Cyclists should do a theory test!

Pinch Flat

Spook_ie wrote: »

Once again seeing as you can't seem to understand simple logic.

Maybe logical in your own little world. If it's so logical, why hasn't this been rolled out in other countries?

Spook_ie wrote: »

The money you pay in motor tax on a motor is for the use of THAT vehicle on a public highway, there is no provision that allows that motor tax to be magically transferred to another vehicle!

Again wrong. If I have a car and choose to cycle instead of using the car, it attracts no further tax liability. I realise you champion this idea time and time and get frustrated when people dont agree, but that is the current case. Have you thought about lobbying your local politician to have it reviewed, because that's all the chance you have.

Spook_ie wrote: »

50% is an arbitrary figure it could be 0% on clunkers ( I think thats the term some one used ) and 25% on mid range cycles and 50% on specialist cycles, the actual figures matter less than the principle of the user pays and the more the user can afford the more he should pay

Fair play to you for sticking to your guns on that one - and I see we now have an intermediate tax band. This gets more insane the more I read it.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Why pick on taxi drivers, I think all drivers should have refresher courses but of course training should be aimed at those most likely to benefit from it, which would in general opinion seem to be cyclists

At the moment there's no requirement for a taxi driver to pass any specific test or improve their road knowledge ( or even know where they are going). The vast majority of cyclists are drivers as well, so they already possess a driving licence and in some cases a theory test. From what I've seen of taxi drivers both as a passenger and road user their interpretation of road law and the rules of the road leave a lot to be desired.

Spook_ie wrote: »

If you paid €200 a year, I'd have suggested the €120 zero emission rate personally ) then at least you'd put paid to all the " I pay road tax arguments, you don't " which is true because the vehicle that you paid your tax on is by your choice sitting on the drive way costing you money to leave it standing there

We'd be the only country in the world to do so, with cycling infrastructure that lacks behind other EU countries, but hey I'll go along with it. becuae it's a complete circular argument - you feel cyclists should be taxed to use the roads, I disagree so let's move on.

It would cost me more to drive my car the 30km to and from work and park it for the day - a round trip in bumper to bumper traffic that takes multiples of what I can cycle currently, wear and tear on my car, no certainty of when I can get there or back, hours of delay if I come upon an accident , the stress of traffic jams, potential obesity due to lack of exercise (cycling keeps me extremely fit) and poor diet that would result from 'dash board dining' - been there, done that.

For me the advantages of cycling to work far outweighs the advantage of using a tonne of metal that's 20% full to haul my ass in and out to work.

tipparetops

Sam Kade wrote: »

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

very few parents let their child onto busy roads on a bicycle, if they do, they must accept blame if the child is injured or killed.
Its like dog owners being liable for their dog running onto a road and causing an accident.

Also all built up areas are 50kph zones.

CramCycle

tipparetops wrote: »

very few parents let their child onto busy roads on a bicycle, if they do, they must accept blame if the child is injured or killed.
Its like dog owners being liable for their dog running onto a road and causing an accident.

Also all built up areas are 50kph zones.

So if my child follows the rules, does nothing unexpected but you skim him for sh1t and giggles, this is my fault.

For the sake of everyone on the roads, if this is how you act and then apportion blame, get off the roads.

Pinch Flat

tipparetops wrote: »

very few parents let their child onto busy roads on a bicycle, if they do, they must accept blame if the child is injured or killed.

Victim blaming - all too common. I'm sure my neighbour whose 10 year old daughter was killed by a speeding motorist would disagree.

The busy roads are dangerous because people insist on treating them like a race track.

tipparetops

CramCycle wrote: »

So if my child follows the rules, does nothing unexpected but you skim him for sh1t and giggles, this is my fault.

For the sake of everyone on the roads, if this is how you act and then apportion blame, get off the roads.

but first your child would have to be on the road alone, I doubt that.
the harsh reality is cyclists will not let their kids cycle on the roads alone, they cycle on footpaths.
this is the harsh truth cyclists will never admit.

KwackerJack

Seen one on Sunday afternoon swaying all over the road. Passed him out only to see him chatting on the phone!

