Cyclists should do a theory test!

RainyDay

grundie wrote: »

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.

There is nothing fallacious about the comparison. I didn’t mention anything about the numbers who are caught. I mentioned the numbers of those who break the law. Look around you and see every driver breaking the speed limit on every journey – this is the group of road users who kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others. And you want to focus regulatory and enforcement attention on the group of road users who don’t kill anybody?

grundie wrote: »

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.

Two points here – first of all, be careful what you wish for. Yes, we are seeing a surge in cycling numbers. If you create a bureaucratic system that deters cycling, lots of those cyclists will get back into their cars. If you thing congestion/crashes/collisions are bad now, wait until all those extra cars are on the road.
Secondly, there is a current system that allows the Gardai to prosecute cyclists at fault. It’s a bit of a cumbersome system, but it exists. And you want to focus the attention of regulators, legislators and enforcers on creating a whole new system, that will have the same amount of enforcement resources as the current one (very little). There will be a whole new system, and no enforcement as usual.

grundie wrote: »

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.

Thanks for clarifying the ‘benefits’. I note the benefits do not include a reduction in the death or injury toll on the roads, or reduced cost. You might also try to clarify the opportunity cost – by focusing on the cyclists who aren’t killing anyone, how many more deaths and injuries will be caused by the motorists who do kill quite a few.

qwerty1991 wrote: »

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?!

Cyclists pay tax. They pay income tax on their salaries, which are on average, higher than motorists salaries based on research in other countries. They pay VAT on their bike purchase, bike accessories and bike repairs, along with their other purchases. They pay customs duties, and CAT and all the other taxes too.

qwerty1991 wrote: »

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).

Indeed, the law is the law. And most people on the roads break the law every day – most drivers, most cyclists and most pedestrians. And yes, I am stating that motorists are worse given that they kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others. And I’m amazed at those who want to focus attention on cyclists who don’t kill anyone, while justifying and ignoring the death toll caused by motorists. Cyclists can indeed be penalised with system akin to other road users and are subject to Garda prosecution for cycling offences.
So I’ll ask the question again – what benefit would arise from a theory test or penalty point system for cyclists? How will this improve quality of life?

qwerty1991 wrote: »

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.

I apologise for my assumption that you were a driver. I stand by my assumption that are very unobservant, if you mainly see cyclists breaking traffic law and not motorists. I note your interesting personal experiences – but I really don’t think that personal experiences are a sound basis for future policy making. The road traffic statistics show clearly where the danger is on the roads – it is from the motorists that kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others.
For the record, yes, I’ve seen cyclists pushing through pedestrian crossings when the green light is on. If the timing is right, I stick my shoulder out and catch them as they go through. Yes, I’ve seen cyclists on the pavements, who occasionally make me feel nervious. I’ve done the shoulder trick or put out my arms and hooshed them onto the path. It gets up my nose when I see cyclists doing this stuff. But it doesn’t kill anybody, unlike the dangers caused by motorists that you are choosing to ignore.

qwerty1991 wrote: »

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.

So once again – what benefit will arise from this system? And what will be the opportunity cost of focusing on cyclists while ignoring the death toll?

SeanW wrote: »

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.

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.

Now it’s getting interesting – so it’s actually OK for motorists to break red lights with their ton of metal, once they aren’t speeding and tweeting at the same time. But those damn cyclists with their 10kg bikes – they’re the really dangerous ones? And you say I’m ‘a bit rich’?
Perhaps you’d like to explain the difference between your personal experiences with those dangerous cyclists, and the national road traffic statistics, which show that cyclists don’t kill or flatten anyone, but motorists kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others? There wouldn’t be an ever-so-slight touch of bias showing through there Sean, by any chance?

grundie

RainyDay wrote: »

There is nothing fallacious about the comparison. I didn’t mention anything about the numbers who are caught. I mentioned the numbers of those who break the law. Look around you and see every driver breaking the speed limit on every journey – this is the group of road users who kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others. And you want to focus regulatory and enforcement attention on the group of road users who don’t kill anybody?

Two points here – first of all, be careful what you wish for. Yes, we are seeing a surge in cycling numbers. If you create a bureaucratic system that deters cycling, lots of those cyclists will get back into their cars. If you thing congestion/crashes/collisions are bad now, wait until all those extra cars are on the road.
Secondly, there is a current system that allows the Gardai to prosecute cyclists at fault. It’s a bit of a cumbersome system, but it exists. And you want to focus the attention of regulators, legislators and enforcers on creating a whole new system, that will have the same amount of enforcement resources as the current one (very little). There will be a whole new system, and no enforcement as usual.

