Road User Education

Danjamin1

Roadhawk wrote: »

Its not really "Blanket tarring" road users on poor behaviour. Its more like having the ability to hold every road user accountable for their actions. Clearly only offenders would be effected so the percentage who comply will be grand.

Yeah I was addressing ceannair06's POV more so with that point, it's a frequent approach from some bullheaded users once cyclists are mentioned

Roadhawk

Danjamin1 wrote: »

Yeah I was addressing ceannair06's POV more so with that point, it's a frequent approach from some bullheaded users once cyclists are mentioned

I get you. He seems to be at one end of the spectrum.

Going Forward

Roadhawk wrote: »

I would tend to disagree with you where you state, "The cyclist seems to be the forgotten road user in terms of direct campaigns". The RSA currently have the "Cycle Smart, Cycle Safe" campaign which includes all the right messages and uses a number of communication channels to reach its audience.

RSA document on road safety for cyclists(published in 2013):
http: //www. rsa. ie/Documents/Campaigns/Wrecked/Downloads/Cycle%20safety%20booklet.pdf

No amount of documents or web pages equate to the force (and expense) of concerted TV campaigns.

NiallBoo

Going Forward wrote: »

No amount of documents or web pages equate to the force (and expense) of concerted TV campaigns.

Do people still watch tv?

Roadhawk

Going Forward wrote: »

No amount of documents or web pages equate to the force (and expense) of concerted TV campaigns.

The campaign channels includes TV. There are plenty of examples:

Straight of the RSA site:
https: //vimeo .com/58384374
https: //vimeo .com/58384078
https: //vimeo .com/58383372

(I cannot currently post links - Please remove the spaces when copying)

Roadhawk

NiallBoo wrote: »

Do people still watch tv?

I suppose that's why they have a website

Going Forward

Roadhawk wrote: »

The campaign channels includes TV. There are plenty of examples:

Straight of the RSA site:
https: //vimeo .com/58384374
https: //vimeo .com/58384078
https: //vimeo .com/58383372

(I cannot currently post links - Please remove the spaces when copying)

People differ, I would say a bunch of videos that have been viewed a couple of thousand times in total do not equate to the power of an intrusive TV campaign.

Have they even been broadcast on TV?

Roadhawk

Going Forward wrote: »

People differ, I would say a bunch of videos that have been viewed a couple of thousand times in total do not equate to the power of an intrusive TV campaign.

Have they even been broadcast on TV?

I know i have seen at least one of the on the TV. They are only some examples. Plenty more on youtube that have been on RTE etc.

I do get what you are saying though. The videos seem to be a promotion to encourage cyclists to cycle with a bit about safety rather than ramming it into their mind that it is dangerous out there. The typical "shock factor" videos showing the effects of on incident might be more beneficial.

Going Forward

Roadhawk wrote: »

I know i have seen at least one of the on the TV. They are only some examples. Plenty more on youtube that have been on RTE etc.

I do get what you are saying though. The videos seem to be a promotion to encourage cyclists to cycle with a bit about safety rather than ramming it into their mind that it is dangerous out there. The typical "shock factor" videos showing the effects of on incident might be more beneficial.

This is it, you or I could make a few videos advising cyclists and upload them too, but unless it's broadcast to the general public it can't really be cited as a public information campaign.

My personal yardstick for whether any such serious campaign has been mounted is whether I can remember it.

Speed kills, don't drink and drive and seat belts ads all come to mind, cycling ads don't

HivemindXX

Going Forward wrote: »

This is it, you or I could make a few videos advising cyclists and upload them too, but unless it's broadcast to the general public it can't really be cited as a public information campaign.

My personal yardstick for whether any such serious campaign has been mounted is whether I can remember it.

Speed kills, don't drink and drive and seat belts ads all come to mind, cycling ads don't

You should go back and read your first post on this to see just how far you've moved the goalposts.

