Penny Farthings, Legality and responsibility.

Gerry T

07Lapierre wrote:

A bicycle type NCT test is a waste of time. Are the Gardai going to setup "Operation Peloton" where they stop cyclists and check their bikes for defects? Is that really a good use of Garda time? Are defective bikes causing injury and death on a vast scale annually?

Do garda stop cars and check for defects of cars, no. They che k if the nct is in date.
They may look at something very obvious like lights or tyres on a car, takes seconds. Likewise if they happened to stop a cyclist they may check it has lights and its not falling to pieces.

07Lapierre wrote:

It's a silly idea and the costs of enforcement greatly outweigh any benefits. (How many cyclists lives will be saved?)

Who said anything about enforcement. I dont see bike nct centres or a special traffic force. People might just ignore it but have an accident and your health insurance or a court case might have a different view on things

I find it hard to believe people dont see the benefit bikes getting a once over each yr.

As for a penny farthing, how do you stop at traffic lights or zebra crossings or if a child runs out in front of you. I gather by stopping pedaling quickly would have you over the handle bars. I gather on here anything that gets in the way of a cyclist on the road is the other persons fault.

It doesnt have to end in death, broken bones etc are nasty to deal with. If that can be reduced it seems a good idea

Gerry T

07Lapierre wrote:

Bike shops are not short of business! (They've never been busier) Bike shops already offer bike repair services All bikes are capable of been ridden on the road. A PF is a very old bike..that's true..but so is a Model T Ford or an MGB. A PF stops at zebra crossings the same way everyone else does.

Those cars are the same as a modern car, if driven slowly then control and braking is fine.
How do you stop a pf, normal bikes you break and rest one or 2 feet on the ground. Do you just balance or have to dismount at every stop in traffic.

magicbastarder

I've never seen a penny farthing in use on the road. It's good that the legality and practicality of one is of such import.

Gerry T

07Lapierre wrote:

How did you get your Penny Farthing up to the Hell Fire Club, cycle? Are unsafe bikes a problem? How many cyclists were injured or killed last year as a direct consequence of a defective bicycle?

Seth linked a picture of a 3yr olds bike, with ribbons on the handle bars and stableisers.
Yes an unsafe bike is a problem because its not safe.
The same arguments were trotted out with car nct's. It stands to reason that a safe working bike should be a minimum on a road.
Most people on here prob check their bikes, but theres alot that do nothing until it stops working.

Its only an idea, you could have people do a half day training and then you can self 'test'. But if you have an accident and expect your health insurance to pay out if its found your bike isnt road worthy and thats on you.

tomasrojo

Gerry T wrote: »

ikewise if they happened to stop a cyclist they may check it has lights and its not falling to pieces.

Most gardaí wouldn't have even a rudimentary idea of what to check on a bike.

I find it hard to believe people dont see the benefit bikes getting a once over each yr.

It's the compulsory bureaucracy that people don't see the benefit of.

magicbastarder

So say I have passed my NBT. How is that registered against that bike? How do I prove it to gardai? How much do I pay? Is it once a year? Is this idea dreamt up by someone who wants to drive people off their bikes by adding hassle and paperwork to owning one?

Remember that on a bike a malfunctioning brake is much much easier for an average punter to spot and even good themselves, whereas an issue with a car brake is very far removed from that. Plus as has been mentioned repeatedly, so much more dangerous than a faulty brake on a bike.

beauf

Gerry T wrote: »

Do garda stop cars and check for defects of cars, no.

Actually yes. They post about it social media. So it can't be often or they wouldn't to make a song and dance about it.

Gerry T wrote: »

Who said anything about enforcement. I dont see bike nct centres or a special traffic force. People might just ignore it but have an accident and your health insurance or a court case might have a different view on things

List one example in Ireland with a bicycle.

Gerry T wrote: »

I find it hard to believe people dont see the benefit bikes getting a once over each yr.

That's not the issue.