Thanks for clarifying the ‘benefits’. I note the benefits do not include a reduction in the death or injury toll on the roads, or reduced cost. You might also try to clarify the opportunity cost – by focusing on the cyclists who aren’t killing anyone, how many more deaths and injuries will be caused by the motorists who do kill quite a few.

If the number of cyclists keeps increasing, but nothing is done to enforce standards upon the poor ones, then I can assure you that the numbers of deaths will rise as cyclists increasingly come in to conflict with motor vehicles.

RainyDay

grundie wrote: »

If the number of cyclists keeps increasing, but nothing is done to enforce standards upon the poor ones, then I can assure you that the numbers of deaths will rise as cyclists increasingly come in to conflict with motor vehicles.

Nice victim-blaming, while research from other counties would show that generally, cyclists are rarely to blame for incidents involving cyclists.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study

But hey, let's keep focusing on cyclists and bury our heads in the sands about the deaths and injuries caused by motorists.

grundie

RainyDay wrote: »

Nice victim-blaming, while research from other counties would show that generally, cyclists are rarely to blame for incidents involving cyclists.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study

But hey, let's keep focusing on cyclists and bury our heads in the sands about the deaths and injuries caused by motorists.

Ahem... "The 64-page analysis found that police attributed responsibility for collisions more or less evenly between drivers and cyclists overall"

Need I say more?

Trent Houseboat

grundie wrote: »

Ahem... "The 64-page analysis found that police attributed responsibility for collisions more or less evenly between drivers and cyclists overall"

Need I say more?

You could quote the rest of the paragraph which states that children skew the figures.

RainyDay

grundie wrote: »

Ahem... "The 64-page analysis found that police attributed responsibility for collisions more or less evenly between drivers and cyclists overall"

Need I say more?

Yes, you do need to say more. How about you say the bit that immediately follows that quote in the article;

The 64-page analysis found that police attributed responsibility for collisions more or less evenly between drivers and cyclists overall, but this was skewed by the fact that when child riders were involved their behaviour was named as a primary factor more than three-quarters of the time.

With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.

And how about you explain how penalty points for cyclists breaking red lights will help, given that;

A tiny proportion of accidents involving cyclists are caused by riders jumping red lights or stop signs, or failing to wear high-visibility clothing and use lights, a government-commissioned study has discovered.

This is a witch-hunt - an attempt to divert attention from the death toll on the road caused by motorists. Did I mention that motorists kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others?

ShowMeTheCash

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,

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

Same thing happened to me!
Green man and this idiot in a wheelchair try's to cut across my path I continued in a straight line and shouted "the green man is walking professor xavier" before I kicked him out of his chair!

He won't do that again!

07Lapierre

machiavellianme wrote: »

But where is the motor on a bike?

Ssssshhhhhh..its a secret!

http://velonews.competitor.com/2015/06/news/claim-contador-staged-puncture-to-hide-motor-in-giro-bike_372681

Grandpa Hassan

SeanW wrote: »

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

Yes. For many years

Pie Eater

222233 wrote: »

I have also noticed cyclists running red lights, veering in and out of cars and leaning on cars. NOTHING MAKES ME MORE ANGRY.

Nothing makes him more angry!
NOTHING!

Alf Veedersane

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,

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

No, it's not. If a car breaks a red light and is coming for me on my bike, I usually try to minimise the risk of a collision.

I wouldn't fancy my chances of winning that game.

07Lapierre

Sometimes I'm a Cyclist,
Sometimes I'm a Motorist,
I'm always a Father,
I'm always a husband
I'm always an Uncle

and someday I hope to be a Grandad. (if your reading this...no pressure Son! )

If more people stopped to think about their actions and how their stupidity could result in someone else being injured/killed, the roads would be a better place.

In the mean time though...better enforcement of existing laws for ALL road users would make all the difference..

Grandpa Hassan

Wow....people posting on this thread get wound up far too easily. This level of anger is not healthy

SeanW

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Yes. For many years

Funny, you sound like someone who has never walked on any main city streets in Ireland since at least the turn of the millenium. From having lived in Cork and now living/working in Dublin it's been my experience that cyclists are most likely to treat any traffic direction as theoretical and are by far the most agressive to me as a pedestrian.

RainyDay wrote:

Now it’s getting interesting – so it’s actually OK for motorists to break red lights with their ton of metal, once they aren’t speeding and tweeting at the same time. But those damn cyclists with their 10kg bikes – they’re the really dangerous ones? And you say I’m ‘a bit rich’?

Have you got a strawman factory somewhere? I never said it was "OK for motorists to break red lights" with anything. We had been discussing seizing road vehicles. Red Light Jumping laws can be enforced against motorists with automatic cameras, and those are being rolled out along the red line luas. There is no need to stop a motorist unless their behaviour means a collision is imminently likely.