Bloody idiot

RainyDay

steamengine wrote: »

Captain Chaos was referring to the situation where:-

1 The bus has it's own lane
2 There is no cycle lane
3 Your 1 pax cars are bumper to bumper in the outside lane.

So the cars are out of the way, ergo - no need for them to pull over.

Some time back, I was on the 15 heading into Dublin city centre and approaching Newcomen Bridge, the bus was stuck behind a cycling snail on the bridge incline. The cyclist was clearly oblivious to the fact that a cycle lane existed on the footpath to the left, and this is the sort of stupidity that needs to be sorted out.

Yes, I understand the scenario he was talking about, but why limit the principle to that scenario (unless this is a naked attack-cyclists-promote-driving policy). If the principle is that 70+ people on a bus have priority over cars with mostly 1 and up to 5 people, then the obvious result is that every time a bus appears in the rear window, the car driver will pull over and let the bus through, just like some expect cyclists will do.

So is this really a principle that we want to apply to give buses priority, or is it just an attack on cyclists?

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Wow....the anti cyclist brigade have actually lost the plot here!

It's actually quite funny, how they can see the bus supposedly held up by the cyclist, but they can't see the queue of cars. Some people must wear blinkers while driving.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Typical obfuscation, as a cyclist you need pay no further tax to use your cycle in public, as a motorist you have paid a tax to use one vehicle in public. You seem unable to comprehend that paying a tax for one vehicle does not translate to being a tax paid for another type of vehicle.

You seem unable to comprehend that most cyclists ARE motorists. They aren't seperate groups. I don't have a bank account for cycling and a bank account for driving.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Once again seeing as you can't seem to understand simple logic.

The money you pay in motor tax on a motor is for the use of THAT vehicle on a public highway, there is no provision that allows that motor tax to be magically transferred to another vehicle!

50% is an arbitrary figure it could be 0% on clunkers ( I think thats the term some one used ) and 25% on mid range cycles and 50% on specialist cycles, the actual figures matter less than the principle of the user pays and the more the user can afford the more he should pay

Why pick on taxi drivers, I think all drivers should have refresher courses but of course training should be aimed at those most likely to benefit from it, which would in general opinion seem to be cyclists

If you paid €200 a year, I'd have suggested the €120 zero emission rate personally ) then at least you'd put paid to all the " I pay road tax arguments, you don't " which is true because the vehicle that you paid your tax on is by your choice sitting on the drive way costing you money to leave it standing there

Could you just explain again why you want a HIGHER vat rate than the standard rate? So given that cyclists already pay VAT when they buy a bike, why do you want to increase it further?

And will this general 'user-pays' approach to every purchase of every good or service?

tipparetops

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Victim blaming - all too common. I'm sure my neighbour whose 10 year old daughter was killed by a speeding motorist would disagree.

The busy roads are dangerous because people insist on treating them like a race track.

Very sad, but I would have to know the full true story before commenting.
As you cannot there is no point adding these personal stories.

Pinch Flat

tipparetops wrote: »

this is the harsh truth cyclists will never admit.

I've absolutely no issue with my 8 year old cycling on paths when going from our house to the Phoenix park - there's no cycle lane and very narrow busy roads. I'll tackle them on my own when commuting, perhaps when he's a bit older I'll accompany him on the road - we use some of the less busy ones around our area.

steamengine

RainyDay wrote: »

Yes, I understand the scenario he was talking about, but why limit the principle to that scenario (unless this is a naked attack-cyclists-promote-driving policy). If the principle is that 70+ people on a bus have priority over cars with mostly 1 and up to 5 people, then the obvious result is that every time a bus appears in the rear window, the car driver will pull over and let the bus through, just like some expect cyclists will do.

So is this really a principle that we want to apply to give buses priority, or is it just an attack on cyclists?



It's actually quite funny, how they can see the bus supposedly held up by the cyclist, but they can't see the queue of cars. Some people must wear blinkers while driving.

Most reasonable road users of whatever mode, while not falling over their perceived adversaries, do not see any advantage in obstructing their progress either. It is unlike the maritime or aviation environments which have mode priority rules where steam gives way to sail, or powered aircraft give way to gliders.