Gmol

As a driver I don't understand why there isn't a test every 5 years.

monument

Going Forward wrote: »

People differ, I would say a bunch of videos that have been viewed a couple of thousand times in total do not equate to the power of an intrusive TV campaign.

Have they even been broadcast on TV?

Yes some of them have been aired on TV. But they have also been viewed nearly 80,000 times on YouTube alone -- add Vimeo to that and then add non-Vimeo and non-YouTube Facebook embeds, you have quite a bit.

endacl

ceannair06 wrote: »

Would definitely support some sort of registration/licence for cyclists.

Good man. So. How does that work then? :rolleyes:

dubscottie

I did my motorbike test with zero lessons apart from a pre-test the day before.

Passed with only 2 minor faults. Was running around Dublin as a courier for 2 years before that.

And coming from the UK that was easy enough. But I had to adapt to Irish traffic.

Self taught.

If the light is red, stop, Amber stop unless its not safe to do so.. (N11 heading into town being a point)

The biggest thing that is a problem on the roads, and I know I am going to get it.. Women drivers and cyclists.

Or rather women drivers with kids.

Blinkers on. They only look at lil Johnny or Jill in the back, the coffee cup and phone in the hand.

Actually driving is the last thing they think about.

Cyclists, the commuting ones, are the biggest piss taking ones.

Its the same faces that I see day in day out thinking a green man is a green for cyclists. They are the problem not foreign folk using Dublin bikes.

magicbastarder

'biggest problem on the roads' is obviously reflected in the RTA statistics, yes?

Roadhawk

monument wrote: »

Yes some of them have been aired on TV. But they have also been viewed nearly 80,000 times on YouTube alone -- add Vimeo to that and then add non-Vimeo and non-YouTube Facebook embeds, you have quite a bit.

That's some pretty good viewing stats. Does anyone know how many cyclists we have in Ireland? I wouldn't have though 80,000?

desertcircus

dubscottie wrote: »

I did my motorbike test with zero lessons apart from a pre-test the day before.

Passed with only 2 minor faults. Was running around Dublin as a courier for 2 years before that.

And coming from the UK that was easy enough. But I had to adapt to Irish traffic.

Self taught.

If the light is red, stop, Amber stop unless its not safe to do so.. (N11 heading into town being a point)

The biggest thing that is a problem on the roads, and I know I am going to get it.. Women drivers and cyclists.

Or rather women drivers with kids.

Blinkers on. They only look at lil Johnny or Jill in the back, the coffee cup and phone in the hand.

Actually driving is the last thing they think about.

Cyclists, the commuting ones, are the biggest piss taking ones.

Its the same faces that I see day in day out thinking a green man is a green for cyclists. They are the problem not foreign folk using Dublin bikes.

Of course it's cyclists. Never mind actual data, or evidence, or basic common sense, cyclists are one of the two biggest problems on Irish roads. I've seen at least two serious crashes along the Grand Canal where a car pushed its luck too hard and ended up being hit by a fire engine or a Luas, but it's the lads on the bikes that are the problem.

Roadhawk

endacl wrote: »

Good man. So. How does that work then? :rolleyes:

Well if you look closely at the picture you posted you can see that there is a gate in the background and look closer again there is a car behind the gate. Surely the parents are being responsible by keeping the toddler off the road.

I mean kids cycle in safe areas such as parks and gardens, etc. If the toddler had the ability to use the bike on the road then yes, they should be licenses/registered.

desertcircus

Roadhawk wrote: »

Well if you look closely at the picture you posted you can see that there is a gate in the background and look closer again there is a car behind the gate. Surely the parents are being responsible by keeping the toddler off the road.

I mean kids cycle in safe areas such as parks and gardens, etc. If the toddler had the ability to use the bike on the road then yes, they should be licenses/registered.

Seriously: what is the problem you've identified that cycling licences will solve?

magicbastarder

maybe we should require wheelchair users to need a licence too, especially for powered wheelchairs.

Roadhawk

desertcircus wrote: »

Seriously: what is the problem you've identified that cycling licences will solve?

