Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Road User Education
Options
Comments
-
desertcircus wrote: »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?
Spoken like a disgruntled cyclist. Evidence comes after the fact. Presumption before.
I will look into a few interesting facts and get back to you.0 -
Spoken like a disgruntled cyclist. Evidence comes after the fact. Presumption before.
I will look into a few interesting facts and get back to you.
Have you tried the RSA Website?
http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Crash%20Stats/RCF20083-2-2010.pdf0 -
This is an interesting article on transport in general:
(the link will have to be copied into the address bar and then the spaces removed to work)
http: //www. dttas. ie/sites/default/files/publications/corporate/english/transport-trends/transport-trends-2015-final-3.pdf0 -
Spoken like a disgruntled cyclist. Evidence comes after the fact. Presumption before.
I will look into a few interesting facts and get back to you.
What does that even mean? I asked you three times to provide evidence for your position, and you're accusing me of being cavalier with evidence? It's only been after three consecutive requests that you've even decided to bother seeing if your position has any empirical basis, and yet you're dismissing me as a disgruntled cyclist? You're honestly resorting to name calling ahead of actually backing up your assertions?0 -
RSA document on road safety for cyclists(published in 2013):
http: //www. rsa. ie/Documents/Campaigns/Wrecked/Downloads/Cycle%20safety%20booklet.pdf
page 1, para 3 is wrong
Sitting on the saddle, your heel on your straight leg should touch the pedal at the bottom of the stroke.rsaSafetyLeaflet wrote:Is the bicycle the right size for you?
Riding a bicycle which is too big or too small is very dangerous. When on the
saddle, both your feet should touch the ground
Given this bad information, I couldn't bother reading any more.
How do you propose testing 3-4 year old children?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.
How do you hold children below the age of criminal responsibility accountable?
How much would you charge a child to allow them cycle?
How many cyclists would there be in 20 years if this happened?0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,391 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 48827
would this allow you to touch the ground with toes extended though? though the assumption from the above wording would be both feet flat.Carawaystick wrote: »Sitting on the saddle, your heel on your straight leg should touch the pedal at the bottom of the stroke.
Given this bad information, I couldn't bother reading any more.0 -
I doubt it. The advice I got recently when buying a bike was the above, but when off the saddle, over the crossbar, you should be able to stand with both feet flat on the ground, and with a few inches of "head room" to spare, though clearly that is more about frame size than saddle height.magicbastarder wrote: »would this allow you to touch the ground with toes extended though? though the assumption from the above wording would be both feet flat.
That RSA advice sounds like a recipe for knee problems, but maybe explains some cyclists I've seen with saddle set way too low.0 -
I doubt it. The advice I got recently when buying a bike was the above, but when off the saddle, over the crossbar, you should be able to stand with both feet flat on the ground, and with a few inches of "head room" to spare, though clearly that is more about frame size than saddle height.
That RSA advice sounds like a recipe for knee problems, but maybe explains some cyclists I've seen with saddle set way too low.
+1 If you can touch the ground with your toes, while sitting on the saddle, your saddle is probably too low.
https://youtu.be/FVu5Zrktm400 -
desertcircus wrote: »What does that even mean? I asked you three times to provide evidence for your position, and you're accusing me of being cavalier with evidence? It's only been after three consecutive requests that you've even decided to bother seeing if your position has any empirical basis, and yet you're dismissing me as a disgruntled cyclist? You're honestly resorting to name calling ahead of actually backing up your assertions?
Apologies if I offended you.
Back to your original quote:
"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?"
Am I to take that fact that you told me about a law implemented in Australia directly resulted in a decrease of cyclist as gospel without real evidence? Eh, no.
