Campaign calls for cyclists to hold insurance, pay road tax

GreenFolder2

You'd never know, it might actually happen in the UK.
The country is now run by the people who write angry letters to the Daily Mail about people putting their bins out at the wrong angle.

So much for the campaign against 'red tape'. It was clearly just the wrong shade of red.

Wishbone Ash

Roadhawk wrote: »

If you read the posts earlier i suggested that from the age of 16 up should be made do a theory test for a cycling license....

So one can ride around for years without a licence but once a certain age is reached, a licence is required for doing what one had already been doing? It just doesn't seem logical to me.

Jawgap

Roadhawk wrote: »

If you read the posts earlier i suggested that from the age of 16 up should be made do a theory test for a cycling license. they could receive training in secondary school in preparation for the test. I have heard of many countries who provide cycle safety training at secondary level. Correct me if i am wrong but i think Amsterdam and Copenhagen have this training for students.

Dutch kids are trained and tested (the “Verkeersexamen”) - but there's no requirement to pass the test/hold a licence before you can cycle or to continue cycling beyond a certain age....it's done to teach them how to cycle safely as most of them cycle to school....

.....btw, the Dutch driving test also features a strong cycling theme - drivers have to demonstrate that they can safely interact with cyclists as part of their assessment.

Roadhawk

Jawgap wrote: »

Dutch kids are trained and tested (the “Verkeersexamen”) - but there's no requirement to pass the test/hold a licence before you can cycle or to continue cycling beyond a certain age....it's done to teach them how to cycle safely as most of them cycle to school....

.....btw, the Dutch driving test also features a strong cycling theme - drivers have to demonstrate that they can safely interact with cyclists as part of their assessment.

Well why cant we (Ireland) do this? perhaps the simplicity of a cycle safety class for students might raise enough awareness among the cyclists who are less savvy of road safety and laws.

Also, massive changes are needed in motor testing. Its shockingly easy to achieve a B license. So many areas of the test are useless and could probably be swapped with relevant stuff.

cajonlardo

Did you ever watch a great T.V drama about something absolutely mundane and everyday and the writers somehow turn it into in a life and death edge of the seat epic?

All those anti cyclists ranters would make an absolute fortune writing them.

Stop wasting yer talents! Don't hit those keyboards for free! Turn your angst and tribulations into CASH!

Always good for a laugh though, I'll give them that much.

Carawaystick

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

So one can ride around for years without a licence but once a certain age is reached, a licence is required for doing what one had already been doing? It just doesn't seem logical to me.

Or how would tourists get a license? Or would you ban them from cycling?
If they didn't speak english, would you provide the theory test in their language?

The whole thing is daft and should be held in contempt

1bryan

these motorist vs cyclist threads give me a headache and they're invariably started/trolled by motorists who want to come up with a way to 'punish' cyclists. (Incidentally, do people from the cycling forum troll threads on motoring forum in the same way?)

There are so many arguments that are conveniently overlooked by our motoring bretheren (of which I am one (a motorist, not an argument), on occasion). The knock-on effect of the health-benefits of cycling (and its associated saving of money/pressure/time on our health services), environmental, traffic, etc.

I've mentioned the idea before in a whimsical way, but I really think there needs to be a 'reverse' reclaim the streets protest held once a year. Such a protest would effectively take the form of a 'no-bike' day. According to figures posted in a different thread yesterday, that would mean that over 10,000 of us would have to find an alternative way of getting to our places of work. Personally, I'd drive. Many others would get trains, buses, etc. Lets see the impact that has on traffic and on transport services. Then we'll see if our motoring friends still favour creating deterrents for people to cycle.

Jawgap

Roadhawk wrote: »

Well why cant we (Ireland) do this? perhaps the simplicity of a cycle safety class for students might raise enough awareness among the cyclists who are less savvy of road safety and laws.

Also, massive changes are needed in motor testing. Its shockingly easy to achieve a B license. So many areas of the test are useless and could probably be swapped with relevant stuff.

Why would we want to? Dutch kids cycle to school, Irish kids don't - bringing in training and testing isn't going to change that because Irish people are rooted and wedded to their cars. That mindset needs to change - the irony is that the constant anti-cyclist rhetoric puts people off giving up their cars which pretty much guarantees traffic flows will not improve - be nice to cyclists.....more people will cycle and available roadspace will increase.....keep up the anti-cyclist stuff and progress - literally and metaphorically - will be a lot slower.

