cyclist and truck incident in smithfield this morning

OldBean

Licensing will do nothing but stop even more adults and kids cycling.

The funny thing is it'd suit the people who claim cycling needs licensing's agendas down to the ground because they wouldn't have to share the road with cyclists, as they sit in the even slower traffic every morning.

Carlos Orange

Pinch Flat wrote: »

It's a common belief among motorists that licencing cyclists will magically reduce injuries and deaths on our roads, the thinking being presumably that it works so well for cars.

I wouldn't expect that is very true. It is more likely that drivers expect cyclists would ignore rules less if they were licensed. I imagine it would just be one more rule that many cyclists ignore unless there was actually enforcement.

magicbastarder

ellobee wrote: »

So a cyclist has never caused an accident or hurt anyone, Thats good to know:rolleyes:

no one would dispute that, but bear this in mind - the number of people killed on irish roads since the last time a cyclist was responsible for the death of another road user is 4,500. the threat cyclists pose to other road users is fairly negligible compared to the threat from cars/motorists.

mr spuckler

psinno wrote: »

I wouldn't expect that is very true. It is more likely that drivers expect cyclists would ignore rules less if they were licensed. I imagine it would just be one more rule that many cyclists ignore unless there was actually enforcement.

ah come on - see the post at the top of the page for a summary of some stats of the ignoring of rotr that are currently recorded.

a larger than ideal number of cyclists break red lights, a huge number of motorists break the rotr as a matter of course.

mcgratheoin

ellobee wrote: »

So a cyclist has never caused an accident or hurt anyone, Thats good to know:rolleyes:

By your logic, any activity that has ever caused an accident or hurt anyone should be licensed. Golf license perhaps?

Carlos Orange

mr spuckler wrote: »

a larger than ideal number of cyclists break red lights, a huge number of motorists break the rotr as a matter of course.

Cyclists and motorist treat red lights very differently at least where I am anyway but that isn't really pertinent to my comment. I was disagreeing with the idea that drivers think licencing cyclists would reduce road deaths since I think it is pretty unlikely they do.

erica74

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I got into a heated argument with some one on Saturday night last, before the latest tragedy. He steadfastly stuck to his guns that the only way to address cycling safety is to licence, insure and tax cyclists - the "full house" of of ignorance that seems to be all too prevalent out there. His argument was that cycling is dangerous and, like other dangerous activities that require a licence - guns and drugs (?) his example - cyclists should be licenced before using the roads. A complete straw man argument and it's depressing to see the same argument on social media with the latest tragedy in Cork.

That we have raised a whole generation of motorists that think they in affect own the public infrastructure, that the safety issues don't lie with them and that cyclists are there as some sort of freeloader / guest / pest is truly worrying. I see the attitudes taking a whole generation to change - we need to be educating our school children early at 10 - 12 that the roads are there for all to use and that pedestrians and cyclists are the most vulnerable. Graduating straight from the back seat of mammy's SUV on the 300 meter school run to owning a car at 17, we're skipping the intermediate steps that are prevalent in other cyclist friendly countries.

I'd go as far as to say pictures of injuries inflicted by cars - along the lines of cigarette packaging warning of cancer - should be considered. People are truly ignorant of the mayhem a car can cause to the human body.

Just on the bit in bold - I totally agree with you that this is a big contributing factor to the problem.
I grew up in Dublin and walked to school with my neighbour's mother everyday while in primary school. My parents didn't have a car as we lived in Crumlin so buses on various routes were plentiful. It wasn't a long walk, maybe 20 - 25 minutes but we crossed at various lights, roundabouts, blind corners etc and I can still remember to this day the various things that my neighbour's mother used to drill into us as we were walking along - cross at the lights, don't cross between cars, stop before putting a foot on the road etc. and it is still what I adhere to when using the roads.
Whereas nowadays, most kids get dropped to the school door and don't have the benefit of that learning experience. When you're primary school age, you're a sponge, soaking up everything, and that's when this stuff sinks in.

ellobee wrote: »

well currently a guard has no way of knowing if you are giving him your right name and address, with a licence it would be a lot easier for them.