In its most basic form, I believe that all users of vehicles on the road regardless of how they are powered (motorists, cyclists, horse and carts, etc) should be tested and licensed for the sole reason to create a base level of competence towards using the roads safely together. The licensing part would be to hold the road user accountable for any sanctions that have been applied to them. As far as I can currently see, cyclists have the ability of producing false or no information to AGS (An Garda Siochana) leading them to get away with any offence that has been issued. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Bear in mind that I am not singling out cyclists as I have previously been a daily commuting cyclist for 3-4 years. In the best interest of all road users (using vehicles) how can you not agree that everyone should be on the same page when using roads and be held accountable if not compliant? On the other hand can you give a reason why the likes of a cyclist should not need to have any sort of training before using the roads and why there should be a system in place to prove their identity if they are subject to sanctions?

Roadhawk

magicbastarder wrote: »

maybe we should require wheelchair users to need a licence too, especially for powered wheelchairs.

If they desire to become active road users then yes. Why not? How else are they to understand the rules of the road and the advice to stay safe?

If its a case that you are suggesting this as a sarcastic comment you are wasting my time. Ultimately it has to be looked at from a realistic point of view.

magicbastarder

Roadhawk wrote: »

As far as I can currently see, cyclists have the ability of producing false or no information to AGS (An Garda Siochana) leading them to get away with any offence that has been issued. Please correct me if I am wrong.

if a garda pulls a cyclist over for an offence, and is not satisfied with the ID information given (i.e. has reason to believe it is false), they can impound the bike.

desertcircus

Roadhawk wrote: »

In its most basic form, I believe that all users of vehicles on the road regardless of how they are powered (motorists, cyclists, horse and carts, etc) should be tested and licensed for the sole reason to create a base level of competence towards using the roads safely together. The licensing part would be to hold the road user accountable for any sanctions that have been applied to them. As far as I can currently see, cyclists have the ability of producing false or no information to AGS (An Garda Siochana) leading them to get away with any offence that has been issued. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Bear in mind that I am not singling out cyclists as I have previously been a daily commuting cyclist for 3-4 years. In the best interest of all road users (using vehicles) how can you not agree that everyone should be on the same page when using roads and be held accountable if not compliant? On the other hand can you give a reason why the likes of a cyclist should not need to have any sort of training before using the roads and why there should be a system in place to prove their identity if they are subject to sanctions?

1. At least part of the reason cars are licensed and bikes are not is that a car tends to weigh about twenty times as much as a cyclist and moves at (roughly) double the speed, while being four times as wide. A car breaking a red carries about eight hundred times as much danger as a cyclist doing the same.

2. Another reason is the simple fact that the vast majority of incidents are due to driver error even in a situation where driving is licensed. Cycling causes very few incidents, and there's no evidence that licensing it would reduce those incidents anyway.

3. On a cost-benefit analysis, spending money on reducing the perceived risk caused by cyclists is utterly indefensible. A euro spent licensing cyclists is a euro not spent instead on preventing urban speeding, or driver education, or anything else that could actually have a measurable and positive effect.

4. The evidence from Australia regarding compulsory helmet laws indicates that erecting barriers to cycling reduces numbers, with the unfortunate effect that drivers become less aware of cyclists and the roads become more dangerous for people who still opt for the bike.

Danjamin1

Roadhawk wrote: »

On the other hand can you give a reason why the likes of a cyclist should not need to have any sort of training before using the roads and why there should be a system in place to prove their identity if they are subject to sanctions?

While I don't agree with licencing cyclists as it's far too hard to administer, I do think a basic competence course would be something useful. In Switzerland they administer this in school (I think), when I was living there I would frequently see groups of kids being instructed on the road outside our office.

What's particularly annoying in these threads is that everyone confuses "mild irritant" with "biggest problem". @dubscottie your comment being a perfect example. The cyclists advancing through the pedestrian is extremely annoying, but it's hardly causing carnage on the roads. I'm not condoning it for the record, I hate seeing it. A bit of perspective is required at times.

