Cyclists should do a theory test!

Grandpa Hassan

beauf wrote: »

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.

That's absolutely true. I make eye contact with drivers regularly on my London commute. And not just the cute lady ones

cython

steamengine wrote: »

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

Your bike looks to have MTB tyres, and if there is any suspension in the fork then you are going to get much more damping of vibration than many cyclists on road bikes. As a result your mirror is probably more stable than a lot of cyclists could hope to get. I know on my bike on a lot of the roads around Dublin I'd nearly get motion sickness trying to look in a mirror at the end of that long an extension. Not to mention trying to focus on a vibrating mirror would take my focus from the rest of the traffic around me too much.

CramCycle

Just asked to pass his on:

On behalf of the secret league of cyclists, I would like to apologise for every slight you have ever perceived on the roads.

Much like Babe the movie, if you shout "Baa Ram Ewe" as we pass we will instantly stop and do anything you want as we are all sheep and in no way individuals.

Sincerely

Conor Faughnan
General Secretary of the secret league of cyclists

Shep_Dog

beauf wrote: »

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.

+1 I find that when I turn my head look behind me before signalling a turn, drivers will often react and often back off and allow me to move out to make my lane change. Good drivers and cyclists read each others intentions. It's about negotiation.

There's a lot about common sense road usage not covered in the RoTR.

steamengine

cython wrote: »

Your bike looks to have MTB tyres, and if there is any suspension in the fork then you are going to get much more damping of vibration than many cyclists on road bikes. As a result your mirror is probably more stable than a lot of cyclists could hope to get. I know on my bike on a lot of the roads around Dublin I'd nearly get motion sickness trying to look in a mirror at the end of that long an extension. Not to mention trying to focus on a vibrating mirror would take my focus from the rest of the traffic around me too much.

I don't have any suspension and tyres are pumped to 2 bar. I've never had any vibration problems - just a clear focused view to the rear, and as continuous as I want it to be.

steamengine

Shep_Dog wrote: »

+1 I find that when I turn my head look behind me before signalling a turn, drivers will often react and often back off and allow me to move out to make my lane change. Good drivers and cyclists read each others intentions. It's about negotiation.

There's a lot about common sense road usage not covered in the RoTR.

Correct, and I've found by treating drivers courteously, quite a few will return the complement. A wave, a smile, a nod, whatever it takes. At left turns I will give a clear hand signal to indicate I am proceeding straight ahead, if I think the left turning driver hasn't read the situation. Should the scenario come to pass where a driver turns to the left across me, then I will turn left also to avoid a collision.

CramCycle

+1 indicate, make eye contact, it's rare you are not given space, thumbs up or shout of thank you, job done.

cython

steamengine wrote: »

I don't have any suspension and tyres are pumped to 2 bar. I've never had any vibration problems - just a clear focused view to the rear, and as continuous as I want it to be.

At 2 bar you don't need any suspension My tyres are (and need to be!) typically pumped to 4x that, which means they transmit a lot more vibration. Not to mention that as mentioned, looking over your shoulder to check your surroundings communicates a lot more about your potential intentions to other road users around you than an imperceptible movement to look in your mirror.

steamengine

cython wrote: »

At 2 bar you don't need any suspension My tyres are (and need to be!) typically pumped to 4x that, which means they transmit a lot more vibration. Not to mention that as mentioned, looking over your shoulder to check your surroundings communicates a lot more about your potential intentions to other road users around you than an imperceptible movement to look in your mirror.

That brings us to another point, how suitable from a safety point of view is your bicycle for ordinary road use ? Those tyre pressures indicate very narrow wheels to me, the type that can easily slot into a rut on the road ?

Before the Giro Italia last year, a lot of the ruts between the concrete slabs on the Clontarf Road were filled up, presumably for that reason.

That is one reason why I use an MTB for cycling as they are more suitable for cycling in normal road conditions. Dublin City bikes use a similar tyre width.

CramCycle

My experience of the mirrors available for bikes are that they provide a very limited view range. Looking around gives far more info. The blind spots on pedal bike mirrors are enormous and if that all you are using, you are just asking for an accident IMO. Even MCs and motorists use life savers and check over there shoulder for a range of manoeuvres.

steamengine

CramCycle wrote: »

My experience of the mirrors available for bikes are that they provide a very limited view range. Looking around gives far more info. The blind spots on pedal bike mirrors are enormous and if that all you are using, you are just asking for an accident IMO. Even MCs and motorists use life savers and check over there shoulder for a range of manoeuvres.

