Road User Education

magicbastarder

does not compute. or else you're not making the point i think you think you're making.

as in; it's irrelevant that most adult cyclists are also drivers. most drivers are not cyclists, so (with all other things being equal) most of the accidents involve drivers who are not cyclists, so 'cyclists are also drivers' is irrelevant.

PeadarCo

magicbastarder wrote: »

does not compute. or else you're not making the point i think you think you're making.

as in; it's irrelevant that most adult cyclists are also drivers. most drivers are not cyclists, so (with all other things being equal) most of the accidents involve drivers who are not cyclists, so 'cyclists are also drivers' is irrelevant.

My point is that there's no need to single out cyclists for. Most road safety campaigns tend to focus on drivers. This also effectively means you'll end up looking at cyclists as well as they are also drivers.

Basically what I'm getting is the idea earlier in the thread that cyclists are this menace that need extra education, regulation etc, while ignoring the fact that most people also fall under the category of pedestrian and drivers on a weekly basis.

Apologies if I'm being unclear/confusing.

magicbastarder

ah; it was the post you quoted which confused me.

galwaycyclist

Re numbers of people who cycle in Ireland. Doing this from phone so there is a health warning on the numbers but ballpark value will be thereabouts.

In 2007 the Department of Health sposored the SLAN lifestyle study of health behaviours among Irish Adults. The population sampled was 10,000 and was considered representative of the population as a whole. It was found that 28% of the respondents reported using a bicycle in the previous year.

Working off the 2006 census report "Principle Demographic Results" and "Table 5A Persons classified by age group".

Figure out how many adults?

302252 (0 to 4 yrs)
288325 (5 to 9 yrs)
273872 (10 to 14 yrs)
290257 (15 to 19 yrs)
=1,154,706

Total population in 2006 = 4,239,848

This leaves a population of 3,085,142 who were over 19yrs in 2006.

28% of 3,085,142 is 863,839. This suggests at least 863,839 Irish adults had used a bicycle in the year prior to the 2007 SLAN study.

Carawaystick

[QUOTE=Roadhawk;97881760
• Younger and older drivers continue to remain a high risk group.
[/QUOTE]

Can you clearly explain what you mean by this? Because you seem to be parroting stuff published by other groups who haven't a clue, or appear not to want to seem like they have a clue.

The above bullet point covers every driver.

Spook_ie

07Lapierre wrote: »

Agreed...but it's the only example of a "bicycle license" I counld find. Oh and it's dated 2006!

Phased out 2012.

https://www.ch.ch/en/cycling-switzerland/

Bike insurance sticker

The vignette (insurance sticker) for bicycles was phased out at the beginning of 2012. Cover against damage caused to third parties in an accident involving a bicycle can be provided by your personal liability insurance. If you ride a pedal-assisted e-bike with a speed of over 25 km/h, you need a motor-assisted bicycle authorisation and an annually-renewable vignette (read how to get one below).

Most insurance companies automatically include cover for cycling accidents in personal liability insurance. You should ask your insurer to be sure you have this cover. If you do not have liability insurance you are no longer insured if you cause damage to third parties in a cycling accident.

Roadhawk

PeadarCo wrote: »

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.

PeadarCo wrote: »

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.

NiallBoo wrote: »

The figures I've read for cyclist death caused by motorist error have been between 75%&92%.

I get the feeling that i am being perceived as having a vendetta for cyclists. I originally created this forum around Road User Education which includes road safety as a whole but the direction has led to cyclists. My standpoint on cyclists is around safety and safety. The stats i provided was to show how many cyclists deaths we have on the roads in comparison to motorists (regardless of who was at fault). This was also to back a suggestion that cyclists should be licensed and tested.My suggestion around the licensing or testing for cyclists is to create a level of understanding both on the rules of the roads and safety. I can understand for all those cyclists out there that this would be a complete inconvenience but what about the people who cycle every day who know very little about the rules (youngsters for example). Their only chance to learn is through experience...is that safe enough?
The bottom line is that clearly it is not up to me whether cyclists are tested or not but it is my view that it is a good idea to raise awareness of safety and the rules of the road.

A cyclist is not really a danger to motorist in an accident. that's like comparing an incident between motorcyclist and a truck...it is clear who is going to be worse off. Again that fact is that more cyclists have died (per cyclist on Irish roads) than motorists (per motorist on Irish roads).

I do also agree with the need for strict regulation for a B license in particular.

Roadhawk

Spook_ie wrote: »

Phased out 2012.

https://www.ch.ch/en/cycling-switzerland/

Was the insurance sticker or license phased out?

NiallBoo

Who is at fault for cyclist death is relevant because it tells you who education should be primarily aimed at.

