are doing this with a theory and practical test, not sure what a theory test would do to help cyclists.

Niemoj

Agreed.

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime

When I'm trying to cross the road walking through town and i cross on the green man, i just start walking in a straight line,

If a road user is still traveling through the green man then I'll be sure to walk straight into them causing them to slam on and have their own accident or in the case of a cyclist hopefully they will fall and hurt themselves, and if I'm injured as a result of their ignorance then I'll be sure to get the gardai involved and legal action taken.

This is the same method for any road user

If anyone is going to be that ignorant to me trying to cross the road then I'll do the same back BUT if you treat it with respect then I'll treat them with respect back

The Dark Side

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

, and if I'm injured as a result of their ignorance then I'll be sure to get the gardai involved and legal action taken.

And if you're killed you can always come back and haunt them.

check_six

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

When I'm trying to cross the road walking through town and i cross on the green man, i just start walking in a straight line,

Just a word of caution for other readers, please make sure the junction is clear before crossing. Some vehicles may be waiting to complete a turn or still exiting the junction. Even the size of the junction can be an issue. The pedestrian crossing lights outside Holles St Hospital in Dublin are fully 50m from the red lights coming from Merrion Square. A vehicle using this road may have entered the junction on green and have it turn red for a number of seconds before passing through the pedestrian crossing section. A car or bike at 30kph will take 6 seconds to cross this junction.