If the thrust of your argument is bicycles have parity of esteem with buses, then all I can do is remind you of the words of a ferry captain on the Dun Laoire Holyhead run, quite a few years back now, who got fed up with sailing dinghies getting in his way whilst entering the Harbour. It was something along the lines of ' Next time I come in here, stay well clear, 'cos I ain't stopping. The result was a victory for common sense.

Cars don't come into it, they're already held up - maybe cyclists should realise just how lucky they are, but rule the roost seems to be the end game with some.

tipparetops

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I've absolutely no issue with my 8 year old cycling on paths when going from our house to the Phoenix park - there's no cycle lane and very narrow busy roads. I'll tackle them on my own when commuting, perhaps when he's a bit older I'll accompany him on the road - we use some of the less busy ones around our area.

I have no problem with that, I am pointing out that only a mental case would let their child cycle on the road unaccompanied.
Cycling is dangerous, the reasons do not matter, it just is.
Cyclists know this and take their chances, but cyclists will not let their own children take that chance.

Pinch Flat

tipparetops wrote: »

I have no problem with that, I am pointing out that only a mental case would let their child cycle on the road unaccompanied.
Cycling is dangerous, the reasons do not matter, it just is.
Cyclists know this and take their chances, but cyclists will not let their own children take that chance.

Cycling is not dangerous. Drivers kill cyclists. Have you paused to think why it is perceived that cycling is dangerous?

Spook_ie

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Maybe logical in your own little world. If it's so logical, why hasn't this been rolled out in other countries?



Again wrong. If I have a car and choose to cycle instead of using the car, it attracts no further tax liability. I realise you champion this idea time and time and get frustrated when people dont agree, but that is the current case. Have you thought about lobbying your local politician to have it reviewed, because that's all the chance you have.
Point 1


Fair play to you for sticking to your guns on that one - and I see we now have an intermediate tax band. This gets more insane the more I read it.
Point 2


At the moment there's no requirement for a taxi driver to pass any specific test or improve their road knowledge ( or even know where they are going). The vast majority of cyclists are drivers as well, so they already possess a driving licence and in some cases a theory test. From what I've seen of taxi drivers both as a passenger and road user their interpretation of road law and the rules of the road leave a lot to be desired.
Point 3


We'd be the only country in the world to do so, with cycling infrastructure that lacks behind other EU countries, but hey I'll go along with it. becuae it's a complete circular argument - you feel cyclists should be taxed to use the roads, I disagree so let's move on.

It would cost me more to drive my car the 30km to and from work and park it for the day - a round trip in bumper to bumper traffic that takes multiples of what I can cycle currently, wear and tear on my car, no certainty of when I can get there or back, hours of delay if I come upon an accident , the stress of traffic jams, potential obesity due to lack of exercise (cycling keeps me extremely fit) and poor diet that would result from 'dash board dining' - been there, done that.

For me the advantages of cycling to work far outweighs the advantage of using a tonne of metal that's 20% full to haul my ass in and out to work
Point 4.

Point 1 Correct as it stands at the moment there would be no tax liability for using a cycle, however, given that your argument about motor tax is that you already pay for it on your car why would you pay it on a cycle (correct me if I'm misinterpreting you ) if the tax regime was changed just because you have paid it for a car would not exempt you from having to pay it on a cycle, they are two separate vehicles.

Point 2 Nothing insane about VAT, luxury items tend to attract higher tax rates, is a sexy cycle more of a luxury than a clunker? If so then increase the VAT

Point 3 Going off topic, but as it currently stands to become a taxi driver you are now required to pass a test that tests your knowledge of the taxi area you intend to work, agreed it wasn't always that way and indeed in some areas the only requirement was to present yourself to the local PSV inspector, answer half a dozen questions about PSV law and that was it, I would love for a driving test to be part of the licensing procedure, maybe it would rid us of some turkeys but that wouldn't help with cyclists flouting the law!