RainyDay wrote: »

Yes, you do need to say more. How about you say the bit that immediately follows that quote in the article;

So children on bikes cause lots of accidents? Even more reason to have a system of cyclist education and certification. Don't know what the **** you're doing? Stay off the road until you are supervised by someone who does.

Did I mention that motorists kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others?

Yeah, you kinda did. You left out a few points with this though:

1. Many of these road deaths are vehicular suicides, there's probably quite a few such collisions where the authorities thought it better for the family to put it down that so-and-so "lost control of the vehicle" rather than speculate that it was really a suicide.
2. As a leading cause of death, auto accidents are not even in the top 10. The biggest killers are heart disease, stroke, cancer etc. Motor - remember this includes vehicular suicides - may kill 200 people a year but heart disease kills something like 30,000, cancer and strokes are within an order of magnitude of this figure as well.

So if you really want to save lives, then get rid of Motor (of the Road) Tax, and forget about promoting cycling, instead replace the road (usage) tax with a sugar tax and promte gyms and use the sugar tax to subsidise regular cancer screening.

That is, if you're really about saving lives and not just having a go at motorists ... though I suspect it's the latter.

RainyDay wrote: »

group of road users who don’t kill anybody?

Those closest I've ever come to being killed or mained on city streets was by a cyclist. Yet who is the most vocal in calling for extreme measures against other road users? That's right, cyclists.

Cyclists pay tax. They pay income tax on their salaries, which are on average, higher than motorists salaries based on research in other countries. They pay VAT on their bike purchase, bike accessories and bike repairs, along with their other purchases. They pay customs duties, and CAT and all the other taxes too.

But they don't pay tax to use the road. Motorists do. That's why motorists sometimes call Motor Tax or Vehicle Excise Duty "Road Tax" because in both Ireland and the UK, the corresponding taxes are not on motor ownership but on the use of said motors on the road.

Indeed, the law is the law. And most people on the roads break the law every day – most drivers, most cyclists and most pedestrians.

True, but some are more hypocritical about it than others.

So I’ll ask the question again – what benefit would arise from a theory test or penalty point system for cyclists? How will this improve quality of life?

Pedestrians would be far better off for one thing.

but motorists kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others? There wouldn’t be an ever-so-slight touch of bias showing through there Sean, by any chance?

To take an extreme example, suppose we ban cars AND TRUCKS altogether. Say that saves 200 lives a year, but it makes the lives of 4 million dramatically worse by comparison. Is that a reasonable tradeoff in your view?

Because that's what your argument ultimately boils down to. Having motorists means a very small number of people die, but a very, very large number of have their quality of life very dramatically improved. That's the trade-off.

RainyDay

SeanW wrote: »

Have you got a strawman factory somewhere? I never said it was "OK for motorists to break red lights" with anything. We had been discussing seizing road vehicles. Red Light Jumping laws can be enforced against motorists with automatic cameras, and those are being rolled out along the red line luas. There is no need to stop a motorist unless their behaviour means a collision is imminently likely.

What you actually said was “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” while your proposal for cyclists was “Simple. Break law, no id? Bike seized.”. Do you see the slight inequity there? Those in control of the ton or two of metal need to be actively menacing, while those in control of 10-20kg of metal will be seized on sight for any law-breaking? Perhaps you see now how non-sensical your proposal is.
Then you also played the “guilt by association” card with “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.” Why do you hold me responsible for the behaviour of other cyclists? Given that I’m also a motorist, am I also responsible for the 200+ deaths on the road, as I’m ‘part of the group’? Given that I’m also Irish, am I responsible for the deaths in all the atrocities carried out by the IRA, as I’m “part of a group”?

SeanW wrote: »

So children on bikes cause lots of accidents? Even more reason to have a system of cyclist education and certification. Don't know what the **** you're doing? Stay off the road until you are supervised by someone who does.

It’s really dangerous when you misinterpret statistics like this. The report does not say that ‘children on bikes cause a lot of accidents’ at all. It says that when you look at cycle accidents, a significant number of them involve children, and in a significant number of those, the children were at fault. So yes, there is a safety issue involving children on bikes, but not the issue that you mis-interpreted.

SeanW wrote: »

Yeah, you kinda did. You left out a few points with this though:

1. Many of these road deaths are vehicular suicides, there's probably quite a few such collisions where the authorities thought it better for the family to put it down that so-and-so "lost control of the vehicle" rather than speculate that it was really a suicide.
2. As a leading cause of death, auto accidents are not even in the top 10. The biggest killers are heart disease, stroke, cancer etc. Motor - remember this includes vehicular suicides - may kill 200 people a year but heart disease kills something like 30,000, cancer and strokes are within an order of magnitude of this figure as well.