It's not all I use, its a case of AND rather than OR. BTW I've never been in any sort of cycling accident in 60 years cycling, I've never even come off a bike on the road for any reason and i intend to continue on like that !

Grandpa Hassan

CramCycle wrote: »

My experience of the mirrors available for bikes are that they provide a very limited view range. Looking around gives far more info. The blind spots on pedal bike mirrors are enormous and if that all you are using, you are just asking for an accident IMO. Even MCs and motorists use life savers and check over there shoulder for a range of manoeuvres.

Having mirrors can't be a bad thing, as long as it doesn't mean that you look back over your shoulder any less. Cycling in London, being bold and looking around and making eye contact before you move is so important....using mirrors in place of that would be much more dangerous, but as an addition I don't see the harm

steamengine

steamengine wrote: »

...........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.

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Having mirrors can't be a bad thing, as long as it doesn't mean that you look back over your shoulder any less. Cycling in London, being bold and looking around and making eye contact before you move is so important....using mirrors in place of that would be much more dangerous, but as an addition I don't see the harm

I picked up on the bus coming too close to me, in the mirror, the bus was constrained from moving out any further due to oncoming traffic. Split seconds - spotting the situation to ducking out of the way - thanks to the mirror. Co-incidentally that happened at the same spot where I took those photos of the mirror above.

CramCycle

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Having mirrors can't be a bad thing, as long as it doesn't mean that you look back over your shoulder any less. Cycling in London, being bold and looking around and making eye contact before you move is so important....using mirrors in place of that would be much more dangerous, but as an addition I don't see the harm

I had them for awhile and the range of view was too narrow, trying to use them was more of a distraction and the many I seen use them on the drummartin link. road tended not to look around as often as I thought was safe.

Just my point of view though.

At steamengine, not being in an accident means nothing, on a daily basis I see terrible road users get away Scot free I have seen motorists and cyclists hit as they took action to avoid the stupidity of others because they were good road users.

CramCycle

steamengine wrote: »

I picked up on the bus coming too close to me, in the mirror, the bus was constrained from moving out any further due to oncoming traffic. Split seconds - spotting the situation to ducking out of the way - thanks to the mirror. Co-incidentally that happened at the same spot where I took those photos of the mirror above.

But without a mirror you would have looked over your shoulder several times on approach, did you indicate that you were pulling out, did you make any contact with the bus driver. If you were close enough to be hit by a car door, you were to close IMO. I come across situations like this every day, never has a lack of a mirror been a hindrance. I would have noticed that I was coming to a pinch point, seen the bus, indicated, if the bus driver gave no obvious indication he was going to let me out then I would have stopped.

I have nothing against mirrors on bikes but I do think you are over exaggerating their importance when from my reading, looking over your shoulder would have been easier and safer. Bus drivers will generally take the approach you are pulling out, as all good road users would (expect the unexpected) as far as the driver was aware you just handed looked. 8 don't trust that they will hence I look 9 very my shoulder and indicate, makes it easier and safer for everyone involved.

steamengine

CramCycle wrote: »

I had them for awhile and the range of view was too narrow, trying to use them was more of a distraction and the many I seen use them on the drummartin link. road tended not to look around as often as I thought was safe.

Just my point of view though.

At steamengine, not being in an accident means nothing, on a daily basis I see terrible road users get away Scot free I have seen motorists and cyclists hit as they took action to avoid the stupidity of others because they were good road users.

Well you know the old saying about pilots which can be paraphrased for cyclists - There are old cyclists and bold cyclists, but no old bold cyclists

Grandpa Hassan

Personally I wouldn't use them either....I'd find them a distraction. But I can see that others might want them as an extra thing. More important is keeping enough room for yourself so you can move a couple of feet to the left immediately if and when someone comes too close.

Steamengine credits them with not having had an accident. Well, I don't use them and I've never had an accident either in 15 years of cycling to work in Dublin and London (currently 10 miles each way). So I don't necessarily see the causality....

Grandpa Hassan

steamengine wrote: »

Well you know the old saying about pilots which can be paraphrased for cyclists - There are old cyclists and bold cyclists, but no old bold cyclists

I actually couldn't disagree more. Bold keeps you safe. And doesn't necessarily meant law-breaking.

Timid riders are disproportionately on the receiving end of accidents and is well documented in London

steamengine

Look guys, this parsing and analysis could go on for ever, I'm not trying to get anyone else to use mirrors. I have merely recounted one or two situations where I have found them useful. Each to his own, and thank you all for the discourse. Safe cycling to you all.