Point 3a I notice a few people have alluded to my old argument that a crap cyclist is probably also a crap driver, but seeing as you don't normally train downwards it would be more logical to start at the bottom, ie cyclists ( I've not included pedestrians because by law they are NOT defined as road users)

Point 4 And that's your choice, I just don't believe other people should have to pay for your choices, therefore put up the VAT on sexy cycles and if you decide that's the way you want to go, then go for it, who would I be to argue but don't expect myself and a lot of others to like paying for your lifestyle choices

Unknown Soldier

Spook_ie wrote: »

I don't need to because I don't actually want to get rid of cyclists, but I do get fed up with the same old tripe trotted out by cyclists on boards that they have a car and therefore they pay motor tax which somehow magically equates providing cycle lanes for nothing

I knew you couldn't. More "obfuscation" on your part

You had a simple question and you couldn't answer it.

Or maybe you can and just need more time?

Does this annoy you? get your blood up so to speak?

It's just a simple list?

What would make you happy sharing the road with cyclists?

No more "obfuscation" please.


Shame on me doing this on AH after all these years....

tipparetops

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Cycling is not dangerous. Drivers kill cyclists. Have you paused to think why it is perceived that cycling is dangerous?

Cyclists like yourself choose to go onto the roads with drivers that kill cyclists.
Have you paused to think about that, do you have a death wish.

Spook_ie

awec wrote: »

Where on earth have you got this notion that motor tax pays for roads?

Your entire argument is based on nonsense. By your logic people who pay higher bands of motor tax have more right to use the road than those on the lower bands. Rubbish.

Motortax, until recently, went into central funds and was paid out to local authorities for ( among other things ) the provision of local roads, the repair of local roads, the improvement of local roads, under the LGA system, ergo motortax does indeed provide for repair of roads up to L numbers, any other roads are the responsibility of the NRA and funded direct from the government rather than councils.

As to people who pay more road/motor tax having more rights, kindly show me where i have even hinted at that. However, I have said that if cyclists were to pay something, then motorists wouldn't be able to throw the old chestnut of "I pay roadtax" into any arguments, a win for the cyclists but a win you should contribute to

I believe that people who drive bigger vehicles should pay more tax, but I also believe that cyclists should pay towards their infrastructure , especially as they are not even required to use them after wards

rubadub

tipparetops wrote: »

the harsh reality is cyclists will not let their kids cycle on the roads alone, they cycle on footpaths.
this is the harsh truth cyclists will never admit.

tipparetops wrote: »

Cyclists know this and take their chances, but cyclists will not let their own children take that chance.

Not sure why you single out cyclists, I imagine most adults without bikes will also instruct their kids to illegally cycle on the path for their own safety. Then some of these hypocritical cunts will moan about people cycling on footpaths.

And this talk of increasing tax etc, people have heard about the government scheme giving people back tax for buying a bike right? in some other countries they pay people per mile they cycle to work

ThisRegard

Spook_ie wrote: »

the tax I pay to use a motor on the road are direct taxes for the use of the road for that vehicle, not some away with the fairies theory like yours that " I pay motor tax on a car so I can use a cycle under the same basis" the tax you've paid is for the car NOT your cycle

Isn't your motor tax, as a taxi driver, subsidised by everyone else?

Spook_ie

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

I knew you couldn't. More "obfuscation" on your part

You had a simple question and you couldn't answer it.

Or maybe you can and just need more time?

Does this annoy you? get your blood up so to speak?

It's just a simple list?

What would make you happy sharing the road with cyclists?

No more "obfuscation" please.


Shame on me doing this on AH after all these years....

No obfuscation, I believe that cyclists as road users should contribute, so simple I'm sure that if you read it a couple of times you'll understand the pov

RainyDay

Spook_ie wrote: »

Motortax, until recently, went into central funds and was paid out to local authorities for ( among other things ) the provision of local roads, the repair of local roads, the improvement of local roads,

How did you manage to work out that it was the motor tax that was paid back out to local authorities for roads? Why would it not have been (for the sake of argument) the income tax of cyclists that was paid back out to local authorities for roads? Do you have some way of tracking the money once it gets paid into the central account?

steamengine wrote: »

Most reasonable road users of whatever mode, while not falling over their perceived adversaries, do not see any advantage in obstructing their progress either. It is unlike the maritime or aviation environments which have mode priority rules where steam gives way to sail, or powered aircraft give way to gliders.
[...]
Cars don't come into it, they're already held up - maybe cyclists should realise just how lucky they are, but rule the roost seems to be the end game with some.