Gerry T wrote: »

As for a penny farthing, how do you stop at traffic lights or zebra crossings or if a child runs out in front of you. I gather by stopping pedaling quickly would have you over the handle bars. I gather on here anything that gets in the way of a cyclist on the road is the other persons fault.

Slow down and stop. How else?

Gerry T wrote: »

It doesnt have to end in death, broken bones etc are nasty to deal with. If that can be reduced it seems a good idea

I'm sure don't run stickers on the titanic would be a good idea. Maybe not the most important issue at the time.

cletus

Apart from the fact that setting up a national database of every bike in the country, along with a system for registering the annual test of each of these bikes, and issuing of non transferable, non reproducible certs for each bike is not the simple task you seem to think it is, you have not yet answered the question that I and other posters have posed repeatedly.

Why is there a need for this system? Do you have access to reports that detail malfunctioning or poorly maintained bikes as being responsible for large numbers of deaths, injuries or crashes on the road?

You've conflated people's resistance to this unnecessary testing system with them saying annual, or more regular, bike checks are a bad thing. This is patently, from the posts above, not the case.

breezy1985

So the penny farthing thread that was created to stop off topic stuff on the near misses thread now needs a breakaway NCT for bicycles thread

07Lapierre

Gerry T wrote: »

Who said anything about enforcement. I dont see bike nct centres or a special traffic force. People might just ignore it but have an accident and your health insurance or a court case might have a different view on things

Is that not how it already works? If i have an RTA and if it goes to court, if it turns out my bike was defective in some way, would that not have an affect on the outcome?

07Lapierre

Gerry T wrote: »

Those cars are the same as a modern car, if driven slowly then control and braking is fine.
How do you stop a pf, normal bikes you break and rest one or 2 feet on the ground. Do you just balance or have to dismount at every stop in traffic.

So one rule for cyclists and another rule for car drivers? Old cars are ok, but old bikes are not?

Seth Brundle

Gerry T wrote: »

Seth linked a picture of a 3yr olds bike, with ribbons on the handle bars and stableisers.

This was to indicate the absurdity of your proposal

Gerry T wrote: »

Yes an unsafe bike is a problem because its not safe.
The same arguments were trotted out with car nct's. It stands to reason that a safe working bike should be a minimum on a road.
Most people on here prob check their bikes, but theres alot that do nothing until it stops working.

In terms of your last line, this was my point regarding the high NCT failure rates for cars. Surely this is a bigger issue worth pursuing given that "unsafe" bikes are rarely (if at all) responsible for injuries and fatalities.

Gerry T wrote: »

Its only an idea, you could have people do a half day training and then you can self 'test'. But if you have an accident and expect your health insurance to pay out if its found your bike isnt road worthy and thats on you.

So people wanting to cycle require a half day's training. Training in what exactly?
What about a small kid who cycles to school? Are they expected to complete this course.

Reverting back to the Netherlands where cycling is, as we all know, very common. Given the high rates of cycling usage there, why do you think they haven't brought in bike registration and mandatory bike testing and training?
Surely if there are benefits to your proposal, the Dutch would have implimented it?

magicbastarder

Gerry T wrote: »

Yes an unsafe bike is a problem because its not safe.
The same arguments were trotted out with car nct's.

just to quantify the issue; a cyclist plus bicycle with a total mass of 80KG, and travelling at 25km/h, has approx 1% the kinetic energy of a 1,500KG car doing 50km/h.

if you want to take this up to more extreme situations, comparing a 100KG cyclist at 60km/h, to a 1,500KG car at 120km/h, you're still looking at a factor of 60 in the difference.

beauf

Kinda going to extraordinary length to find a stick to beat the cyclist with though aren't we.

Despite denials that it isn't, it still trying to find a way that using a PF is at fault for someone driving at them.

I don't think anyone thinks PF is the ideal choice for urban commuting. It's only interesting in how its road legal and the mechanics of how it works.