Going by stats taken by the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport this year there a survey published on 3/08/2015 confirmed that there was 2,515,322 motorists using Irish roads Consisting of (1,943,868 private cars; 317,378 goods vehicles; 85,042 agricultural vehicles and 36,573 motorcycles.). This year is was confirmed that 1.3% of the population cycle. The current population is 4.8 million so 62,400 people cycle in Ireland (this figure does not account for tourists). From 1 Jan 2015 to 31 July 2015, 41 drivers, 16 passengers, 18 pedestrians, 12 motorcyclists and 5 cyclists have been killed on Irish roads. That is a total of 87 deaths for 2,515,322 motorists versus 5 deaths to 62,400 cyclists. 1 in every 12,480 cyclists died on Irish roads as opposed to 1 in every 28,912 motorists. Cycling is significantly a more dangerous mode of transport so why isn’t safety enforced? My reasons for suggesting that some sort of a test is to raise awareness of general roads rules and safety. Im not saying that the test has to be a practical test but perhaps something along the lines of a theory test? I think you are mixing this up with the suggestion to have a licensing system. I suggested the license so that the cyclist can be identified correctly and sanctioned if they have offended. I had mentioned that this might help create awareness of road rules through them being held accountable for their action (once bitten twice shy kind of thing).
http: //www. dttas. ie/press-releases/2015/minister-donohoe-publishes-seven-month-review-road-fatalities
http: //www. dttas. ie/sites/default/files/publications/corporate/english/transport-trends/transport-trends-2015-final-3.pdf0 -
The review of fatalities from January to July 2015 found that:
• Road deaths have declined by 19% compared to last year (92 compared to 113) with reductions in all road-user groups.
• Up to 31 July 2015, 41 drivers, 16 passengers, 18 pedestrians, 12 motorcyclists and 5 cyclists have been killed on Irish roads.
• Reductions in road deaths were most evident in road-users aged 15 years or younger (down 11 in 2015), vehicle occupants (down 9 in 2015) and Vulnerable Road Users.
• Younger and older drivers continue to remain a high risk group.
• Non-wearing of seatbelts is a concern for both drivers and passengers.
• Non-wearing of high visibility material is a concern for pedestrians.
• The highest number of driver fatalities was recorded in Cork (6).
• Dublin recorded the highest number of Vulnerable Road User fatalities with 7 lives lost between January and July.
• Sunday was the worst day for fatalities to date this year, compared to mid-week in 2014.
• This year, more fatalities have occurred in the afternoon and evening (from 4pm to 10pm) than any other time period.
• April had the lowest number of monthly fatalities since November 2012 with 8 fatalities. However, July was the most dangerous month, with 20 lives lost.0 -
Advertisement
-
The RSA and An Garda Síochána are appealing to road-users to:
• Reduce speed, always wear a safety belt, watch out for other road users
• Ensure passengers always wear their safety belt and never distract the driver
• Never use your phone while driving
• If you’re feeling tired, Stop, Sip and Sleep
• Pedestrians, make yourself visible and always take care crossing the road
• Cyclists, be seen, obey rules of the road and take great care around large vehicles
• Motorcyclists, be seen, wear appropriate PPE (Personal Protection Equipment ) and slow down
• Parents/guardians, make road safety a priority in your ‘Back to School’ preparations0 -
This year is was confirmed that 1.3% of the population cycle. The current population is 4.8 million so 62,400 people cycle in Ireland (this figure does not account for tourists).
Where is the number given for the number of people who cycle?
I see there is a figure of 1.3% of total journeys are cycle journeys. This is not the same thing.
I see you completely disregarded the significant issues with licensing children to cycle.
Would children have to carry their licenses while cycling?0 -
The RSA and An Garda Síochána are appealing to road-users to:
• Reduce speed, always wear a safety belt, watch out for other road users
• Ensure passengers always wear their safety belt and never distract the driver
• Never use your phone while driving
• If you’re feeling tired, Stop, Sip and Sleep
• Pedestrians, make yourself visible and always take care crossing the road
• Cyclists, be seen, obey rules of the road and take great care around large vehicles
• Motorcyclists, be seen, wear appropriate PPE (Personal Protection Equipment ) and slow down
• Parents/guardians, make road safety a priority in your ‘Back to School’ preparations
No mention of a License! Phew!0 -
Carawaystick wrote: »Where is the number given for the number of people who cycle?
I see there is a figure of 1.3% of total journeys are cycle journeys. This is not the same thing.
I see you completely disregarded the significant issues with licensing children to cycle.
Would children have to carry their licenses while cycling?
i will go back and recheck that figure so.
sorry i haven't gotten around answering your Q's. Ill get back shortly0 -
I cant seem to find the most relevant stats on number of cyclists in Ireland?