Most if not all cycling behaviours that get on people's collective wicks (RLJing, cycling on the path, cycling in groups) are annoying and frustrating but not dangerous (as the stats conclusively show) - it's like dog fouling......it's anti-social, it's gut churningly infuriating but in the overall scheme of things not so harmful that we need mandatory training, registration and insurance

ted1

Roadhawk wrote: »

Well why cant we (Ireland) do this? perhaps the simplicity of a cycle safety class for students might raise enough awareness among the cyclists who are less savvy of road safety and laws.

Also, massive changes are needed in motor testing. Its shockingly easy to achieve a B license. So many areas of the test are useless and could probably be swapped with relevant stuff.

Cyclists ed is starting next year.
http://irishcycle.com/2015/01/23/cycling-training-for-children-to-be-rolled-out-to-school-across-ireland-in-2016/

Fighting Tao

Jawgap wrote: »

Why would we want to? Dutch kids cycle to school, Irish kids don't - bringing in training and testing isn't going to change that because Irish people are rooted and wedded to their cars. That mindset needs to change - the irony is that the constant anti-cyclist rhetoric puts people off giving up their cars which pretty much guarantees traffic flows will not improve - be nice to cyclists.....more people will cycle and available roadspace will increase.....keep up the anti-cyclist stuff and progress - literally and metaphorically - will be a lot slower.

Just to emphasise the road space issue this article has some great graphics: https://www.visualnews.com/2014/10/11/much-space-cars-take-cyclists-demonstrate-bicycles-fight-congestion/

V-man

Jawgap wrote: »

Dutch kids are trained and tested (the “Verkeersexamen”) - but there's no requirement to pass the test/hold a licence before you can cycle or to continue cycling beyond a certain age....it's done to teach them how to cycle safely as most of them cycle to school....

.....btw, the Dutch driving test also features a strong cycling theme - drivers have to demonstrate that they can safely interact with cyclists as part of their assessment.

I did both long ago
But have been told by Irish motorist it is not good enough :mad:

Roadhawk

Jawgap wrote: »

Why would we want to? Dutch kids cycle to school, Irish kids don't - bringing in training and testing isn't going to change that because Irish people are rooted and wedded to their cars. That mindset needs to change - the irony is that the constant anti-cyclist rhetoric puts people off giving up their cars which pretty much guarantees traffic flows will not improve - be nice to cyclists.....more people will cycle and available roadspace will increase.....keep up the anti-cyclist stuff and progress - literally and metaphorically - will be a lot slower.

You may be one of the good cyclists but in my experience around Dublin there are more cyclists who put themselves and others in dander by breaking the law and ignoring basic safety than there are who dont. I actually see more offenders when I cycle than when I drive. The real irony is that most cyclists oppose the fact that there is a problem and there could be vast improvements by providing education. It seems that the suggestion of change frightens people into thinking that a license or test is a negitive thing. I agree that there is clearly more physical space on the roads if there are more cyclists but not everyone can choose to cycle on a regular basis for a number of reasons.

Jawgap wrote: »

Most if not all cycling behaviours that get on people's collective wicks (RLJing, cycling on the path, cycling in groups) are annoying and frustrating but not dangerous. (as the stats conclusively show)

Well there are no stats on how many cyclist break light or dis-obey many other laws. Cyclists actions are dangerous. If not to others then to themselves. Especially those who have little to no education of using roads.

Examples:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L95IR9ZvPDA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrUAxye4zkE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_EGqB5S9fU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR4Okh23Zlo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYX1WPCJZ6g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWFetoHciKk

DirkVoodoo

Roadhawk wrote: »

Examples:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L95IR9ZvPDA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrUAxye4zkE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_EGqB5S9fU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR4Okh23Zlo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYX1WPCJZ6g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWFetoHciKk

Did you watch those videos? The cyclists seem to come off worse, except for the one where it's a pedestrian walking through a cycling facility.

And you still haven't addressed the core issue: how does licensing change this? The examples shown of red light breaking exist within motoring as well (along with speeding, drink driving, driving without insurance, illegal parking, ...). How has licensing solved any of these issues?

Admit it, you see someone cycling through a red light (yes, it's wrong, I don't do it myself), only endangering themselves, and it drives you mad and you want to see them punished by having to queue in a licensing office.

Should we start getting a few videos together of "idiot motorists" for balance?

Btw, I think having cycling education in schools is a great idea!

Leroy42

There are no stats because nobody has bothered to collect them. I would wager that the reason for that is that despite peoples personal views the problems do not really exist. Yes cyclists break red lights, there is no doubt about that, but in the vast amount of instances that I see there is simply no effect. No effect apart from annoying car drivers.