It's really funny again how you pontificate about 'most reasonable road users' and then you exclude cars from that group. So car drivers are not 'reasonable road users'? Or is there some other reason why you expect cyclists to pull over for buses, but not cars?

tipparetops

rubadub wrote: »

Not sure why you single out cyclists, I imagine most adults without bikes will also instruct their kids to illegally cycle on the path for their own safety. Then some of these hypocritical cunts will moan about people cycling on footpaths.

first off, language like that is a disgrace, COP onto yourself.

Secondly, I am pointing out a few home truths that cyclists never discuss as they have no answers, all they do is deflect.
If you choose to cycle on a road, or encourage others to do so and there is a serious ACCIDENT, than you must accept responsibility.
It was YOUR Decision.

ThisRegard

tipparetops wrote: »

I have no problem with that, I am pointing out that only a mental case would let their child cycle on the road unaccompanied.
Cycling is dangerous, the reasons do not matter, it just is.
Cyclists know this and take their chances, but cyclists will not let their own children take that chance.

Statistically it's far from dangerous.

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

Isn't your motor tax, as a taxi driver, subsidised by everyone else?

No my motortax is set at a rate that the exchequer set, probably a historical thing that allowed the pre dereg drivers to put the big engined Mercedes etc onto the roads, if I recall correctly there used to be a minimum engine size for taxis to prevent people using inappropriate sized engines like those in a 998 cc Micra, so therefore the tax was less.

Spook_ie

RainyDay wrote: »

How did you manage to work out that it was the motor tax that was paid back out to local authorities for roads? Why would it not have been (for the sake of argument) the income tax of cyclists that was paid back out to local authorities for roads? Do you have some way of tracking the money once it gets paid into the central account?


It's really funny again how you pontificate about 'most reasonable road users' and then you exclude cars from that group. So car drivers are not 'reasonable road users'? Or is there some other reason why you expect cyclists to pull over for buses, but not cars?

Because the dept of environment receive in the motor tax and pay it back out in the form of LGA, it never went into central exchequer like income tax

wtlltw

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Cycling is not dangerous. Drivers kill cyclists. Have you paused to think why it is perceived that cycling is dangerous?

Sometimes it's the wrong actions of cyclists, drivers and pedestrians that end up getting themselves injured or sadly killed.

This morning, I watched in amazement a father cycling to the middle of a busy road while his very young kids (6 maybe 7) attempted to pedal behind him (very wobbly). He started roaring and shouting at the passing cars because they didn't stop and let him cross. There are set of traffic lights were about 500 yards up the road but he seemed like he couldn't be arsed to head up to them. This is a very busy road for through traffic in the morning and the guy pulls the same stunt every day sadly.

tipparetops

ThisRegard wrote: »

Statistically it's far from dangerous.

Than why do children cycle on footpaths?
Do not dodge the question.

ThisRegard

Spook_ie wrote: »

, I have said that if cyclists were to pay something, then motorists wouldn't be able to throw the old chestnut of "I pay roadtax" into any arguments, a win for the cyclists

Really, cyclists paying what is basically an idiot appeasal tax come out as winners?

tipparetops

wtlltw wrote: »

Sometimes it's the wrong actions of cyclists, drivers and pedestrians that end up getting themselves injured or sadly killed.

This morning, I watched in amazement a father cycling to the middle of a busy road while his very young kids (6 maybe 7) attempted to pedal behind him (very wobbly). He started roaring and shouting at the passing cars because they didn't stop and let him cross. There are set of traffic lights were about 500 yards up the road but he seemed like he couldn't be arsed to head up to them. This is a very busy road for through traffic in the morning and the guy pulls the same stunt every day sadly.

sounds like a lunatic, yet if he or his children were hit, the driver would be to blame.
Someone has to pay, and only the driver has insurance.

rubadub

tipparetops wrote: »

first off, language like that is a disgrace, COP onto yourself..

awwww, poor petal, you're on the internet you know the risks, you have only yourself to blame.

tipparetops wrote: »

Secondly, I am pointing out a few home truths that cyclists never discuss as they have no answers, all they do is deflect.

the same "home truths" could be said about numerous activities. People could just as easily say only a mental case would let their child play football, or play outside on their own.

tipparetops wrote: »

Than why do children cycle on footpaths?
Do not dodge the question.

because their parents tell them to for their own safety. Whether the parents own bikes or not.