Rather than trying to re-invent the wheel there are plenty of much larger and more advanced countries across the world that have tried different things like insurance, mandatory rules for cycling training helmets etc. So we see what works and what doesn't without spending a fortune on hair brained schemes.

The idea is to get more people cycling so less traffic for those that have to drive, but an better quality of life and environment for all.

Rather than victim blaming. Fix the problem not the blame.

AndrewJRenko

Gerry T wrote: »

I find it hard to believe people dont see the benefit bikes getting a once over each yr.

a

I find it hard to believe that you don't see the difference between something being a good idea and being a mandatory legal requirement.

Eating five fruit and vegetables each day is a good idea, a great idea even - but we don't make a legal requirement because that would be a dumb idea for many reasons.

If you do want to improve the safety of bikes on the road, here's a cheaper and more constructive option - provide free servicing, or maybe even free labour for servicing and the owner pays for the parts. The State could fund bike shops to provide X free services each year, proportional to their turnover previous year, with the emphasis on reaching hard to reach communities, like direct provision centres, schools and colleges in low income areas.

Are you on board Gerry?

beauf

Seth Brundle wrote: »

This was to indicate the absurdity of your proposal

In terms of your last line, this was my point regarding the high NCT failure rates for cars. Surely this is a bigger issue worth pursuing given that "unsafe" bikes are rarely (if at all) responsible for injuries and fatalities.

So people wanting to cycle require a half day's training. Training in what exactly?
What about a small kid who cycles to school? Are they expected to complete this course.

Reverting back to the Netherlands where cycling is, as we all know, very common. Given the high rates of cycling usage there, why do you think they haven't brought in bike registration and mandatory bike testing and training?
Surely if there are benefits to your proposal, the Dutch would have implimented it?

The big difference in Holland was they wanted to reduce the numbers of pedestrians in particular kids killed by cars. So they started with that mindset. Give people priority over cars.

We as a society in Ireland don't have that mindset. We still have the opposite, the car comes first. We want to force bicycles off the road and where possible blame (punish even) the cyclist for having the nerve to get in the way of a car.

tomasrojo

On the other side of the coin from the Netherlands, if such a scheme weren't cumbersome and expensive but did serve to punish cyclists, New South Wales would have introduced it by now.

AndrewJRenko

Gerry T wrote: »

.
Obviously for a bike the test could be much less complicated and your lbs could do the test.

Define LBS? Seriously, if this is a legal requirement, you need a legal definition. If I have a garden equipment centre that sells 5 or 10 bikes a year, am I now an approved testing centre? If I have a toy shop that sells kids bikes, am I now an approved testing centre? What staff qualifications do I need and how will they keep their skills up to date? Am I going to be sued if someone gets killed on a bike I've just approved? What is the approval standard for a road bike, or a CX bike or an eBike?

How many people are going to be killed by motorists while you distract legislators down this rabbit hole looking for a problem to solve?

AndrewJRenko

Gerry T wrote: »

Its only an idea, you could have people do a half day training and then you can self 'test'. But if you have an accident and expect your health insurance to pay out if its found your bike isnt road worthy and thats on you.

Here's an idea - how about a half day retraining for drivers every 3 to 5 years, given they're the ones killing people each week on the road?

It's only an idea.

breezy1985

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Here's an idea - how about a half day retraining for drivers every 3 to 5 years, given they're the ones killing people each week on the road?

It's only an idea.

You could do it while you are waiting for you car to be NCTed

MojoMaker

tomasrojo wrote: »

This (whole thread) is just a variation on the mandatory registration/insurance idea that everyone thinks they've just invented.

A simple and enduring truth. It isn't about defective bikes at all, or unusual or unsuitable bikes, it all boils down to this single wish above.

Also heard in these parts as other variations of: "get bikes off the road by making it more difficult and less attractive to cycle, so I can make unrestricted progress in my car without these blithering idiots taking up (my) space".

Welcome to Ireland.