For what part of it should be aimed at cyclists, education in schools would seem to be a preferable approach to licensing as it has the benefits without the substantial down-sides.

Roadhawk

Carawaystick wrote: »

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.
Given this bad information, I couldn't bother reading any more.


1) How do you propose testing 3-4 year old children?
2) How do you hold children below the age of criminal responsibility accountable?
3) How much would you charge a child to allow them cycle?
4) How many cyclists would there be in 20 years if this happened?

1) I would question what parent would let their 3-4 year old cycle on Irish roads. Too dangerous in my view. Perhaps a continuous road safety class is schools could be implemented for minors and a license could be issued after a certain amount of classes are complete? so many options.
2) The same way a 17 year old motorist is held responsible? That's like asking how a cycling fine can be issued to an underage cyclist?
3) Pricing is a completely different ball game. I wouldn't have a clue? I presume an analysis would be the first step.
4) Again i wouldn't have a clue. No evidence from other countries but my suggestions are not a show stopper.

There are always pros and cons to a suggestion.

Roadhawk

NiallBoo wrote: »

Who is at fault for cyclist death is relevant because it tells you who education should be primarily aimed at.

For what part of it should be aimed at cyclists, education in schools would seem to be a preferable approach to licensing as it has the benefits without the substantial down-sides.

I completely agree that motorist are at fault in the majority of incidents between cyclists. There are many drivers out there who are not fit to be driving (i wouldn't give them a stick to drive cattle let alone a key for a car).

There are so many things that cyclists can do to try and reduce the amount of incidents. Many accidents between motorists and cyclists is visibility(Car not checking mirrors, road/weather conditions, etc.).
so a cyclist is on a country back road, dressed in black, no hi-vis, no lights on the bike. An unlight road, stormy weather (rain and wind). This posses as a possible accident for any motorist. IF an incident occurs here the motorist is at fault. Again i know not every cyclist would take to the road in such conditions but it does happen.

NiallBoo

^not checking mirrors isn't a problem of visibility

My personal opinion - formed entirely on the back of learning to drive - is that the overwhelming reason for car drivers not seeing bikes in an urban environment is simply falling to look. But the tendency here seems to be to put the onus on the victim. Go figure.

Roadhawk

NiallBoo wrote: »

^not checking mirrors isn't a problem of viability.

My personal opinion - formed entirely on the back of learning to drive - is that the overwhelming reason for car drivers not seeing bikes in an urban environment is simply falling to look. But the tendency here seems to be to put the onus on the victim. Go figure.

I agree again. That's what i meant by not checking mirrors...not looking at all.

NiallBoo

Roadhawk wrote: »

I agree again. That's what i meant by not checking mirrors...not looking at all.

But you appeared to list that as a thing for cyclists to work on...

07Lapierre

Roadhawk wrote: »

1) I would question what parent would let their 3-4 year old cycle on Irish roads.
2) The same way a 17 year old motorist is held responsible? That's like asking how a cycling fine can be issued to an underage cyclist?

Maybe the Parents of the 3-4 year old know that its illegal to allow their child to cycle on the path?

I think that's exactly what @carawaystick is asking. The answer (I assume) is that the Parents are responsible. Nothing new here as that is already the case. Again it all comes back to Education and Enforcement.

"Originally Posted by Carawaystick

2) How do you hold children below the age of criminal responsibility accountable?"

Roadhawk

NiallBoo wrote: »

But you appeared to list that as a thing for cyclists to work on...

Yes i have listed visibility as a thing for cyclist to work on as well as Motorists. not that it is compulsory but in terms of safety a cyclist should wear high vis clothing, have lights on their bike (day and night in my opinion). This could be the difference in preventing an accident.

cython

Roadhawk wrote: »

Yes i have listed visibility as a thing for cyclist to work on as well as Motorists. not that it is compulsory but in terms of safety a cyclist should wear high vis clothing, have lights on their bike (day and night in my opinion). This could be the difference in preventing an accident.

While I can't abide cyclists at night with no lights, suggesting a blanket rule for lights at all times of the day and under all conditions like the above for cyclists is also ridiculous. There are plenty of days in Ireland each year whereby it is sufficiently bright that no light capable of being mounted on a bicycle is going to increase the visibility of a cyclist, and requiring them is literally just wasting batteries/electricity/whatever.

Similarly, if a cyclist has adequate lights, etc. at night, then high vis clothing will be well down the list of things making them visible. Besides, in truly dark conditions, only the retro reflective strips will be of help, and even then only when headlights hit them - with the number of cars with defective headlights in Ireland, my 70 lumen rear light, and 700 lumen strobing front light give me far more comfort at night than any high vis clothing ever could. That is not to say that I don't wear high vis, as I do when I feel the conditions warrant it, but your suggested blanket rule is patently ridiculous.