So instead of building a case to back up your claims, you are simply going to state that you are right and won't something be done about it.

So what exactly are we trying to solve here? There appears to be no stats in regards to the cost of these accidents, no stats for the number of accidents caused by cyclists etc. So we instigate insurance, personalised clothing etc etc and at the end of it all what have we achieved? Well, since we don't know the starting point we can't possibly know the end. What if it leads to more reckless behaviour?

When changes to the law regarding speed or drink driving are mentioned, those appealing for chance need to show that there is a need and a positive outcome to the change. They can't simply say that they think its a bit unfair.

You may be right, you might be wrong, but simply saying it doesn't make it so. How many deaths have been caused by cyclists and how many of those deaths could have been avoided with insurance. Or was lack on insurance a contributing factor to the person responsible getting away with the crime?

Mortpourvelo

Leroy42 wrote: »

There are no stats because nobody has bothered to collect them. I would wager that the reason for that is that despite peoples personal views the problems do not really exist. Yes cyclists break red lights, there is no doubt about that, but in the vast amount of instances that I see there is simply no effect. No effect apart from annoying car drivers.

So instead of building a case to back up your claims, you are simply going to state that you are right and won't something be done about it.

So what exactly are we trying to solve here? There appears to be no stats in regards to the cost of these accidents, no stats for the number of accidents caused by cyclists etc. So we instigate insurance, personalised clothing etc etc and at the end of it all what have we achieved? Well, since we don't know the starting point we can't possibly know the end. What if it leads to more reckless behaviour?

When changes to the law regarding speed or drink driving are mentioned, those appealing for chance need to show that there is a need and a positive outcome to the change. They can't simply say that they think its a bit unfair.

You may be right, you might be wrong, but simply saying it doesn't make it so. How many deaths have been caused by cyclists and how many of those deaths could have been avoided with insurance. Or was lack on insurance a contributing factor to the person responsible getting away with the crime?

I respectfully disagree, given that I was hit on the junction of Dame Street/Great George's Street by a cyclist not only breaking a red light but performing an illegal turn.

Jawgap

Roadhawk wrote: »

You may be one of the good cyclists but in my experience around Dublin there are more cyclists who put themselves and others in dander by breaking the law and ignoring basic safety than there are who dont. I actually see more offenders when I cycle than when I drive. The real irony is that most cyclists oppose the fact that there is a problem and there could be vast improvements by providing education. It seems that the suggestion of change frightens people into thinking that a license or test is a negitive thing. I agree that there is clearly more physical space on the roads if there are more cyclists but not everyone can choose to cycle on a regular basis for a number of reasons.



Well there are no stats on how many cyclist break light or dis-obey many other laws. Cyclists actions are dangerous. If not to others then to themselves. Especially those who have little to no education of using roads.

Examples:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L95IR9ZvPDA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrUAxye4zkE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_EGqB5S9fU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR4Okh23Zlo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYX1WPCJZ6g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWFetoHciKk

Well my opinion is not just based on my personal experience, but also on what I observe when driving, cycling and walking - I'd say that cycling behaviour isn't great but it rarely crosses into dangerous territory.

And there's plenty of stats about cyclist behaviour.....for example....

The final study looked at the behaviour of cyclists at traffic lights. It too was an extensive study that examined 25,126 cyclists at 60 sites in 9 cities/towns across the country.

The report says that 1-in-8 cyclists were observed passing through a red light.

....of course that kind of stat doesn't really suit the 'cyclist-as-tw@ts' narrative so beloved of certain sections of them media.

Grassey

Roadhawk wrote: »

Well there are no stats on how many cyclist break light or dis-obey many other laws.

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Crash%20Stats/RSA%20observational%20study%202015%20%E2%80%93%20Cyclist%20compliance%20with%20traffic%20lights.pdf

There you go.

1 in 8 is probably a higher % than motorists running reds, but given the volume of motorists on the roads a simple count on my morning commute highlights maybe 1 or 2 cyclists breaking red lights, and at least 4 or 5 cars/buses running each red light.

Dermot Illogical

mickdw wrote: »

I've said this before but I genuinely believe cyclists should be required to wear a yellow vest with a personal registration number on the back of that vest. They would then hold a road risks type of public liability and all road users would be secure in the knowledge that they have some comeback against a cyclist that damages property.
With this method, there is no registering of bicycles or anything like that, just that all cyclists must be identifiable.