ThisRegard

tipparetops wrote: »

.
If you choose to cycle on a road, or encourage others to do so and there is a serious ACCIDENT, than you must accept responsibility.
It was YOUR Decision.

The insanely idiotic posts just keep coming. Just go the full hog and tell people never to leave their house. God knows what could happen.

Pinch Flat

KwackerJack wrote: »

Seen one on Sunday afternoon swaying all over the road. Passed him out only to see him chatting on the phone!

Bloody idiot

Was that a cyclist or a driver? I passed a fella last week on the quays with a newspaper spread across the steering wheel. Catching up with the news while stuck in traffic - who said men can't multi task?

ThisRegard

Spook_ie wrote: »

No my motortax is set at a rate that the exchequer set, probably a historical thing that allowed the pre dereg drivers to put the big engined Mercedes etc onto the roads, if I recall correctly there used to be a minimum engine size for taxis to prevent people using inappropriate sized engines like those in a 998 cc Micra, so therefore the tax was less.

You use the roads more and pay less to do so. Can't wait to see the appropriate rates for you guys under your new scheme.

ThisRegard

tipparetops wrote: »

Than why do children cycle on footpaths?
Do not dodge the question.

What world do you live in where kids don't cycle on roads?

steamengine

RainyDay wrote: »

It's really funny again how you pontificate about 'most reasonable road users' and then you exclude cars from that group. So car drivers are not 'reasonable road users'? Or is there some other reason why you expect cyclists to pull over for buses, but not cars?

I've already explained about the cars, now for the third time, they are already held up, by virtue of not being allowed to use bus lanes. Got it ?

Cars are very reasonable road users, far too reasonable IMO. I really can't explain it any more to you.

A cyclist who holds up the progress of a full bus at rush hour by blocking a bus lane is not being reasonable, and out of courtesy, not any legal obligation, should let it pass. Cyclists are classed as drivers of their vehicles and the following is from the ROR

Avoid driving too slowly
In normal road and traffic conditions, safely keep up with the pace of the traffic
flow while obeying the speed limit. While you must keep a safe distance away
from the vehicle in front, you should not drive so slowly that your vehicle
unnecessarily blocks other road users. If you drive too slowly, you risk frustrating
other drivers, which could lead to dangerous overtaking. However, remember:
you must not drive at a speed at which you cannot stop the vehicle within the
distance you can see to be clear ahead.

tipparetops

rubadub wrote: »

awwww, poor petal, you're on the internet you know the risks, you have only yourself to blame.


the same "home truths" could be said about numerous activities. People could just as easily say only a mental case would let their child play football, or play outside on their own.

hard to believe your a MOD, but I better be careful what I say to you. MODs like you are a simple, vengeful crowd.

People must accept their life decisions. If you choose to cycle and are involved in an accident, blame yourself. It was your decision.

ballyharpat

this has gone off the rails, it is the kind of insane points that would be spoken in a bar after some idiot has had a few too many, and complains about guys cycling. Thing is, cyclists are keeping down health insurance, costing the health service less, and also not traffic, everyone in a car is 'traffic, if they all rode bikes, how much 'traffic' would there be-unfollow this insanity….

tipparetops

ThisRegard wrote: »

What world do you live in where kids don't cycle on roads?

Ireland, not fantasy land/Dublin like yourself.
Cyclists must own the fact that they are accountable for their decisions.

316

They should do a practical cycling test too.

tipparetops

ballyharpat wrote: »

this has gone off the rails, it is the kind of insane points that would be spoken in a bar after some idiot has had a few too many, and complains about guys cycling. Thing is, cyclists are keeping down health insurance, costing the health service less, and also not traffic, everyone in a car is 'traffic, if they all rode bikes, how much 'traffic' would there be-unfollow this insanity….

how very condescending of you, if you do not want to read this stuff, jog on.

ThisRegard

tipparetops wrote: »

Ireland, not fantasy land/Dublin like yourself.
Cyclists must own the fact that they are accountable for their decisions.