The only stat i found was:
"Between 2006 and 2011 there was a 9.6 per cent rise in the number of persons cycling from 36,306 to 39,803. A total of 170,510 commuters walked to work, accounting for 10.5 per cent of all commuters in 2011."
Does anyone know how many of the Irish population cycle?0 -
I cant seem to find the most relevant stats on number of cyclists in Ireland?
The only stat i found was:
"Between 2006 and 2011 there was a 9.6 per cent rise in the number of persons cycling from 36,306 to 39,803. A total of 170,510 commuters walked to work, accounting for 10.5 per cent of all commuters in 2011."
Does anyone know how many of the Irish population cycle?
If i presume that the figure had risen 9.6% over 5 years and that was 5 years ago, I could add the same growth rate (@9.6%) to the 2011 figure of 39,803 which gives me 44,443. This figure is lower than the 62,400 i previously suggested.
62,400 even if wrong is probably leaning in favor of the cyclists when it comes to the fatality ratio.
God this feels like a Maths forum :-)0 -
Apologies if I offended you.
Back to your original quote:
"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?"
Am I to take that fact that you told me about a law implemented in Australia directly resulted in a decrease of cyclist as gospel without real evidence? Eh, no.
Going by stats taken by the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport this year there a survey published on 3/08/2015 confirmed that there was 2,515,322 motorists using Irish roads Consisting of (1,943,868 private cars; 317,378 goods vehicles; 85,042 agricultural vehicles and 36,573 motorcycles.). This year is was confirmed that 1.3% of the population cycle. The current population is 4.8 million so 62,400 people cycle in Ireland (this figure does not account for tourists). From 1 Jan 2015 to 31 July 2015, 41 drivers, 16 passengers, 18 pedestrians, 12 motorcyclists and 5 cyclists have been killed on Irish roads. That is a total of 87 deaths for 2,515,322 motorists versus 5 deaths to 62,400 cyclists. 1 in every 12,480 cyclists died on Irish roads as opposed to 1 in every 28,912 motorists. Cycling is significantly a more dangerous mode of transport so why isn’t safety enforced? My reasons for suggesting that some sort of a test is to raise awareness of general roads rules and safety. Im not saying that the test has to be a practical test but perhaps something along the lines of a theory test? I think you are mixing this up with the suggestion to have a licensing system. I suggested the license so that the cyclist can be identified correctly and sanctioned if they have offended. I had mentioned that this might help create awareness of road rules through them being held accountable for their action (once bitten twice shy kind of thing).
http: //www. dttas. ie/press-releases/2015/minister-donohoe-publishes-seven-month-review-road-fatalities
http: //www. dttas. ie/sites/default/files/publications/corporate/english/transport-trends/transport-trends-2015-final-3.pdf
First: the Australian Institute of Public Affairs produced this article entitled "Australia's Helmet Law Disaster" which quotes extensively from academic literature findings that 'enforced helmet laws discourage cycling but produce no obvious response in percentage of head injuries': http://ipa.org.au/publications/2019/australia's-helmet-law-disaster
Second: data showing how many cyclists have died still doesn't suffice as an evidence base for requiring testing or licensing, because there's no data included on what percentage of incidents involving cyclists would have been prevented or made less likely by testing or licensing. Furthermore, any perceived reductions need to be measured against the increased mortality rates triggered by less healthy lifestyles among people who opt out of cycling in the face of testing or licensing requirements.
Thirdly: if you're concerned by the possibility of people giving the cops false names, then just allow the police to impound bikes used dangerously in cases where they're not satisfied as to the identity of the cyclist. No need for bike licences for this purpose, just let the Gardai impound the bike if they reckon you're giving a false name.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19317
It would be simple if a new licence (renewal) required the applicant to present themselves for an eyesight test (read number plate type) and a rules of the road test (answer twenty multiple choice questions). If either failed then further tests required. Neither would take more than 5 minutes.
Eyesight is one thing that does not improve with age. Experience and caution can compensate, but not enough.0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »It would be simple if a new licence (renewal) required the applicant to present themselves for an eyesight test (read number plate type) and a rules of the road test (answer twenty multiple choice questions). If either failed then further tests required. Neither would take more than 5 minutes.