Maybe a less costly approach would be to insist everyone carries ID at all times. Isn't this the law in the US? (I could be wrong on that)
I mean, surely this would be easier, general announcement in the media, everyone will now be required to carry ID and if you don't have ID, the offence is X and the punishment is Y.

While I don't think any road using party is fully to blame or fully not to blame, I just don't see the benefit of introducing a whole new system for cyclists to be licensed, taxed, insured etc, particularly when they make up only a small percentage of road users and in fact, there are months of the year (winter months), when there is even a tinier percentage of them on the road. I just don't see it being cost effective nor necessary.

magicbastarder

the notion of making ID mandatory to carry is irrelevant if the gardai are not enforcing laws.
i'm not aware that people giving false information to the gardai is in any way an issue; introducing a mandatory ID law to fix an issue that may not (and probably does not) exist is a *little* heavy handed.

flatface

Deedsie wrote: »

It would solve more issues than unidentifiable cyclists.

Please explain? Licenses and mandatory ID sounds like its attempting to solve a problem that does not exist. I have seen no reports of a large problem with IDing cyclists by Garda.

magicbastarder

Deedsie wrote: »

It would solve more issues than unidentifiable cyclists.

you mean issues unrelated to cycling?

Johnnio13

Argh...this thread has descended into every other pro/anti cycling thread based on a beaten argument. Its gone from arguing about a very sh%%y road design to the usual tripe.
It irritates my face listening to the ****? about having to carry a license, testing blah blah. I have a license for my car. I pay “ROAD TAX” (motor tax -based on the emission from my 06 tank).( BTW The license only means you qualified to drive a 2.5ton machine in a manner as stipulated by the state and the tester on a given day (old rules). You can lapse into bad habits, which everyone on here who is a road user, does.) But I learned to cycle as a 3yr old. I've been cycling almost daily since.
This is such an old and beaten argument I don’t know why the pro/anti cycle lobby even entertain it anymore. Are we going to test 3/4/5yr olds? Blah!
There will always only be one winner in man vs car/truck/bus etc. The person behind the steering wheel should learn that from the outset regardless of mindset or mood.
Hope the cyclist is ok.
Rant over.

flatface

Deedsie wrote: »

It would solve more issues than unidentifiable cyclists.

To bring this back on topic, we need suggestions and solutions that will make the roads less dangerous to cyclists attempting to use the public roads for their journeys and deal with badly laid out junctions like the subject of the Smithfield collision.

Can we agree that licenses and ID would not serve this purpose? Are there any solutions that actually would help?

I personally think that more ad campaigns should focus on some badly needed education on the rules / best practices around key cycling practices. It needs to be explained again and again the safetly advantages to "taking the lane" for a right turn (and possibly a narrow dangerous section of road), not filtering left of large vehicles etc. so that cyclists use these tools and motorists expect to see them on the road (and don't go fecking postal and force cyclists off the road for doing so)

mr spuckler

agreed, signing the MPDL into law, some sort of pressure for additional enforcement of all road traffic offences and strict directions for new junction / road design which must be adhered to rather than treated as guidelines which can be ignored at will.

De Bhál

maybe this has been mentioned already...

driving instructors should teach people about cyclists when giving lessons.

Maybe they do now but 15yrs ago when I was getting lessons there wasn't a word about cyclists bar what hand signals they may use.

A friend of mine passed his test and years later didn't know why he had to look in the left mirror before turning left. He was instructed to do it but didn't know why.

mcgratheoin

flatface wrote: »

Can we agree that licenses and ID would not serve this purpose? Are there any solutions that actually would help?

Better enforcement of existing laws and better communication around the seriousness of those offences. If road users thought that there was a realistic chance of being caught breaking a red light or speeding in the city centre then behaviour would arguably improve. As it is, I often see flagrant ignorance of the laws in front of members of AGS. (I freely admit that they may be engaged in some other activity rather than on "traffic duty" but it's annoying to see). The traffic enforcement in urban areas (where you have the greatest intersection of transport modes) is shocking.

Regarding communication, my opinion is that there seems to be an attitude that driving at 100 down a country road with an 80 limit is an offence but going 50 in a 30 zone is ok, and similarly mobile phone use on a regional road is dangerous but texting while in traffic is fine. I would like to see more RSA ads about e.g. drivers stuck in traffic who are looking at their phone and then move off suddenly without checking their surroundings when they notice that the car in front of them has started to go.

flatface

I don't really see why road traffic enforcement needs to be AGS at all. Like parking it could be well served opening the business to 3rd parties to profit from rule breaking.

ThisRegard

flatface wrote: »

Like parking it could be well served opening the business to 3rd parties to profit from rule breaking.

The two aren't comparable at all, and wouldn't be a runner for a whole plethora of reasons.

OleRodrigo

A partnership between car manufacturers and phone providers to disable phones whilst inside a vehicle ( optional , but once activated relatively difficult to opt out of ) would be a workable solution.

magicbastarder

flatface wrote: »

I don't really see why road traffic enforcement needs to be AGS at all. Like parking it could be well served opening the business to 3rd parties to profit from rule breaking.

i don't think you can compare them though. parking enforcement is not law enforcement. i'd be very - and i mean *very* - wary of outsourcing law enforcement to someone who stood to profit from it.

ThisRegard

magicbastarder wrote: »

i don't think you can compare them though. parking enforcement is not law enforcement. i'd be very - and i mean *very* - wary of outsourcing law enforcement to someone who stood to profit from it.

Look what happened in Robocop!

mr spuckler

also some sort of strong incentivisation towards HGVs having blind spots eliminated may actually make the biggest difference, considering the frequency of collisions and deaths involving them.

london have already done this, trucks with poor visibility are not permitted in the city.
http://brigade-electronics.com/whats-new/how-londons-safer-lorry-scheme-is-clamping-down-on-blind-spots

I love Sean nos

ellobee wrote: »

OK Tax and insurance maybe a step too far, but I can see the merits in licencing

Please elaborate how on how a licence stops someone driving a truck over a bicycle.

Wishbone Ash

flatface wrote: »

.. Like parking it could be well served opening the business to 3rd parties to profit from rule breaking.

If it drastically changed driver attitude, after a while there would no longer be any money in it for a private enterprise.

I love Sean nos

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

If it drastically changed driver attitude, after a while there would no longer be any money in it for a private enterprise.

Or you'll end up with driver attitudes like this:

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The Gardai and sneaky little men in vans might lose justification for fishing with dynamite if it turns out it's not really about road deaths as the stats don't back up the need for mass theft from motorists.

Unknown Soldier

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Please elaborate how on how a licence stops someone driving a truck over a bicycle.

It doesn't.

But if it puts me on an equal par with other traffic on the road, I'm all for it.

Even if it is just a mindset issue, which it is.

flatface

How about a "get in lane" early warning sign with a straight ahead cycle lane added moving across to the right hand lane before the turn?

ellobee

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Please elaborate how on how a licence stops someone driving a truck over a bicycle.

it might stop someone from cycling through a red light and under a truck.

crosstownk

In my humble opinion the best solution is back to basics.

Respect others.

It's so simple. It costs nothing. We all can do it.

All of us.

Try it.

Now.

Lumen

ellobee wrote: »

it might stop someone from cycling through a red light and under a truck.

Maybe you should put some effort into understanding what kills cyclists before advancing half-assed theories and pointless, impractical solutions.

I love Sean nos

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

But if it puts me on an equal par with other traffic on the road, I'm all for it.

Even if it is just a mindset issue, which it is.

I still don't understand how this would help in the slightest.