Seaswimmer

dubscottie wrote: »

I did my motorbike test with zero lessons apart from a pre-test the day before.

Passed with only 2 minor faults. Was running around Dublin as a courier for 2 years before that.

And coming from the UK that was easy enough. But I had to adapt to Irish traffic.

Self taught.

If the light is red, stop, Amber stop unless its not safe to do so.. (N11 heading into town being a point)

The biggest thing that is a problem on the roads, and I know I am going to get it.. Women drivers and cyclists.

Or rather women drivers with kids.

Blinkers on. They only look at lil Johnny or Jill in the back, the coffee cup and phone in the hand.

Actually driving is the last thing they think about.

Cyclists, the commuting ones, are the biggest piss taking ones.

Its the same faces that I see day in day out thinking a green man is a green for cyclists. They are the problem not foreign folk using Dublin bikes.

Strangely enough I could say the same about your motor cycling comrades;)

Always using the bus lanes on the Rock Road.

Now also using the off road cycling infrastructure on Frascati Road as they cant filter anymore with the narrower lanes

Both illegal actions and carried out by the same faces (well same reg numbers)

Actually I do think that motorbikes/mopeds should be allowed use bus lanes as they are an efficient means of transport.....but not until it is legal

Roadhawk

desertcircus wrote: »

1. At least part of the reason cars are licensed and bikes are not is that a car tends to weigh about twenty times as much as a cyclist and moves at (roughly) double the speed, while being four times as wide. A car breaking a red carries about eight hundred times as much danger as a cyclist doing the same.

2. Another reason is the simple fact that the vast majority of incidents are due to driver error even in a situation where driving is licensed. Cycling causes very few incidents, and there's no evidence that licensing it would reduce those incidents anyway.

3. On a cost-benefit analysis, spending money on reducing the perceived risk caused by cyclists is utterly indefensible. A euro spent licensing cyclists is a euro not spent instead on preventing urban speeding, or driver education, or anything else that could actually have a measurable and positive effect.

4. The evidence from Australia regarding compulsory helmet laws indicates that erecting barriers to cycling reduces numbers, with the unfortunate effect that drivers become less aware of cyclists and the roads become more dangerous for people who still opt for the bike.

My comments on your points:

1. Licensing allows you to use the vehicle in which you have been tested in on the road. Your comment could argue why we would need to have motorcyclist licensed to use the road as some are significantly lighter than cars? The fact is that regardless of the speed or weight ratios a cyclist on the road poses a threat to themselves as well as others if they are not educated on how to use the road in a safe manor.

2. Exactly, driver error is the main culprit in this case. Incidents are incidents none the less. I agree that there may be a higher fatality rate in incidents involving motor vehicles but this may be simply down to the ratio of motorists to cyclists on the roads (don’t have stats). Clearly there are a higher number of motorists on the roads therefore (presumption) there are more incidents involving motorists. I never said that the licensing would directly reduce incidents on the road instead it would help users be held accountable for their actions.

3. Just like other road users (in vehicles), I am in no way suggesting that cyclists would be getting a license for free. That would be ludicrous from a cost-benefit analysis point of view. Surely the department of transport could raise the finance through the cost of testing and issuing of licenses. Perhaps a percentage or all of the issued fines could assist in financing?

4. I'm not sure where the information is to back this comment up came from but does it make sense that a cyclist taking to the road would not want to wear a helmet for their own safety? This is what I don’t get. It is very easy to say that imposing regulation/barriers would reduce the number of cyclists. The same can be said for a lot of changes for motorists (penalty points for example). The law in Australia is a clear success if people choose not to cycle directly because a law was implemented to wear a helmet. It may have reduced the number by small percentage I'm sure but I wonder what the safety result is?

Roadhawk

Danjamin1 wrote: »

While I don't agree with licencing cyclists as it's far too hard to administer, I do think a basic competence course would be something useful. In Switzerland they administer this in school (I think), when I was living there I would frequently see groups of kids being instructed on the road outside our office.