Eyesight is one thing that does not improve with age. Experience and caution can compensate, but not enough.
Y'know, I thought that and thought it a Nice compromise. ..but why?
It makes more sense to have the full test every say, five years. It's the minimum level of competence for driving a car so shouldn't that be the standard that has to be shown?
It might sound harsh but people spend a lot more time getting services and NCTs done...So why not properly test the most important thing in the car?0 -
If i presume that the figure had risen 9.6% over 5 years and that was 5 years ago, I could add the same growth rate (@9.6%) to the 2011 figure of 39,803 which gives me 44,443. This figure is lower than the 62,400 i previously suggested.
62,400 even if wrong is probably leaning in favor of the cyclists when it comes to the fatality ratio.
God this feels like a Maths forum :-)
Why do you have this obsession with cyclists. What evidence do you have that time and money spent on the regulation of cyclists would have an serious decrease on road accidents.
Grand there's been a big increase in the number of cyclists. So what? When is the last time a cyclist caused the death of another road user in Ireland? What statistics do you have that cyclists are so dangerous that they deserve extra special attention aside from the normal road safety campaigns run by the RSA. The big increase in the numbers of cyclists over the last 5/6 years has done more to improve the safety of cyclists than any rule or regulation could ever have done.
The one way to make the roads more dangerous is to base rules and regulations on superstition and prejudiced assumptions that hard evidence.0 -
Advertisement
-
Sam Russell wrote: »It would be simple if a new licence (renewal) required the applicant to present themselves for an eyesight test (read number plate type) and a rules of the road test (answer twenty multiple choice questions). If either failed then further tests required. Neither would take more than 5 minutes.
Eyesight is one thing that does not improve with age. Experience and caution can compensate, but not enough.
Absolutely. The fact that this was not done when the new licence was introduced, as it required an actual visit to the licensing place, is a testimony to the interest our useless politicians have in road safety.0 -
Apologies if I offended you.
Back to your original quote:
"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?"
Am I to take that fact that you told me about a law implemented in Australia directly resulted in a decrease of cyclist as gospel without real evidence? Eh, no.
Going by stats taken by the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport this year there a survey published on 3/08/2015 confirmed that there was 2,515,322 motorists using Irish roads Consisting of (1,943,868 private cars; 317,378 goods vehicles; 85,042 agricultural vehicles and 36,573 motorcycles.). This year is was confirmed that 1.3% of the population cycle. The current population is 4.8 million so 62,400 people cycle in Ireland (this figure does not account for tourists). From 1 Jan 2015 to 31 July 2015, 41 drivers, 16 passengers, 18 pedestrians, 12 motorcyclists and 5 cyclists have been killed on Irish roads. That is a total of 87 deaths for 2,515,322 motorists versus 5 deaths to 62,400 cyclists. 1 in every 12,480 cyclists died on Irish roads as opposed to 1 in every 28,912 motorists. Cycling is significantly a more dangerous mode of transport so why isn’t safety enforced? My reasons for suggesting that some sort of a test is to raise awareness of general roads rules and safety. Im not saying that the test has to be a practical test but perhaps something along the lines of a theory test? I think you are mixing this up with the suggestion to have a licensing system. I suggested the license so that the cyclist can be identified correctly and sanctioned if they have offended. I had mentioned that this might help create awareness of road rules through them being held accountable for their action (once bitten twice shy kind of thing).
http: //www. dttas. ie/press-releases/2015/minister-donohoe-publishes-seven-month-review-road-fatalities
http: //www. dttas. ie/sites/default/files/publications/corporate/english/transport-trends/transport-trends-2015-final-3.pdf
On your point about cyclists deaths, do you have any evidence for who caused the accident. Because if the accidents are being primarily caused by drivers crashing into cyclists its the drivers who need tougher licencing requirements. If cyclists are primarily the victims increased regulation would have 0 effect and as desert circus has quoted it could have other negative knock on effects.0 -
Apologies if I offended you.
Back to your original quote:
"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?"
Am I to take that fact that you told me about a law implemented in Australia directly resulted in a decrease of cyclist as gospel without real evidence? Eh, no.