Korat

The only good cyclist is a motorcyclist.

ezra_pound

222233 wrote: »

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

The beauty of the logic of the anti cyclist brigade. I love it.

captainfrost

More cyclist more road accident, their test should not only be theory but more strict.

arybvtcw0eolkf

steamengine wrote: »

Look guys, this parsing and analysis could go on for ever, I'm not trying to get anyone else to use mirrors. I have merely recounted one or two situations where I have found them useful. Each to his own, and thank you all for the discourse. Safe cycling to you all.

Mirrors are useful for reversing your bicycle I guess.

steamengine

Rhett Wide Beige wrote: »

Mirrors are useful for reversing your bicycle I guess.

Personally I put the handle bars where the saddle is, and put the saddle where the handlebars are - Simples

(sorry couldn't pass that one up)

CatFromHue

Korat wrote: »

The only good cyclist is a motorcyclist.

Ha, they're the worst!

CramCycle

CatFromHue wrote: »

Ha, they're the worst!

While we are slinging mud at groups of people with potentially little in common, damn moped users.

Grandpa Hassan

Korat wrote: »

The only good cyclist is a motorcyclist.

Get out of the cycle box!!!!!!!

SeanW

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.

Whataboutery. It's common among people who don't have a point.

RainyDay wrote: »

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.

Cars can be identified, there is no need for a "no id" rule for cars because the registration plate provides id in all cases, save rare cases of illegal alteration.

Bikes do not carry registration plates, so any enforcement that is taken against a lawbreaking cyclist depends on stopping and identifying the cyclist. There's nothing unequal about suggesting that a lawbreaker that has registration and ususally also id should be treated differently to a lawbreaker that has neither.

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?

So you never break red lights on your bicycle? Never ride on footpaths? Never disregard lane directions?

I speak from experience as a Dublin (and formerly Cork) pedestrian. Cyclists have no regard for the law. Full stop.

Yet, I also speak from experience as a motorist on boards, that cyclists tend to have a level of pathological hatred of motorists that is virtually unparalelled throughout society. Indeed I seem to remember a number of them promoting GPS trackers for cars, combined the idea that there was no such thing as a speed limit that was too low, as a limit dramatically below safe operating limits for no other reason could be used as a "test" Doubt she/he felt the same way about cyclists and traffic lights.

So as a pedestrian I face aggression from cyclists every day on the street - and I'm not the only one as another thread points out - while as a motorist I face aggression from cyclists (virtually all of whose names include "bike" or "cycl") whose views of motorists are only marginally less hateful than those of Stalin towards Eastern European nationalists.

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’?

You're the one who keeps going on about it ...

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”?

Were you a member of the IRA?

Is there evidence that a sugar tax has actually worked anywhere, or is this just your off-the-cuff idea?

If it were ringfenced to fund routine cancer screening (just as one example), I'm sure it would indeed work.

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.

I'm not the only one.

You’re just being pedantic now.

Oh look, a cyclist accusing me of being pedantic. I had to seriosly LOL when I read that. Cyclists are the first to offer "corrections" to someone using the technically inaccurate term "ROAD TAX" to describe taxes that motorists pay to put their cars on the road.

Seriously. Look for anywhere that someone has used the term "road tax" guaranteed there will be one or more cyclists swarming around the post to provide a pedantic 'correction' ... and you accuse me of "just being pedantic now" :P Well, I never ...

It has nothing to do with the roads.

It has everything to do with the roads. You can own whatever motors you like without paying tax on them, the tax is payable when you put the car ON THE ROAD.

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?

No, it's entirely accurate, because there will always be road deaths associated with motor usage. Unless you do something ridiculous like have a blanket 5MPH speed limit, there will always be mistakes that result in collisions. There will always be a "death toll" that "they" cause. Just like there will always be a "death toll" from plane crashes and train wrecks and the like.

The question is in finding the right balance between limiting regulations and limiting serious/fatal accidents. The balance was too far in the former direction during most of the 20th century. But we are now in danger of going too far in the latter direction, no prizes for guessing who I blame for this.

Grandpa Hassan

Cyclists have a vitually unparalleled pathological hatred of motorists? You do know, SeanW, that most cyclists also drive, right?

This is obviously really getting to you.....you should probably sit back and consider whether it really matters that much. Is it worth getting this wound up about?

Shenshen

TBF, I'm still astonished that traffic lessons in schools don't seem to exist here.
Back home, this started in kindergarden, in primary school we were taught all the rules of the road pertaining to cyclists and had to pass a test before we were allowed to cycle in traffic. And the lessons continued on until we were in 10th grade (around 15/16 years old).