So if you really want to save lives, then get rid of Motor (of the Road) Tax, and forget about promoting cycling, instead replace the road (usage) tax with a sugar tax and promte gyms and use the sugar tax to subsidise regular cancer screening.

I wouldn’t disagree with you on much of this in theory. I’m a bit confused as to why you’d want to promote people to exercise indoors in gyms but not outdoors on their bike, but I’m sure you’ll work that one out in time. Is there evidence that a sugar tax has actually worked anywhere, or is this just your off-the-cuff idea?

SeanW wrote: »

That is, if you're really about saving lives and not just having a go at motorists ... though I suspect it's the latter.

Well I did think we were focusing on transport issues, but if you do want to broaden out the discussion, we can move on to world peace and income inequality and all the other important issues of our lifetime. It might make for a bit of a large thread though. It is interesting that you accuse me of ‘having a go’ when you repeatedly come up with nonsensical proposals about cyclists and cycling with no evidence to support them.

SeanW wrote: »

Those closest I've ever come to being killed or mained on city streets was by a cyclist. Yet who is the most vocal in calling for extreme measures against other road users? That's right, cyclists.

Yes, you keep repeating your personal experience, and I’ll keep repeating the fact (not opinion, not perception, not bias – but fact) that cyclists don’t kill or maim anyone. It is motorists that kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others.
So either your personal experience is very different to the vast majority, or you have a touch of ‘confirmation bias’ – you see what you want to see. I could take a guess as to which is the more likely explanation.

SeanW wrote: »

But they don't pay tax to use the road. Motorists do. That's why motorists sometimes call Motor Tax or Vehicle Excise Duty "Road Tax" because in both Ireland and the UK, the corresponding taxes are not on motor ownership but on the use of said motors on the road.

You’re just being pedantic now. Motorists pay tax (and most cyclists are motorists too of course) because they are an easy target. It’s an easy way for the Govt to collect a tax. It has nothing to do with the roads. It is not ring-fenced for roads. It’s just a tax collection mechanism. It most certainly does not give any special rights or entitlements to endanger other road users in traffic law.

SeanW wrote: »

True, but some are more hypocritical about it than others.

It’s hard to take an accusation of hypocracy from the man who complains about the dangers of cyclists while blissfully ignoring the reality of road traffic statistics all that seriously.

SeanW wrote: »

Pedestrians would be far better off for one thing.

Really? How come? Are there large numbers of unreported deaths and injuries to pedestrians? How will pedestrians be better off? And while you’re explaining that, you can explain what enforcement resources you’re going to put into these new laws? How many Garda hours do you plan to take away from enforcing traffic law against the user group that DO actually kill people to focus on the user group that don’t?

SeanW wrote: »

To take an extreme example, suppose we ban cars AND TRUCKS altogether. Say that saves 200 lives a year, but it makes the lives of 4 million dramatically worse by comparison. Is that a reasonable tradeoff in your view?
Because that's what your argument ultimately boils down to. Having motorists means a very small number of people die, but a very, very large number of have their quality of life very dramatically improved. That's the trade-off.

It’s not just an extreme example, it’s a nonsense example. No-one is proposing banning cars and trucks. The only proposal is about stopping dangerous driving. Does dangerous driving improve quality of life for anybody, or is there some other reason why you are so resistant to motorists actually taking some responsibility for the death toll they cause?

steamengine

The majority of cyclists are ok., I'm one myself, but there is a sizeable minority with an attitude problem on our roads. I met one such yesterday at Sutton Cross, whilst driving towards Howth. I was stopped at the lights in the left hand lane and when they turned green I noticed a cyclist to the left of me and slightly ahead. We both moved off, my route was straight ahead - the cyclist veered right across my path from left to right, without even looking behind or giving any hand signal. His intention clearly was to take a right turn up the Hill of Howth. There is a dedicated right turn lane at that crossing - which is where the cyclist should have been.

I sounded the horn, and he started remonstrating back at me, what his point was I'll never know. In any event I just shouted at him 'What about hand signals' ?

All a cyclist has to do is acknowledge when they're in the wrong and learn from their mistakes, but it seems the arrogance takes over. And yes motorists make mistakes too, but that's not the subject matter here. So yes, a lot of cyclists need to bone up on theory and a test would be no harm at all.

Tony Beetroot

It should be incorporated along with the holy communion ceremony

RainyDay

steamengine wrote: »

a test would be no harm at all.

But would it do any good? If you're going to invest public money, pass new legislation, divert attention from the death toll on the roads caused by motorists, you need something a bit more than 'no harm at all'.

steamengine

RainyDay wrote: »

But would it do any good? If you're going to invest public money, pass new legislation, divert attention from the death toll on the roads caused by motorists, you need something a bit more than 'no harm at all'.

Sure, what do you suggest then ? Personally, I would be in favour of cycle training, both theoretical and practical being introduced into the primary school curriculum. My first theory lessons in cycling were received in primary school back in the 1950's.

RainyDay

steamengine wrote: »

Sure, what do you suggest then ? Personally, I would be in favour of cycle training, both theoretical and practical being introduced into the primary school curriculum. My first theory lessons in cycling were received in primary school back in the 1950's.

You mean something like this?

http://irishcycle.com/2015/01/23/cycling-training-for-children-to-be-rolled-out-to-school-across-ireland-in-2016/

Burning Bridges

Interesting how drivers get so upset about cyclist breaking lights, is it because they are delayed getting to the back of the next line of traffic?


Lot of pent up anger in drivers, especially those caught up in traffic.

But if all the cyclists used their cars to commute can you imagine how long the traffic jams would be?

steamengine

RainyDay wrote: »

You mean something like this?

http://irishcycle.com/2015/01/23/cycling-training-for-children-to-be-rolled-out-to-school-across-ireland-in-2016/

Yes, that will do nicely - news to me but not before its time. I'm alarmed on several fronts by what I see around me - kids bombing along on footpaths, and cycling on the wrong side of roads. No looking around, no hand signals - a cycling mad Max has taken hold.

One of my recent favourites was on the Malahide Road at Donnycarney - a cyclist on the mobile phone, NO HANDS on the handlebars, and a double-decker bus overtaking him. I was on the bus and was horrified to see it. There for the grace of God through my primary school instruction, all those years ago, go I.

Burning Bridges

steamengine wrote: »

Yes, that will do nicely - news to me but not before its time. I'm alarmed on several fronts by what I see around me - kids bombing along on footpaths, and cycling on the wrong side of roads. No looking around, no hand signals - a cycling mad Max has taken hold.

One of my recent favourites was on the Malahide Road at Donnycarney - a cyclist on the mobile phone, NO HANDS on the handlebars, and a double-decker bus overtaking him. I was on the bus and was horrified to see it. There for the grace of God through my primary school instruction, all those years ago, go I.

.

Amazing how many motorists are killed on our roads and them obeying all the rules , not speeding wearing their seat belts , indicating etc………….amazing.

steamengine

Burning Bridges wrote: »

.

Amazing how many motorists are killed on our roads and them obeying all the rules , not speeding wearing their seat belts , indicating etc………….amazing.

`

Sure yes, except the thread is about cyclists. Why try to defend the indefensible by switching the topic to 'motorists' ? By cyclists being more honest about their own mistakes on the road, they will be doing their bit in saving their own collective skins, at the end of the day.

Grandpa Hassan

steamengine wrote: »

`

Sure yes, except the thread is about cyclists. Why try to defend the indefensible by switching the topic to 'motorists' ? By cyclists being more honest about their own mistakes on the road, they will be doing their bit in saving their own collective skins, at the end of the day.

I think that the point was that theory tests / instruction make no difference to whether motorists break the rules (speeding, mobile phones etc). So why would your expect that doing a theory test would have any discernible impact on cyclist behaviour.

steamengine

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

I think that the point was that theory tests / instruction make no difference to whether motorists break the rules (speeding, mobile phones etc). So why would your expect that doing a theory test would have any discernible impact on cyclist behaviour.

It did in my generations case. That's how we first learned about the Rules of the Road and interact with other traffic. No test admittedly - a few class lectures/courses. It seems to me that some cyclists have been deprived of learning the most basic principles of cycling safety - hence their aberrant behaviour on the roads.

Grandpa Hassan

steamengine wrote: »

It did in my generations case. That's how we first learned about the Rules of the Road and interact with other traffic. No test admittedly - a few class lectures/courses. It seems to me that some cyclists have been deprived of learning the most basic principles of cycling safety - hence their aberrant behaviour on the roads.

But I think that everyone knows that you're not supposed to run a red. You don't need a theory test to tell you that. Or cycle on the pavement. I don't think that giving cyclists a mandatory theory test will change the behavior. Is someone is going to run a red then they are going to do it. Motorists speed even though they know it is against the rules....the test makes no difference

IMO it would be a big fat waste of money. I agree that cycling proficiency should be on the school curriculum, but anything else would not be cost effective as a way of changing behaviour

steamengine

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

But I think that everyone knows that you're not supposed to run a red. You don't need a theory test to tell you that. Or cycle on the pavement. I don't think that giving cyclists a mandatory theory test will change the behavior. Is someone is going to run a red then they are going to do it. Motorists speed even though they know it is against the rules....the test makes no difference

IMO it would be a big fat waste of money. I agree that cycling proficiency should be on the school curriculum, but anything else would not be cost effective as a way of changing behaviour

No you don't need a test, but cyclists clearly need the theory, especially dimwits, who cycle 'no hands' with buses alongside. Cycling safety is part of the theory, which in turn is part of cycling proficiency.