What's particularly annoying in these threads is that everyone confuses "mild irritant" with "biggest problem". @dubscottie your comment being a perfect example. The cyclists advancing through the pedestrian is extremely annoying, but it's hardly causing carnage on the roads. I'm not condoning it for the record, I hate seeing it. A bit of perspective is required at times.

Well we (we as in Ireland) cant not do something because its hard...

I agree with the basic competence course you have suggested but unless it is compulsory what cyclist would do it considering the majority (not all) don't wear helmets or a hi-vis because its not compulsory. And even if it was how would it be monitored/proved without a license? I am not up to scratch on how are European counterparts operate when it comes to cycling but its impressive to see how many cycle in the likes of Amsterdam.

You would be surprised how many pedestrians are hit by cyclists (not always a cyclists fault). I suppose that is one reason why there are fines for breaking lights now.

magicbastarder

Roadhawk wrote: »

3. Just like other road users (in vehicles), I am in no way suggesting that cyclists would be getting a license for free. That would be ludicrous from a cost-benefit analysis point of view. Surely the department of transport could raise the finance through the cost of testing and issuing of licenses. Perhaps a percentage or all of the issued fines could assist in financing?

you have to bear in mind the hidden cost of licencing cyclists; whatever you charge for the licence, there will be a falloff in people cycling, which goes against what several government departments would like to see. more people cycling means a healthier population, thus making life easier for the department of health.

reduce the number of people on bikes, and you increase general traffic congestion. and it's seen everywhere that the more cyclists there are, the safer it becomes for the cyclists.

i'm not aware of anywhere in the world which has introduced a licencing system for cyclists, and woudl be curious to hear about any country that has. it's simply not going to happen in ireland; the dublin bike scheme is seen as a great success and that would be killed stone dead by a requirement for a licence.

desertcircus

Roadhawk wrote: »

My comments on your points:

1. Licensing allows you to use the vehicle in which you have been tested in on the road. Your comment could argue why we would need to have motorcyclist licensed to use the road as some are significantly lighter than cars? The fact is that regardless of the speed or weight ratios a cyclist on the road poses a threat to themselves as well as others if they are not educated on how to use the road in a safe manor.

2. Exactly, driver error is the main culprit in this case. Incidents are incidents none the less. I agree that there may be a higher fatality rate in incidents involving motor vehicles but this may be simply down to the ratio of motorists to cyclists on the roads (don’t have stats). Clearly there are a higher number of motorists on the roads therefore (presumption) there are more incidents involving motorists. I never said that the licensing would directly reduce incidents on the road instead it would help users be held accountable for their actions.

3. Just like other road users (in vehicles), I am in no way suggesting that cyclists would be getting a license for free. That would be ludicrous from a cost-benefit analysis point of view. Surely the department of transport could raise the finance through the cost of testing and issuing of licenses. Perhaps a percentage or all of the issued fines could assist in financing?

4. I'm not sure where the information is to back this comment up came from but does it make sense that a cyclist taking to the road would not want to wear a helmet for their own safety? This is what I don’t get. It is very easy to say that imposing regulation/barriers would reduce the number of cyclists. The same can be said for a lot of changes for motorists (penalty points for example). The law in Australia is a clear success if people choose not to cycle directly because a law was implemented to wear a helmet. It may have reduced the number by small percentage I'm sure but I wonder what the safety result is?

Assumption after assumption after assumption. How many traffic incidents a year do you think are caused by cyclists, what's your basis for that belief, and how do you think licensing will reduce that number? You've decided that bikes need licensing and are desperately casting around for a reason to do so. There is no evidence that cyclists cause accidents that would be prevented through licensing. There is no evidence that a licensing system can be self-funding. There is no evidence that the basis for licensing cars can logically be extended to bikes.

And I told you exactly what happened in Australia! Numbers cycling dropped heavily, and accident rates for the cyclists who stayed on the road shot up even though the law was meant to make them safer. How the hell is that a success?