NiallBoo

Roadhawk wrote: »

Yes i have listed visibility as a thing for cyclist to work on as well as Motorists. not that it is compulsory but in terms of safety a cyclist should wear high vis clothing, have lights on their bike (day and night in my opinion). This could be the difference in preventing an accident.

This started as people in cars not looking around them, which again isn't an issue of visibility. Phrasing it that way implies that its the cyclists fault for a motorist not checking their mirrors.
I'm sorry to dwell on semantics, but it's crucially different.

Roadhawk

cython wrote: »

While I can't abide cyclists at night with no lights, suggesting a blanket rule for lights at all times of the day and under all conditions like the above for cyclists is also ridiculous. There are plenty of days in Ireland each year whereby it is sufficiently bright that no light capable of being mounted on a bicycle is going to increase the visibility of a cyclist, and requiring them is literally just wasting batteries/electricity/whatever.

Similarly, if a cyclist has adequate lights, etc. at night, then high vis clothing will be well down the list of things making them visible. Besides, in truly dark conditions, only the retro reflective strips will be of help, and even then only when headlights hit them - with the number of cars with defective headlights in Ireland, my 70 lumen rear light, and 700 lumen strobing front light give me far more comfort at night than any high vis clothing ever could. That is not to say that I don't wear high vis, as I do when I feel the conditions warrant it, but your suggested blanket rule is patently ridiculous.

I was just considering the days that were dark enough to warrant a light. I suppose the same way its better for motorists to drive with their side lights. Helps with visibility. Again this comes down to the mind set and the approach that a cyclist would take before/during cycling. Nothing ridiculous about being safe.

I'm glad to hear that you use both lights and hi-vis clothing when needed. Many people don't. Those front lights (really white with strobe) are the best. I find it actually slows the driver that's coming toward you. Every llittle helps.

CramCycle

Roadhawk wrote: »

Was the insurance sticker or license phased out?

The license was a license in name only. It was always a sticker designed to show that cyclists were contributing to the non insured claims pot.

Reasonably enough, the cost of the scheme was considered idiotic compared to the need and revenue generated.

07Lapierre

Roadhawk wrote: »

I was just considering the days that were dark enough to warrant a light. I suppose the same way its better for motorists to drive with their side lights. Helps with visibility. Again this comes down to the mind set and the approach that a cyclist would take before/during cycling. Nothing ridiculous about being safe.

I'm glad to hear that you use both lights and hi-vis clothing when needed. Many people don't. Those front lights (really white with strobe) are the best. I find it actually slows the driver that's coming toward you. Every llittle helps.

To be fair, I think most road users (cyclists and Motorists) do light up during the "hours of darkness".

But there is a minority who are not sure when the "Hours of Darkness" begin and end and they tend to push the boundaries a bit. At this time of the year, using lights could be considered from 2 or 3 pm until 9 or 10am. During the summer it can be as late as 10pm until 6am. I don't think there is a need for lights 24 hours a day.

Roadhawk

07Lapierre wrote: »

To be fair, I think most road users (cyclists and Motorists) do light up during the "hours of darkness".

But there is a minority who are not sure when the "Hours of Darkness" begin and end and they tend to push the boundaries a bit. At this time of the year, using lights could be considered from 2 or 3 pm until 9 or 10am. During the summer it can be as late as 10pm until 6am. I don't think there is a need for lights 24 hours a day.

Well legally there is only a requirement to have the lights on when the streetlights are on (lighting up hours). There is more cyclists than you think not using lights or anything even when its dark.

Again it bubbles around the education of the cyclist. Safety should be their main concern.

GM228

07Lapierre wrote: »

But there is a minority who are not sure when the "Hours of Darkness" begin and end and they tend to push the boundaries a bit. At this time of the year, using lights could be considered from 2 or 3 pm until 9 or 10am. During the summer it can be as late as 10pm until 6am. I don't think there is a need for lights 24 hours a day.

Hours of darkness or "lighting up hours" are defined as half an hour after sunset until half an hour before sunrise-at this time of year that would be around 4.45pm until 7.45am! Everything inbetween is considered daytime.

Personally I'd have my lights on a lot longer than the requirements!

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1963/en/si/0189.html#zzsi189y1963a3

"lighting-up hours" means the period commencing one half-hour after sunset on any day and expiring one half-hour before sunrise on the next day;

"day-time" means any time outside lighting-up hours;

CramCycle

Roadhawk wrote: »

Well legally there is only a requirement to have the lights on when the streetlights are on (lighting up hours). There is more cyclists than you think not using lights or anything even when its dark.