Grandpa Hassan

steamengine wrote: »

No you don't need a test, but cyclists clearly need the theory, especially dimwits, who cycle 'no hands' with buses alongside. Cycling safety is part of the theory, which in turn is part of cycling proficiency.

My point is that no amount of theory is going to make that guy not cycle with no hands with a bus alongside. You think just because he reads in a book that you shouldn't cycle with no hands he will change his behaviour?

steamengine

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

My point is that no amount of theory is going to make that guy not cycle with no hands with a bus alongside. You think just because he reads in a book that you shouldn't cycle with no hands he will change his behaviour?

Perhaps if he was shown a video of a 'no hands' cyclist's front wheel hitting a rut on the road, the errant cyclist being pitched off the bike, and winding up under the wheels of a bus, then it just might change his behaviour. In other words the 'theoretical' consequences of cycling in a dangerous manner.

But if you think not, that is up to you.

Burning Bridges

steamengine wrote: »

`

Sure yes, except the thread is about cyclists. Why try to defend the indefensible by switching the topic to 'motorists' ? By cyclists being more honest about their own mistakes on the road, they will be doing their bit in saving their own collective skins, at the end of the day.

So its a bit of a winge for motorists caught in traffic?

Cyclists make mistakes, motorists make mistakes, pedestrians make mistakes.

BTW cyclists who "break the law" are less likely to be killed , ironically.

I am not allowed to post a link.

steamengine

Burning Bridges wrote: »

So its a bit of a winge for motorists caught in traffic?

Cyclists make mistakes, motorists make mistakes, pedestrians make mistakes.

BTW cyclists who "break the law" are less likely to be killed , ironically.

I am not allowed to post a link.

So it's ok for cyclists to make mistakes because motorists and pedestrians do likewise ?

Have you any stats for cyclists running red lights ? My own reckoning is 90% at least - positively shocking. Buy hey !!! motorists do it too, and pedestrians (red man). :rolleyes:

Unfortunately, I know of an incident last year where a cyclist collided with a pedestrian who was crossing on the green man. The pedestrian pushed him forcibly out of his way and the cyclist wound up in a heap on the road and on picking himself up, got very stroppy with the pedestrian in question.

The pedestrian suggested they both proceed to the Garda station nearby, but the cyclist suddenly changed his tune and peddled off. But hey sure it's ok - motorists and pedestrians do the same thing. :rolleyes:

Sheldons Brain

As a law abiding motorist I welcome law enforcement and education measures for motorists who break the law.
One would expect that law abiding cyclists would welcome law enforcement and education measures for cyclists who break the law, but they mostly engage in whataboutery.

Pinch Flat

Oh wow another cyclist hating thread - seem to be a daily occurrence on boards at the moment. They will make sense when we've impeccable motorists and pedestrians, but cyclists like others break the rules.

There must be a correlation in this hate though - I think it's proportional to irelands car dependency - more cars, more people trying to cram onto overcrowded roads - then some motorists decide to look at alternatives (like cycling) to travel to and from work and next thing they're "scum"

"I'm sitting in this traffic jam I've helped create, that's costing me a lot of money, time and making me angrier by the day - oh look a cyclist breaking a red light".

Sheldons Brain

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Oh wow another cyclist hating thread - seem to be a daily occurrence o boards at the moment. They will make sense when we've impeccable motorists and pedestrians, but cyclists like others break the rules.

The merit or otherwise of this thread is entirely independent of the actions of motorists or pedestrians. You can start as thread on those issues if you wish.

Pinch Flat

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

The merit or otherwise of this thread is entirely independent of the actions of motorists or pedestrians. You can start as thread on those issues if you wish.

Well a lot of cyclists are drivers - in the order of 70 - 80%. I'm guessing a lot of these have already done the theory test or possess a driving licence or perhaps in a minority of cases got a licence through the amnesty. So what's the correlation between all those qualified drivers and the day to day numptiness you see on the roads in all veihicles?

My own view would be that all road users should start as cyclists for a period of time - make it mandatory before applying for a provisional licence - teach cycle craft in schools and make the move away slowly from our over dependence on the car. That way, we might have a chance of educating people from the most vulnerable road position to that over bigger and faster vehicles

Burning Bridges

steamengine wrote: »

So it's ok for cyclists to make mistakes because motorists and pedestrians do likewise ?

Have you any stats for cyclists running red lights ? My own reckoning is 90% at least - positively shocking. Buy hey !!! motorists do it too, and pedestrians (red man). :rolleyes:

Unfortunately, I know of an incident last year where a cyclist collided with a pedestrian who was crossing on the green man. The pedestrian pushed him forcibly out of his way and the cyclist wound up in a heap on the road and on picking himself up, got very stroppy with the pedestrian in question.