That said, I find even the rules of the road where cycling is concerned to be rather... well, patchy here.
To give an example, cyclists are legally allowed to cycle on the N25 between Carrigtohill and Cork. This is a dual carriageway with a speed limit of 120kph. Who in their right minds draws up legislation that allows for cycling on such a road?
I'd never take my bike there, but I see people cycle there nearly every morning and evening.

As for cycle paths - where they exist, they often are more dangerous than the roads due to their layouts.
And why are cyclists not allowed to cycle on the pavements? In some places, that is the safe option for all involved (thinking N25 again, where it enters Cork and narrows to 1 lane - there's a footpath but no cycle path there. Not that I've ever seen anyone walking there.)

Sam Kade

Knasher wrote: »

Drivers have to do a theory test, and there are already punishments for bad driving. I see bad drivers every day though.

You probably aren't a perfect driver yourself either, you more than likely make the odd mistake here and there Lets face there's no such thing as a perfect driver.

Sam Kade

Ruu wrote: »

They should pay road tax too!

Motor tax, there's no motor on a push bike hence no tax

Sam Kade

tipparetops wrote: »

Cyclists have no business on roads where the speed limit is over 50kph.
And any parent who let's their child cycle on their own, should have social services at the door.

Which is practically every road.
The social services for letting a child cycle on their own

Shenshen

Sam Kade wrote: »

Motor tax, there's no motor on a push bike hence no tax

And many of them also own cars, so they do in fact pay motor tax same as any other driver.

rubadub

steamengine wrote: »

`

Sure yes, except the thread is about cyclists. Why try to defend the indefensible by switching the topic to 'motorists' ?

I don't see it as a defence, it's just making people realise they are likely hypocrites, as most will have broken laws like speeding, jaywalking, instructing their 6 year old to cycle on a footpath.

People are making out like they cannot fathom why on earth someone would break the law while cycling a bike. People are explaining it is not that unusual and to be fully expected if you look at similar transport. The same guy will be far more likely to break the law on foot, then on a bicycle, then in a car, then in a truck. It's a little worrying that people are out there this ignorant and stupid that they cannot get their head around it.

If a thread was brought up "why do women cheat on their husbands" you should also expect people to bring up the fact that men cheat on their wives too.

SeanW wrote: »

Seriously. Look for anywhere that someone has used the term "road tax" guaranteed there will be one or more cyclists swarming around the post to provide a pedantic 'correction' ... and you accuse me of "just being pedantic now" :P Well, I never ...

It seems you are jumping to the conclusion that they are cyclists, I see the point being made a lot and would guess a lot making it do not cycle at all. It's rare enough to see people declaring ALL their frequency & modes of transport in posts. It also rare to see definitions given, e.g. what is a cyclist?

The fact you jump to this conclusion just shows the obnoxious us & them attitude is alive and well, where one group is presumed always to be 100% against the other, and that they are mutually exclusive.

loverain

Theory test for cyclists should be compulsory, there's just too many dangers on the road, especially teenagers should be educated about road safety and rules of the road.

steamengine

rubadub wrote: »

I don't see it as a defence, it's just making people realise they are likely hypocrites, as most will have broken laws like speeding, jaywalking, instructing their 6 year old to cycle on a footpath.

A well worn defensive tactic on boards by those who take exception to any criticism of cyclist behaviour, whether they are in the right or wrong. The equality of sin, doesn't lessen the individual wrongdoing.

Shenshen

loverain wrote: »

Theory test for cyclists should be compulsory, there's just too many dangers on the road, especially teenagers should be educated about road safety and rules of the road.

I would extend that to all children and teenagers, whether they own a bicycle or not. It should be a compulsory subject in school.

endacl

Shenshen wrote: »

I would extend that to all children and teenagers, whether they own a bicycle or not. It should be a compulsory subject in school.

It used to be. Anybody remember the Tufty Club?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Cross_Code

IIRC, there was something similar this side of the pond?

rubadub

steamengine wrote: »

The equality of sin, doesn't lessen the individual wrongdoing.

The equality of sin should lessen the confusion over it, but unfortunately it goes right over the head of most of these stupid cunts.

Knasher

SeanW wrote: »

Yet, I also speak from experience as a motorist on boards, that cyclists tend to have a level of pathological hatred of motorists that is virtually unparalelled throughout society.