Again it bubbles around the education of the cyclist. Safety should be their main concern.

When street lights are on? I am pretty sure that's wrong, what about areas without streetlights and ones where there has been an outage.

My understanding is that the timing is from readers dusk until readers dawn. So you have a window just after dusk and just before dawn.

This said it is a reasonable assumption that cycling or operating a vehicle at a time when visibility is reduced outside of these times, a lack of lights in operation would constitute dangerous driving or public endangerment and/or similar.

Pinch Flat

Roadhawk wrote: »

Again it bubbles around the education of the cyclist. Safety should be their main concern.

Perhaps but it's also a case of enforcement - no cyclist in their right mind should use a bike in darkness without adequate lights.

Similarly, car drivers should make sure their own lights work (both functioning) and use them appropriately (learn how to use fog lights and full beams in the right situations).

Both the above could be addressed if our road use was enforced more

PeadarCo

Roadhawk wrote: »

Well legally there is only a requirement to have the lights on when the streetlights are on (lighting up hours). There is more cyclists than you think not using lights or anything even when its dark.

Again it bubbles around the education of the cyclist. Safety should be their main concern.

Why do you focus so much on cyclists? Look I understand cyclists break the rules of the road on regular basis like any other road user and that cyclists can be quite blatant(i.e. quiet clear when a person breaks a red light compared to person going 10/15km over the speed limit without specialised equipment).

Would it not be better to focus road user education on the people who cause accidents i.e drivers of motorised vehicles. Than wasting limited money on people who while they could do with more education, aren't that dangerous when it comes to accident statistics.

07Lapierre

Roadhawk wrote: »

Well legally there is only a requirement to have the lights on when the streetlights are on (lighting up hours). There is more cyclists than you think not using lights or anything even when its dark.

Again it bubbles around the education of the cyclist. Safety should be OUR main concern.

Agree..lots of stupid people out there.

if your only interested in what's legal, then the cyclists (or motorists) are not doing anything wrong it the street lights are not on.

There's no legal requirement for cycists to wear any type of clothing. they are free to wear whatever they like. The same for us motorists...my own car is Black, but I use lights when its dark.

GM228

Roadhawk wrote: »

Well legally there is only a requirement to have the lights on when the streetlights are on (lighting up hours). There is more cyclists than you think not using lights or anything even when its dark.

Again it bubbles around the education of the cyclist. Safety should be their main concern.

07Lapierre wrote: »

if your only interested in what's legal, then the cyclists (or motorists) are not doing anything wrong if the street lights are not on.

Just to clarify, lighting up hours is not based on when streetlights are on, it's based on sunset/sunrise, see my post #144 for clarification.

07Lapierre

GM228 wrote: »

Hours of darkness or "lighting up hours" are defined as half an hour after sunset until half an hour before sunrise-at this time of year that would be around 4.45pm until 7.45am! Everything inbetween is considered daytime.

Personally I'd have my lights on a lot longer than the requirements!

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1963/en/si/0189.html#zzsi189y1963a3

I agree...I don't know the light up hours either. I look out the window..if its dark (or getting dark) I switch on my lights. Common sense.

Pinch Flat

PeadarCo wrote: »

Why do you focus so much on cyclists? Look I understand cyclists break the rules of the road on regular basis like any other road user and that cyclists can be quite blatant(i.e. quick clear of a person breaks a red light compared to person going 10/15km over the speed limit without specialised equipment).

Ireland is an extremely car centered country and one of the most car dependent globally - up to recently, almost everything in road use centered around facilitating the private car. The car is king as they say.

With the rise in cycling, the car and bike now have to share roads as they always did - except, in the past 20 or so years we have neigh on doubled cars on the roads (from about 1 million in 1995 to around 2 million today).

People who are wedded to the car and see it as the be all and end all of private transport will always struggle with the concept of sharing the roads with other more sustainable modes, such as cycling. We've heard all the arguments before - "dangerising" cycling (i.e. helmets, keeping children off roads), wrapping cyclists in hi-vis vests and trying to keep them as best as possible out of the hard pressed motorists path. Licencing, taxing and other levies on cyclists are frequently trotted out as a way of solving this 'problem'.

PeadarCo wrote: »

Would it not be better to focus road user education on the people who cause accidents i.e drivers of motorised vehicles. Than wasting limited money on people who while they could do with more education, aren't that dangerous when it comes to accident statistics.

For all those who are calling for licencing of cyclists, lets look at it another way - make it a priority that every school kid in the country is taught road craft and perhaps encouraging cycling use as a mandatory requirement before graduating to the car - then, everyone starts out as the most vulnerable road user and slowly but surely the attitude will change.