The pedestrian suggested they both proceed to the Garda station nearby, but the cyclist suddenly changed his tune and peddled off. But hey sure it's ok - motorists and pedestrians do the same thing. :rolleyes:

I work in the emergency services regularly see cyclists and children seriously injured or even killed by motorists. A pedestrian or cyclist hit by a car travelling at 50kmph has an 80% chance of dying.
I have not seen a motorist or even a pedestrian injured or even killed by a cyclist.

I don't cycle often , but when I do I am always aware that I can be killed in a moment, I always have a traffic camera running .

steamengine

Burning Bridges wrote: »

I work in the emergency services regularly see cyclists ...............seriously injured or even killed by motorists.
I have not seen a motorist or even a pedestrian injured or even killed by a cyclist.

I don't cycle often , but when I do I am always aware that I can be killed in a moment, I always have a traffic camera running .

All the more reason for cyclists to wise up, it is interesting to note how even on this thread cyclists won't own up to any mistakes, just blame motorists the whole time. If you don't mind me saying so, I know what I'm talking about as I currently cycle on average 3000 miles a year. There are many ways to look after yourself on a bicycle, I use mirrors as I want to know what traffic is doing to my rear as well as to the front and sides. Just the other day, I noticed a bus to my rear wasn't going to give me sufficient room as I was overtaking some parked cars, so I abandoned it, braked and pulled into the left. Had one of the parked cars opened a door, then I could have potentially been killed. Most cyclists I see, don't even look around them let alone use mirrors.

Pinch Flat

steamengine wrote: »

All the more reason for cyclists to wise up, it is interesting to note how even on this thread cyclists won't own up to any mistakes, just blame motorists the whole time. If you don't mind me saying so, I know what I'm talking about as I currently cycle on average 3000 miles a year.

Well yeah there's wising up or learning from mistakes - both times I've been knocked off my bike have been from the rear, with the motorist overtaking me to turn left. Both times I've had extremely bright flashing led lights on my helmet and bike. And a high vis bag cover.

This thought me to ride more assertively - so if I get a sense someone is going to try pull the same stunt, I'll take the lane. Might p!ss off a few who have that sense of urgency where I clearly don't matter, but what the hell

Burning Bridges

steamengine wrote: »

All the more reason for cyclists to wise up, it is interesting to note how even on this thread cyclists won't own up to any mistakes, just blame motorists the whole time. If you don't mind me saying so, I know what I'm talking about as I currently cycle on average 3000 miles a year.

Wow 3000 miles , 100 km a week?

Fair dues to you.

Grandpa Hassan

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

The merit or otherwise of this thread is entirely independent of the actions of motorists or pedestrians. You can start as thread on those issues if you wish.

Its not independent of the actions of motorists. It can't be. More often that not it is because of cyclists protecting themselves from bad drivers that they annoy motorists. It is the behaviour of motorists (eg. passing too close, not looking at their inside) that make me cycle at all times at least 2 feet away from the side of the road, normally more. That irritates the cr*p out of drivers, but if I did not, they would crowd me out - push me into the kerb. Which is scary and happens often (bus drivers are the worst). Making yourself big and visible keeps you safer, if at the expense of being hated by drivers. I'd rather be safe than popular.

There are idiots like the guy on this thread, who no-one defends - not even other cyclists. But my behaviour on the road, and that of many others, is to keep myself safe (pulling in front of the cars at red lights so that I get off first, riding out from the kerb so cars have to pull out into the adjoining lane to get past me) because there are some really really clueless drivers out there. I think that it is this kind of thing that leads to the constant irritation and undercurrent of tension between drivers and cyclists.

But that is not the cyclists fault.....it is the fault of the infrastructure

steamengine

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Well yeah there's wishing up or learning from mistakes - both times I've been knocked off my bike have been from the rear, with the motorist overtaking me to turn left. Both times I've had extremely bright flashing led lights on my helmet and bike.

This thought me to ride more assertively - so if I get a sense someone is going to try pull the same stunt, I'll take the lane. Might p!ss off a few who have that sense of argent where I clearly don't matter, but what the hell

Mirrors are very useful, but for some reason cyclists seem to thing that looking behind is sufficient. I really learned about using mirrors from my motorcycling days, self preservation again and being fully aware of what's going on around you. Assertive is fine, but for those left turns I'll only take up two positions, ahead or behind, never abreast of a vehicle.

steamengine

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Its not independent of the actions of motorists. It can't be. More often that not it is because of cyclists protecting themselves from bad drivers that they annoy motorists. It is the behaviour of motorists (eg. passing too close, not looking at their inside) that make me cycle at all times at least 2 feet away from the side of the road, normally more. That irritates the cr*p out of drivers, but if I did not, they would crowd me out - push me into the kerb. Which is scary and happens often (bus drivers are the worst). Making yourself big and visible keeps you safer, if at the expense of being hated by drivers. I'd rather be safe than popular.