Going by stats taken by the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport this year there a survey published on 3/08/2015 confirmed that there was 2,515,322 motorists using Irish roads Consisting of (1,943,868 private cars; 317,378 goods vehicles; 85,042 agricultural vehicles and 36,573 motorcycles.). This year is was confirmed that 1.3% of the population cycle. The current population is 4.8 million so 62,400 people cycle in Ireland (this figure does not account for tourists). From 1 Jan 2015 to 31 July 2015, 41 drivers, 16 passengers, 18 pedestrians, 12 motorcyclists and 5 cyclists have been killed on Irish roads. That is a total of 87 deaths for 2,515,322 motorists versus 5 deaths to 62,400 cyclists. 1 in every 12,480 cyclists died on Irish roads as opposed to 1 in every 28,912 motorists. Cycling is significantly a more dangerous mode of transport so why isn’t safety enforced? My reasons for suggesting that some sort of a test is to raise awareness of general roads rules and safety. Im not saying that the test has to be a practical test but perhaps something along the lines of a theory test? I think you are mixing this up with the suggestion to have a licensing system. I suggested the license so that the cyclist can be identified correctly and sanctioned if they have offended. I had mentioned that this might help create awareness of road rules through them being held accountable for their action (once bitten twice shy kind of thing).
http: //www. dttas. ie/press-releases/2015/minister-donohoe-publishes-seven-month-review-road-fatalities
http: //www. dttas. ie/sites/default/files/publications/corporate/english/transport-trends/transport-trends-2015-final-3.pdfi will go back and recheck that figure so.
sorry i haven't gotten around answering your Q's. Ill get back shortlyI cant seem to find the most relevant stats on number of cyclists in Ireland?
The only stat i found was:
"Between 2006 and 2011 there was a 9.6 per cent rise in the number of persons cycling from 36,306 to 39,803. A total of 170,510 commuters walked to work, accounting for 10.5 per cent of all commuters in 2011."
Does anyone know how many of the Irish population cycle?If i presume that the figure had risen 9.6% over 5 years and that was 5 years ago, I could add the same growth rate (@9.6%) to the 2011 figure of 39,803 which gives me 44,443. This figure is lower than the 62,400 i previously suggested.
62,400 even if wrong is probably leaning in favor of the cyclists when it comes to the fatality ratio.
God this feels like a Maths forum :-)
Your quality of posting needs to improve. If you keep posting about statistics which you have no clue about* to try to prove a point. Please stop posting here about such stats until you have some solid backing what you claim.
What you're at at the moment amounts to trolling and/or distruptive posting, even if its not intended as such.
* here's my back up to show you have no clue: there's over 60,000 people signed up to DublinBikes alone and DublinBike users are a small percentage of the overall numbers of people cycle across the country.
Do not reply to this post.
- moderator0 -
On your point about cyclists deaths, do you have any evidence for who caused the accident. Because if the accidents are being primarily caused by drivers crashing into cyclists its the drivers who need tougher licencing requirements. If cyclists are primarily the victims increased regulation would have 0 effect and as desert circus has quoted it could have other negative knock on effects.
The figures I've read for cyclist death caused by motorist error have been between 75%&92%.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,391 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 48827
does anyone know of any jurisdiction which have ever tried a licencing system for cyclists?
it'd be interesting if they did and had a category system like the driving licence does. e.g. 'only licenced to cycle a single speed bike with back pedal brakes', until you pass your test on a bike with gears.0 -
You need a bicycle license in Switzerland:
http://www.englishforum.ch/transportation-driving/7530-does-bicycle-need-licence.html0 -
07Lapierre wrote: »You need a bicycle license in Switzerland:
http://www.englishforum.ch/transportation-driving/7530-does-bicycle-need-licence.html
You need a license to trim your feckin' toe-nails in Switzerland...0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,391 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 48827
it's mandatory insurance rather than a licence though; in the same way a light is mandatory, but you wouldn't call that a 'licence'.0 -
magicbastarder wrote: »it's mandatory insurance rather than a licence though; in the same way a light is mandatory, but you wouldn't call that a 'licence'.
Agreed...but it's the only example of a "bicycle license" I counld find. Oh and it's dated 2006!0 -
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement