Cycle Right

ford2600

OleRodrigo wrote: »

just flinging themselves down the road and hoping for the best, essentially.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYDlX49yUSI

"Throwing themselves into the road "

tomasrojo

There is a model for bicycle training in the UK, the Bikeability course. It's generally well thought of, from what I can tell, and I certainly do like Cyclecraft, which is (or was anyway) one of its reference texts.

You can just as easily get the book and learn yourself. If my kids are interested in cycling much, I'll teach them what I know myself, I think.

I do concede that it would have been handy to have had a course like Bikeability when I was a kid, as my parents didn't cycle, and I could have learnt a few of the less obvious things from a well-designed course. However, I'd be afraid that most of the courses now are really just helmet-hiviz-and-keep-out-of-the-way campaigns, with no worthwhile roadcraft or maintenance content.

Macy0161

tomasrojo wrote: »

I do concede that it would have been handy to have had a course like Bikeability when I was a kid, as my parents didn't cycle, and I could have learnt a few of the less obvious things from a well-designed course. However, I'd be afraid that most of the courses now are really just helmet-hiviz-and-keep-out-of-the-way campaigns, with no worthwhile roadcraft or maintenance content.

I think Bikeability was the replacement/ rebrandind of the Cycling Proficiency course I mentioned. Being in that boat (niether parent really cycled), definitely set me up right. With my own children, I'm already talking and explaining (and getting them limited road experience) at a younger age than I was when I did the course.

I love Sean nos

greenspurs wrote: »

Just means less cyclists to "clog up the roads" at the weekend.

What?

flatface

I would approve of this training becoming mandatory if it was mandatory for ALL road users.
It could greatly improve cycling safety for all - if motorists at least cycled a few kilometers in my shoes (well not my fancy carbon ones obviously)

magicbastarder

flatface wrote: »

I would approve of this training becoming mandatory if it was mandatory for ALL road users.

i'd disagree wholeheartedly.
it would still create a barrier to cycling. it's not levelling the playing field.

flatface

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'd disagree wholeheartedly.
it would still create a barrier to cycling. it's not levelling the playing field.

I would just like to see motorists having to do cycling training. Would be funny.

Maybe the police could mandate it as punishment for certain driving behaviour?

07Lapierre

Having looked at the website I think it's a great idea! educating kids on how to cycle safely will make them better drivers later in life and that can only be a good thing.

I wouldn't do it myself as I'm no longer in primary school!

Bushmanpm

seamus wrote:

People cycle because it's easy. Leg over the bike and away you go. Make it difficult to start cycling and people won't do it. This is known to occur, and it known to be a bad thing; it causes more cyclists to die and causes traffic and pollution to go through the roof.

Please explain how cyclists die if they're not on the road? What am I missing?

ronoc wrote:

How about we spend the money instead on updating the driving test and better enforcement. While we are at it even look at strict liability and a minimum passing law.

"Rules are great but WE should be exempt because...."

ronoc wrote:

The duty of care should be on the larger vehicle.

The duty of care should be on ALL road users

ronoc wrote:

The notion that untrained cyclists are somehow the problem is a red herring.

How do you even get to this conclusion? Seriously?

Same old same old of wanting the rights but not the responsibilities. I mean, seriously, if you're going to ride on roads that are known to be dangerous to the more vulnerable amongst us why would you NOT want to do everything to make yourself safer?

Annie get your Run

Bushmanpm wrote: »

Please explain how cyclists die if they're not on the road? What am I missing?

Obesity, cancer, stress - the list is long assuming the person who might have cycled to/from work instead does no exercise at all.

Bushmanpm wrote: »

How do you even get to this conclusion? Seriously?

Same old same old of wanting the rights but not the responsibilities. I mean, seriously, if you're going to ride on roads that are known to be dangerous to the more vulnerable amongst us why would you NOT want to do everything to make yourself safer?

Unfortunately much of this is out of our control. I would consider myself a pretty good road user in whatever capacity I'm out there in. When I cycle I do all the *good* things that motorists bang on about such as wearing a high viz jacket, helmet and I don't break red lights (either on the bike or the car) and yet I still experience very dangerous close passes on my daily commute.

Please tell me what it is I am supposed to do to stop this behaviour from other road users. I have no control over their actions. I'd be interested to know too what duty of care you feel cyclists have towards motorists, trucks, buses etc. (other than obeying the ROTR and we all know that all types of road users break those all too often). I certainly have a duty of care towards myself, other cyclists and pedestrians as I could potentially do them harm but I'm at a loss as to see what harm I could do to a car.

Bushmanpm

Bushmanpm wrote: »

Please explain how cyclists die if they're not on the road? What am I missing?


"Rules are great but WE should be exempt because...."


The duty of care should be on ALL road users

Disagree, there should be a hierarchy. Saying a pedestrian or cyclist has an equal duty of care to a truck on the road is nonsense.

Bushmanpm wrote: »

How do you even get to this conclusion? Seriously?

Same old same old of wanting the rights but not the responsibilities. I mean, seriously, if you're going to ride on roads that are known to be dangerous to the more vulnerable amongst us why would you NOT want to do everything to make yourself safer?

I'm advocating for a safer cycling experience and some of measures I mentioned are in place in some of the more cycling friendly countries.

There is scant evidence it is cyclist behavior that is the cause for increased fatalities and serious injuries on the road.

greenspurs

Bushmanpm wrote: »

Please explain how cyclists die if they're not on the road? What am I missing?



"Rules are great but WE should be exempt because...."




The duty of care should be on ALL road users




How do you even get to this conclusion? Seriously?

Same old same old of wanting the rights but not the responsibilities. I mean, seriously, if you're going to ride on roads that are known to be dangerous to the more vulnerable amongst us why would you NOT want to do everything to make yourself safer?

Dude , you are wasting your time, as i have so often found out....
You must toe the line of
A) all cyclists are right
all motorists are wrong
C) Mandatory anything should never apply to cyclists.
D) Never comment on any thread , as you will be hit with A +B +C repeatedly ...

magicbastarder

Bushmanpm wrote: »

Please explain how cyclists die if they're not on the road? What am I missing?

what he was saying was that if you change something - such as a mandatory helmet law as other jurisdictions have implemented - which has a negative impact on the number of people cycling, you actually make life *more* dangerous for the remaining cyclists.
safety in numbers is one of the biggest factors regarding cyclist safety.

Bushmanpm

Annie get your Run wrote:

Obesity, cancer, stress - the list is long assuming the person who might have cycled to/from work instead does no exercise at all.

Just in case anyone wants to accuse me of trolling, I'm not going with the
"CYCLING CURES CANCER SHOCKER!" but what I WOULD say is that's very hypothetical, or call it 'ifs and buts' as for example, the actual riding itself could be stressful and breathing in all that pollution has its own dangers. Obesity isn't just down to exersize, there's a variety of factors at play there.
As for the 'duty of care' that is mainly to yourself. I could go into how expensive car repairs can be when a bicycle has collided with a car (door mirrors for a start???) Or how about the long term psychological damage an innocent road user will suffer every time one of the more idiotic cyclists dies under their wheels through no fault of their own?
I'm not 'victim blaming' as I find that rather a trite term, I'm just saying if you're on the road there's responsibilities that go with those rights, irrespective of choice of vehicle.
As for other road users bad habits? We all of us have no control over anyone else other than ourselves but I do believe the guards need to up their game big time and on ALL transgressors.

seamus

Bushmanpm wrote: »

Please explain how cyclists die if they're not on the road? What am I missing?

Fatality rates go up. So 10,000 people cycle regularly and 10 die. Then you introduce mandatory training, the number of cyclists drops to 1,000 and ten still die.
More people cycling correlates with cycling becoming safer, and has done so in every country.

Despite the hysterics of some posters, nobody here is anti anything except imposing reactionary, populist and unenforceable rules.

Prove to me that mandatory cycling lessons will make the roads safer and will provide a net benefit to society and I'll be fully behind it.

seamus

Bushmanpm wrote: »

Just in case anyone wants to accuse me of trolling, I'm not going with the
"CYCLING CURES CANCER SHOCKER!" but what I WOULD say is that's very hypothetical, or call it 'ifs and buts' as for example, the actual riding itself could be stressful and breathing in all that pollution has its own dangers. Obesity isn't just down to exersize, there's a variety of factors at play there.

Actually a recent study out of the UK suggests that people who cycle on a regular basis are less likely to die of anything (including cancer) than those who don't.

Many, many studies have demonstrated that every KM cycled instead of driven saves a state money in various different aspects of cost.

Weepsie

Drivers have 12 hours of mandatory lessons. It still doesn't prevent the mass speeding, mass texting, mass RLJing, mass dangerous overtaking, large amount of DUI and everything else that goes with it. No amount of lessons, licensing and rules seems to have an effect on the absolute awful quality of driving seen in Ireland on a daily basis.

Cycling a bike is pretty easy. Bringing it out onto a road requires some basic knowledge of the laws, some basic common sense and some common courtesy to other road users

Lessons like this being enforced is utter nonsense. Great for kids, or those who are not confident, (the reason most are not confident is bad drivers however, which no amount of lessons) but mostly needless.

Weepsie

greenspurs wrote: »

Dude , you are wasting your time, as i have so often found out....
You must toe the line of
A) all cyclists are right
all motorists are wrong
C) Mandatory anything should never apply to cyclists.
D) Never comment on any thread , as you will be hit with A +B +C repeatedly ...

No, people are sometimes wrong, people are sometimes right regardless of their mode of transport. You keep moving the goalposts though so are wrong.

seamus

Weepsie wrote: »

Great for kids

A national programme of this being done in all primary schools for kids aged 6-12, would be something I would be happy for the state to spend absolutely millions on.

Not only would it create a new generation of kids who are equipped to cycle confidently & safely, but it will also give their parents more confidence to let them commute by bike during school and beyond into adulthood.

30 mins a week during school time, instead of religion or something, and the long-term benefit to the state would be enormous.

Annie get your Run

greenspurs wrote: »

Dude , you are wasting your time, as i have so often found out....
You must toe the line of
A) all cyclists are right
all motorists are wrong
C) Mandatory anything should never apply to cyclists.
D) Never comment on any thread , as you will be hit with A +B +C repeatedly ...

Actually plenty of mandatory things apply to cycling. Opinions are just that, opinions, none are right or wrong. Plenty of right or wrong when people misquote facts of course!

greenspurs

Why do people on here feel so self righteous about everything , just because they have a few thousand posts?

My opinion is mine, no matter how many Boardsies try to berate it.....

Bushmanpm

greenspurs wrote:

Dude , you are wasting your time, as i have so often found out.... You must toe the line of A) all cyclists are right all motorists are wrong C) Mandatory anything should never apply to cyclists. D) Never comment on any thread , as you will be hit with A +B +C repeatedly ...

And its that intransigence that makes the issues so much harder to approach.
I just don't get the "Our side is perfect, blame everyone else"

magicbastarder

have you hung around here at all? plenty of examples of cyclists here giving out about the behaviour of other cyclists. i've done so several times in the last few weeks.

greenspurs

Bushmanpm wrote: »

And its that intransigence that makes the issues so much harder to approach.
I just don't get the "Our side is perfect, blame everyone else"

As i have tried to point out, but you have to be careful ....

Bushmanpm

magicbastarder wrote:

what he was saying was that if you change something - such as a mandatory helmet law as other jurisdictions have implemented - which has a negative impact on the number of people cycling, you actually make life *more* dangerous for the remaining cyclists. safety in numbers is one of the biggest factors regarding cyclist safety.

Genuine serious enquiry: How? I'm seriously not seeing the 'cause and effect' there. Why should mandatory helmet law have a negative impact on the number of cyclists on the road and how does it make it more dangerous for those that do still cycle?
(Ironically, as a biker amongst other modes of transport, I despise mandatory helmet laws, but that's for another forum!)

Weepsie

Bushmanpm wrote: »

Genuine serious enquiry: How? I'm seriously not seeing the 'cause and effect' there. Why should mandatory helmet law have a negative impact on the number of cyclists on the road and how does it make it more dangerous for those that do still cycle?
(Ironically, as a biker amongst other modes of transport, I despise mandatory helmet laws, but that's for another forum!)

Dublin bikes take hundreds of people, sometimes thousands of people every day. It would be wholly unreasonable to expect them people, tourists for example to carry a helmet just in case they might hire a bike.

Weepsie

greenspurs wrote: »

Why do people on here feel so self righteous about everything , just because they have a few thousand posts?

My opinion is mine, no matter how many Boardsies try to berate it.....

You tried to claim that posters in here say All Cyclists are right, All motorists are wrong and cyclists don't want anything that is mandatory (despite as was pointed out) they have plenty that is mandatory.

You've again moved the goalposts to make it seem like you are being attacked, but it's your posts. They're nonsensical in this thread, though you have made some very good and valid points in other threads in the forum. It's not personal and it's not self righteous.

magicbastarder

Bushmanpm wrote: »

Genuine serious enquiry: How? I'm seriously not seeing the 'cause and effect' there. Why should mandatory helmet law have a negative impact on the number of cyclists on the road and how does it make it more dangerous for those that do still cycle?
(Ironically, as a biker amongst other modes of transport, I despise mandatory helmet laws, but that's for another forum!)

it's not so much the how. it's the experience anywhere which have tried it - the mandatory helmet law in NSW reduced the number of cyclists by approx 50% iirc, with a 37% fall in head injuries (when you'd expect it to be 50% based on per capita basis, and that's not even taking into account that you would otherwise expect a greater fall in injuries as the remaining 50% should be better protected).

Tenzor07

Weepsie wrote: »

You tried to claim that posters in here say All Cyclists are right,

Just the ones with a few thousand posts to there names!

rubadub

greenspurs wrote: »

If it was mandatory , so what?

I know my friend with 5 kids would not be impressed having to pay for their lessons (I would not automatically presume it to be included in school hours).

If mandatory I would guess there would need to be a test to make sure people learn what was intended, otherwise people could just sleep through it. So if there was a test and little johnny failed he would be well upset about not being able to cycle his new bike bought just before this mandatory ruling came in, or if his parents could not afford his lessons/test.

Dublin bikes is used by loads of tourists, many probably research the city and see it as a big advantage, but not if they have to do a 14hour course on it in what sounds like 6 sessions. I know people who get out maybe twice a year for a spin down the shops, they would not be impressed having to do the 14hour.

I remember the Tour de France being in Ireland. I doubt all the foreign teams would be happy at having to sit through the 14 hour session, and as I said probably an exam on top of that.