There are idiots like the guy on this thread, who no-one defends - not even other cyclists. But my behaviour on the road, and that of many others, is to keep myself safe (pulling in front of the cars at red lights so that I get off first, riding out from the kerb so cars have to pull out into the adjoining lane to get past me) because there are some really really clueless drivers out there. I think that it is this kind of thing that leads to the constant irritation and undercurrent of tension between drivers and cyclists.

But that is not the cyclists fault.....it is the fault of the infrastructure[

+1............that goes right to the heart of the problem. Proper cycling infrastructure is what is required, not dulux cycle lanes either.

Pinch Flat

steamengine wrote: »

Mirrors are very useful, but for some reason cyclists seem to thing that looking behind is sufficient. I really learned about using mirrors from my motorcycling days, self preservation again and being fully aware of what's going on around you. Assertive is fine, but for those left turns I'll only take up two positions, ahead or behind, never abreast of a vehicle.

Yeah some cyclists use mirrors, you see some on the ends of handle bars or (rarely) helmet mounted - they have their uses but can be limited by range of vision and vibration on roads which will make them impossible to view.

You'll never get the range of vision from a mirror over turning your head - motorbike helmets prohibit this, whereas a cycling helmet doesn't restrict the vision or range of movement as much. I would look back extremely frequently when in traffic, over my right for other vehicles and (more increasingly) over my left for a cycling coming inside when I'm moving or turning left - a common problem.

beauf

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

As a law abiding motorist I welcome law enforcement and education measures for motorists who break the law.
One would expect that law abiding cyclists would welcome law enforcement and education measures for cyclists who break the law, but they mostly engage in whataboutery.

What law enforcement, and/or do you mean, that doesn't currently exist, and/or that has been proved to work in other countries?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0012274/

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

The merit or otherwise of this thread is entirely independent of the actions of motorists or pedestrians. You can start as thread on those issues if you wish.

That depends on the reasons for cyclists breaking the rules, if you indeed believe that the cyclists who are drivers do not know the rules or the theory. Or that getting them to sit the same theory test they've ready passed, serves any value. Of indeed even for those who aren't drivers, if you had a theory test specifically for cycling, that included things like don't cycle on the pavement (unless parked as a cycle lane/shared use). Would that really see a dramatic change in behavior.

Perhaps a contra flow cycle lane might create a bigger reduction in some locations? Perhaps a dedicated segregated cycle lane might have cyclists choosing that over a crowded footpath or car lane.

Grandpa Hassan

steamengine wrote: »

Thanks for the link, Burning Bridges - here it is so everyone can read it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-450353/Women-cyclists-risk-death-dont-jump-red-lights.html

yeh, was going to comment in my previous post that London deaths are disproportionately women, who cycle more cautiously and are not seen as a result. It's not just jumping red lights (or at least anticipating their change). Its about getting to a red light and pushing past the cars to take up a position right in front of them so that they know you're there. And not getting squeezed against the side of the road by buses or vans

steamengine

Burning Bridges wrote: »

So its a bit of a winge for motorists caught in traffic?

Cyclists make mistakes, motorists make mistakes, pedestrians make mistakes.

BTW cyclists who "break the law" are less likely to be killed , ironically.

I am not allowed to post a link.

Thanks for the link, here it is so everyone can take a look.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-450353/Women-cyclists-risk-death-dont-jump-red-lights.html

Grandpa Hassan

More recent link

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/may/21/women-cyclists-most-accidents

steamengine

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Yeah some cyclists use mirrors, you see some on the ends of handle bars or (rarely) helmet mounted - they have their uses but can be limited by range of vision and vibration on roads which will make them impossible to view.

You'll never get the range of vision from a mirror over turning your head - motorbike helmets prohibit this, whereas a cycling helmet doesn't restrict the vision or range of movement as much. I would look back extremely frequently when in traffic, over my right for other vehicles and (more increasingly) over my left for a cycling coming inside when I'm moving or turning left - a common problem.

I disagree, you get a totally focused view to the rear, flicking your eyes to the front or rear is much faster than head rotation. Plus you still have peripheral vision to the front, whilst using the mirror. Vibration isn't a factor for my handle bar mounted mirror at all.

Link to the mirror I use.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86194485&postcount=41

beauf

One of the suggested practices is to make eye contact with the drivers around you. Make sure they've seen you. Turn your head and look at them.