And I speak as a cyclist in the real world that some motorists have a pathological hatred of cyclists. I've had people shout or beep their horns at me as the overtake me as close as possible, I've had crap thrown at me, I've had somebody reach out their window and grab at me. And I'm not even a lycra clad cyclist and I don't take up a position in the road that would prevent other people from overtaking me. You just get a certain amount of hate from people on the road, to whom you have done absolutely nothing, but who are carrying around some grudge for being held up from overtaking some cyclist a week ago, and feel the need to vent that frustration at every cyclist they pass for the next week.

But I wouldn't for a second generalise that attitude to all motorists. If I did, I wouldn't be able to use the roads.

Sam Kade wrote: »

You probably aren't a perfect driver yourself either, you more than likely make the odd mistake here and there Lets face there's no such thing as a perfect driver.

Of course not, my point being that the theory test was being treated as some panacea for cyclists breaking road rules, when it clearly doesn't function that way for motorists. Does anyone really think that the cyclist that runs the red simply wasn't aware what that colour meant, of course not. So what is the point of the theory test, because it clearly isn't to teach the road rules to cyclists.

ThisRegard

loverain wrote: »

there's just too many dangers on the road, especially teenagers

Yeah, teenagers are the biggest hazard for cyclists, just lying around all over the place. And it's only going to get worse with the summer holidays starting.

Pinch Flat

loverain wrote: »

Theory test for cyclists should be compulsory, there's just too many dangers on the road, especially teenagers should be educated about road safety and rules of the road.

I already have a theory test - from 20 years ago when I passed my driving test, as do the vast majority who cycle. Would you propose I sit another one, and a simpler version for my 8 year old? Or should people be over 16 to cycle?

Has the theory test improved driving standards since its introduction? It's just that red light breaking, tailgating, occupying yellow boxes / cycle lanes and parking on double yellows / disabled spaces / foot paths seems to be pretty endemic in drivers. Was this worse before the theory test was introduced?

The Dark Side

Whatever about a theory test, some of them can't even cycle properly.

Passed a middle-aged guy wobbling all over the bus lane this morning on the Quays.
Had to blast the horn at him as I sped past, as I was concerned he was going to stray into my path.

Pinch Flat

The Dark Side wrote: »

Whatever about a theory test, some of them can't even cycle properly.

Passed a middle-aged guy wobbling all over the bus lane this morning on the Quays.
Had to blast the horn at him as I sped past, as I was concerned he was going to stray into my path.

And I was passed yesterday by a car overtaking us in a group, over double white lines, on a narrow road, into the path of an oncoming car who had to swerve, beeped and flashed his head lights.

If you can't handle cyclists in the bus lane, assuming you're driving there legally as a taxi driver or bus driver perhaps it's time for a career change.

I don't get your point.

CramCycle

loverain wrote: »

Theory test for cyclists should be compulsory, there's just too many dangers on the road, especially teenagers should be educated about road safety and rules of the road.

Should be compusory for all national school and junior cycle students, ad not just theory because that clearly does nothing to improve behaviour on the roads. Take them out in the playground and do a mock up of several junctions, show visibly what stupid behaviour looks like because tellign people does not work.

The Dark Side wrote: »

Had to blast the horn at him as I sped past, as I was concerned he was going to stray into my path.

I'll be honest, I am not sure if your serious or not

Pinch Flat

CramCycle wrote: »

Should be compusory for all national school and junior cycle students, ad not just theory because that clearly does nothing to improve behaviour on the roads. Take them out in the playground and do a mock up of several junctions, show visibly what stupid behaviour looks like because tellign people does not work.

We had this in our school playground - mind you it was neigh on 30 odd years ago. A teacher would take us out regularly and run through the basics of cycling - T-Junctions, roundabouts etc, we got leaflets from the body responsible for road safety at the time.

It should be rolled out in every school - I've raised this with the RSA and it is done in some but is a funding issue. If we educate the current crop of children in road safety, starting with bikes as the most basic form of transport and perhaps requiring them to cycle them for a period of time before applying for a provisional driving licence, it will go a long way to improving road safety for all

The Dark Side

CramCycle wrote: »

I'll be honest, I am not sure if your serious or not

He seemed to be in a world of his own and not in control of his bike, so I thought sounding the horn was prudent to wake him up a bit and make him aware that there was faster moving traffic all around him and that he needed to keep into the side.

ThisRegard

Maybe you should do a theory test yourself and take note in particular of when a horn should be used, or not, in your case.

The Dark Side

ThisRegard wrote: »

Maybe you should do a theory test yourself and take note in particular of when a horn should be used, or not, in your case.

No thanks, I'm quite happy with my driving style and will continue to sound my horn, as and when I deem appropriate.