Seth Brundle

MojoMaker wrote: »

Also heard in these parts as other variations of: "get bikes off the road by making it more difficult and less attractive to cycle".

But I thought Gerry said that he was "pro cycling"?

MojoMaker

That's simply another form of "BUT".

"First up - I cycle - but....."

"How dare you sir, I am a cyclist as well, but...."

"don't get me wrong, I'm totally pro-cycling, but......"

"...regular cyclist here*, but...."

* last tried in 1988 but what of it??? :pac:

beauf

Shouldn't need to be a cyclist to realise it's pointless spending vast amounts of money on something that's not enforced and will have negligible impact on safety. While spending tiny amounts on things that will have a far greater effect.

meeeeh

Nct for bikes is nonsense.

However Ireland has very lax approach to policing different road offences, motor, cycling and pedestrian. I'm not saying it should be stricter but you can either make sure everyone behaves as they should or let everyone do whatever they want up to a point. Luckily Ireland has low population density so more lax approach can work.However that also means cycling infrastructure will be expensive outside cities and often not very feasible. It's up to cyclists to decide how much they want to trust that car drivers will see them even when it's dark or how well they will be able to react if their brakes don't work properly when a car cuts across them (same goes for other vulnerable road users). Thinking anything will be policed especially on country roads but also in denser areas at current garda numbers is deluded.

CramCycle

Christ on a bike I ran out of popcorn, can we take a break while I pop out to get some more. There is a Netflix show in here:
Title: Gerry vs. Big Bicycle.
Tagline: Ireland had a problem that didn't exist* all it took was Gerry not to solve it.

*It has problems, this isn't one of them,

beauf

meeeeh wrote: »

Nct for bikes is nonsense.

However Ireland has very lax approach to policing different road offences, motor, cycling and pedestrian. I'm not saying it should be stricter but you can either make sure everyone behaves as they should or let everyone do whatever they want up to a point. Luckily Ireland has low population density so more lax approach can work.However that also means cycling infrastructure will be expensive outside cities and often not very feasible. It's up to cyclists to decide how much they want to trust that car drivers will see them even when it's dark or how well they will be able to react if their brakes don't work properly when a car cuts across them (same goes for other vulnerable road users). Thinking anything will be policed especially on country roads but also in denser areas at current garda numbers is deluded.

The issue is not lights or brakes.

Its that a driver sees the cyclist (or any other road user or car) and doesn't care if they hit the cyclist.
So drives dangerously with no fear of repercussion. This is never penalized so becomes habitual.
The lack of enforcement and society acceptance of this behavior is a moral hazard.

It become so normalized people can't even see it anymore.

beauf

It doesn't just happen when cycling either. There is a rising tide of aggressive and angry drivers out there. No patience, poor driving skills and want everyone to get out of their way. They don't care what they hit.

MojoMaker

beauf wrote: »

The issue is not lights or brakes.

Its that a driver sees the cyclist (or any other road user or car) and doesn't care if they hit the cyclist.
So drives dangerously with no fear of repercussion. This is never penalized so becomes habitual.
The lack of enforcement and society acceptance of this behavior is a moral hazard.

It become so normalized people can't even see it anymore.

This is it beauf. Said it better than I could.

society acceptance of this behavior....become so normalized people can't even see it anymore

This is it.

Gerry T

Your all mad on here !
It's a reasonable suggestion, safety. In 20 yrs they'll look back and think we were crazy for not thinking of it before.

How do you get to a point where you think car drivers don't care. Does that include your family, friends or is it just "them"

There were similar attitudes on construction sites, the lift in H&S not only offered a safer work environment it greatly changed peoples attitudes and approach to the workplace. It didn't save thousands of lives and it does cost a fortune, is it worth it, most definitely.

I agree with some points, car drivers should have to do regular 'top up' training, it's crazy to think people can just get in and go without even a 5yr refresher.
It's the change in people attitudes that will make the biggest impact.