It's scary that you share the roads with people.

Your demented logic would also imply that if you were in a road accident, no matter the cause, it's solely your fault for getting in a car in the first place.

ThisRegard

tipparetops wrote: »

how very condescending of you, if you do not want to read this stuff, jog on.

Says the person outrageously offended by bad language.

tipparetops

ThisRegard wrote: »

It's scary that you share the roads with people.

Your demented logic would also imply that if you were in a road accident, no matter the cause, it's solely your fault for getting in a car in the first place.

I drive sensibly, I am watchful for other vehicles. I am always wary.
But accidents are accidents, there is no blame.
They are not called on purposes.

We all take chances every day, accept this.
Cyclists take their chance sitting on a push bike, I am all about accepting ones decisions.

ThisRegard

They aren't actually called accidents by the emergency services either.

But at least you're coming around to your issues not being specific to someone who cycles a bike but to everyone who gets out of bed.

tipparetops

ThisRegard wrote: »

Says the person outrageously offended by bad language.

where did I use bad language?
I know you are all buddies on your little cycle forum, but please do not lie again.

kerry4sam

lickme wrote: »

A lot of cyclists have no concept of the rules of the road and are getting more and more agressive. There acting like they have the right of way the whole time, weaving in and out of traffic, breaking red lights, not adhering and not looking for possible dangers ahead. Stricter and harsher penalties are needed for them. A piece of advice playing chicken with cars will not work well in the long run for ye. Should be made do some sort of simulation test or something. They are some decent cyclists but most are idiots.

Theory Test won't solve this problem & yes it is a problem. I've passed my theory test for the Motorbike. The only reason I passed the theory test for the motorbike is from knowing the ROTR. I can honestly say I have no business what-so-ever near a motorbike. I know nothing about them not even the basics on safety. I will need to do my IBT (Initial Basic Training) before I'll feel any way ready to go near one.

The one and only time I was thrown off my bike that resulted in a back injury (which could've been worse as my helmet cracked from the impact of the my head hit the tarmac road) was a result of a driver (delivery driver btw) not looking right and driving straight out onto the main road that I was on, after only looking left (that he admitted at the scene).

Theory Test won't solve this problem. Education on Road Safety needs to start at a younger age. Sur they only started incl the driver training for the Guards in very recent time. Their are actually Guards driving today with no driver training, driving at speed, through volumes of traffic & pedestrians with no training course done. It beggers belief how more accidents are not caused as a result.

We do have a problem with the way Road Safety is taught ; with the way those occupy our roads have been given access ; with the way more is not being done to Educate & Highlight in general eventualities when taking to the roads.

Just don't think myself that having Cyclists undertake a theory test in it's current form would solve anything.
kerry4sam

316

ThisRegard wrote: »

They aren't actually called accidents by the emergency services either.

No one goes on the road in the morning with intent of causing a collision.

ThisRegard

tipparetops wrote: »

where did I use bad language?
I know you are all buddies on your little cycle forum, but please do not lie again.

Comprehension is not your forte either.

ThisRegard

316 wrote: »

No one goes on the road in the morning with intent of causing a collision.

People do.

steamengine

ballyharpat wrote: »

this has gone off the rails, it is the kind of insane points that would be spoken in a bar after some idiot has had a few too many, and complains about guys cycling. Thing is, cyclists are keeping down health insurance, costing the health service less, and also not traffic, everyone in a car is 'traffic, if they all rode bikes, how much 'traffic' would there be-unfollow this insanity….

Just imagine the footprint of one packed double decker bus compared to 70 bicycles which require a 3 ft clearance all around for safe cycling.

Health doesn't come into it, you can work out down the gym.

If I had to go to Cork right now my car is a few feet away, and my bike is as useless as tits on a bull.

For the majority of people, bikes are fine for commuting and leisure but not a lot else.

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

Really, cyclists paying what is basically an idiot appeasal tax come out as winners?

No cyclists contributing to the facilities they use as cyclists, sort of like motorists contributing via motor tax, fuel tax, VRT etc for the facilities they use. Which has the added benefit of repudiating the motorists "I pay road tax, you don't " argument