I'm not going to read the rest of this thread as it's gone the usual way of these things, and I think I did well just to get this far.
I would just like to say that I would willingly take up arms to not live in the kind of petty, miserable, authoritarian world that would foist such a small-minded idea on people.
Are there any other freedoms you want to take away on a whim? Are you wanting to microchip babies at birth too? It would probably be more cost-efficient. Then we can track everyone and match them up to any reports of behaviour we disapprove of. The technology is there, so it's the obvious next step. The jaywalking problem would also be eradicated within a few short years. Everyone would be forced to behave perfectly. Such Utopia.

What is it with some people that they feel the need to regulate the bejesus out of everything?

Mortpourvelo

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

I'm not going to read the rest of this thread as it's gone the usual way of these things, and I think I did well just to get this far.
I would just like to say that I would willingly take up arms to not live in the kind of petty, miserable, authoritarian world that would foist such a small-minded idea on people.
Are there any other freedoms you want to take away on a whim? Are you wanting to microchip babies at birth too? It would probably be more cost-efficient. Then we can track everyone and match them up to any reports of behaviour we disapprove of. The technology is there, so it's the obvious next step. The jaywalking problem would also be eradicated within a few short years. Everyone would be forced to behave perfectly. Such Utopia.

What is it with some people that they feel the need to regulate the bejesus out of everything?

Because there are certain groups of cyclists who refuse to accept that they do not own the road, are giving others a bad rep and therefore need to be monitored.

If a motorist causes an accident by breaking the law, they can be identified and punished. Cyclists doing likewise merely ride off.

Pepe LeFrits

I think we need a license for people who can run really fast as well.

Weepsie

1bryan wrote: »

these motorist vs cyclist threads give me a headache and they're invariably started/trolled by motorists who want to come up with a way to 'punish' cyclists. (Incidentally, do people from the cycling forum troll threads on motoring forum in the same way?)

Ive often thought this. Why don't I go to the motoring forum to complain about the multiple cars I see everyday going through red lights, or failing to indicate, parking in cycle lanes, illegal moves etc.

I don't because I don't band all drivers together. Most are good, some are bad, some are inconsiderate but yet it's cyclists who seem to be collectively blamed for the mistakes of a few.

buffalo

Mortpourvelo wrote: »

If a motorist causes an accident by breaking the law, they can be identified and punished. Cyclists doing likewise merely ride off.

How do you explain the multiple hit and runs the length of the country every month? Rampant murdering cyclists?

cajonlardo

Mortpourvelo wrote: »

Cyclists doing likewise merely ride off.

More hysterical drama queen made-up-on the spot bolllllllllllllllllocks.

Google cyclist knocked down hit and run

Weepsie

Mortpourvelo wrote: »

Because there are certain groups of cyclists who refuse to accept that they do not own the road, are giving others a bad rep and therefore need to be monitored.

If a motorist causes an accident by breaking the law, they can be identified and punished. Cyclists doing likewise merely ride off.

Need to be monitored? Get a grip.

Roadhawk

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

I think we need a license for people who can run really fast as well.

This comment again...you fail to understand that a cyclist is in control of a vehicle as the law describes and therefore is subject to laws governing the use of that vehicle. very simple.

Mortpourvelo

Weepsie wrote: »

Ive often thought this. Why don't I go to the motoring forum to complain about the multiple cars I see everyday going through red lights, or failing to indicate, parking in cycle lanes, illegal moves etc.

I don't because I don't band all drivers together. Most are good, some are bad, some are inconsiderate but yet it's cyclists who seem to be collectively blamed for the mistakes of a few.

The thing is though, forums such as this tend to immediately blame the motorist, or the pedestrian.

Not all cyclists are bad but many are.

For example, I made a point about cyclists riding on pavements.

Instead of accepting this was wrong and inconsiderate – the reply was about how the roads didn’t go where cyclists wanted to go!

Accept that many cyclists break the law and yes, can be dangerous.

Sarcasm such as “rampant murdering cyclists”, kneejerk “whatabouttery” and self righteousness from some will never solve the problems.

Dermot Illogical

Mortpourvelo wrote: »

Because there are certain groups of cyclists who refuse to accept that they do not own the road, are giving others a bad rep and therefore need to be monitored.

If a motorist causes an accident by breaking the law, they can be identified and punished. Cyclists doing likewise merely ride off.

I'm not a number. I'm a free man.

Mort pour la voiture

Chips Lovell

And we're done.

Rather predictably, the thread has turned into the usual motorist vs. cyclist trench warfare which isn't what this forum is for.

Next time, try Liveline.