Cyclists should be tested + licensed (mega-thread, topic not allow in other threads)

Carawaystick · 23-12-2016 12:06AM #1

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

there's a definite case for a common test to ensure a minimum level of training

This chestnut raises its head again

Who would pay for the testing?
How much would testing cost?
What is the cost of not having testing?
How would you test 3 year old cyclists?
What penalty would apply to untested 3 year old cyclists?
What time will testing begin on Sunday morning?
Would you have checks at every border crossing, to prevent cyclists coming from the uk without having passed a test?
Would you prevent tourists cycling before taking a test?
Would foreign participants in the Rás need a test?

_Kaiser_ · 23-12-2016 01:30AM

Carawaystick wrote: »

This chestnut raises its head again

Who would pay for the testing?
How much would testing cost?
What is the cost of not having testing?
How would you test 3 year old cyclists?
What penalty would apply to untested 3 year old cyclists?
What time will testing begin on Sunday morning?
Would you have checks at every border crossing, to prevent cyclists coming from the uk without having passed a test?
Would you prevent tourists cycling before taking a test?
Would foreign participants in the Rás need a test?

OK I'll play along...

1. The end user
2. Same as the current driver theory test
3. Fine on conviction
4. Nonsense... how many 3 year olds are cycling down the quays, but for the sake of argument a 3 year old has no place cycling on a road anyway
5. As above
6. Same times as the driver theory test
7/8. Why not? They need a license to drive on the roads don't they? Again, would you expect a tourist to be able to safely cycle down the quays at rush hour without prior experience of our traffic laws/signage/language maybe?
The reality is of course that this doesn't happen (they get a bus, walk, taxi, LUAS) but again, I'll play along for the sake of argument
9. ??

In short, the notion that you can allow someone who maybe hasn't cycled since they were a kid out among rush hour traffic on a bike they picked up at Heuston or got for free through work and NOT expect problems is just ridiculous really. As I said before, not everyone is also a motorist and even if they are, there's a huge difference between how you interact with traffic in a car vs on a pushbike.

I see no reason they shouldn't have testing (if for no other reason than teaching them the importance of road safety) beyond the fact that the cyclist lobby don't want to accept any of the responsibility (which again is a fundamental cause behind this whole proposal - pandering to those who refuse to be mindful of their own safety and behavior) or indeed liability that equal access to the roads comes with - after all, you'd surely expect a motorist that hit you to be insured/licensed AND to be able to claim from that insurance wouldn't you?

Equally if a cyclist damages a car by being too close as they cut through the traffic, or veers out in front of a car without looking or hand signals there absolutely should be some sort of accountability and penalties there.

You can't have it both ways.

monument · 24-12-2016 05:32PM

Read the Commuting and Transport charter before posting in this thread.

-- moderator

magicbastarder · 24-12-2016 06:58PM

it's clear the testing regime is not rigorous enough for cyclists. sure look at the current hoo-ha over bradley wiggins and TUIs.

Grolschevik · 24-12-2016 07:12PM

When I was a kid in the North, we had cycling proficiency tests. Not mandatory as far as I remember, but all my friends did it as you got a nice little badge.

Instilled the 'rules of the road for cyclists' basics that I still remember today, even though I rarely cycle any more.

Could be worth doing it down here.

CramCycle · 24-12-2016 07:32PM

Make it part of the national school curriculum with a follow up in Junior cert. Make it for general road safety for pedestrians, cyclists and for the junior cert, include motorists.

Job done.

Next topic.

mickdw · 24-12-2016 07:32PM

Carawaystick wrote: »

This chestnut raises its head again

Who would pay for the testing?
How much would testing cost?
What is the cost of not having testing?
How would you test 3 year old cyclists?
What penalty would apply to untested 3 year old cyclists?
What time will testing begin on Sunday morning?
Would you have checks at every border crossing, to prevent cyclists coming from the uk without having passed a test?
Would you prevent tourists cycling before taking a test?
Would foreign participants in the Rás need a test?

I would be all for mandatory testing and insurance also.
In response to the above.
Cyclist should fund test and training costs.
Cycling without mandatory licence and insurance should result in fine.
Only cycling on public roads would require licensing. Children accompanied by licenced adult would not require test. Test could be brought into school curriculum so that everyone has the basic training in first year in secondary school.
For a start, cyclists legal in home country could be deemed legal here so foreign residents would only need to meet requirements of home country in terms of learning and licencing.
Participants in road races etc would be taking part in a controlled event and as such exempt from licencing law.
Cyclist identifier displayed in an agreed manner on rear of compulsory high visibility vest.

Chivito550 · 24-12-2016 07:42PM

Requiring a licence to cycle a bike? Another nail in the coffin of the general health of this nation.

We want to reduce obesity, not increase it.

magicbastarder · 24-12-2016 07:47PM

mickdw wrote: »

For a start, cyclists legal in home country could be deemed legal here so foreign residents would only need to meet requirements of home country in terms of learning and licencing.

this line renders your entire argument null.
we'd be the first country in the world to introduce such legislation (i wonder why?) so you'd immediately exempt anyone born in another country from the law.

how much do you think such insurance would take in vs. how much the scheme would cost to administer vs. the effect on the numbers of people abandoning bikes for cars and public transport (which are generally a net drain on the public purse)?

AltAccount · 24-12-2016 07:49PM

Carawaystick wrote: »

This chestnut raises its head again

Who would pay for the testing?
How much would testing cost?
What is the cost of not having testing?
How would you test 3 year old cyclists?
What penalty would apply to untested 3 year old cyclists?
What time will testing begin on Sunday morning?
Would you have checks at every border crossing, to prevent cyclists coming from the uk without having passed a test?
Would you prevent tourists cycling before taking a test?
Would foreign participants in the Rás need a test?

Would anyone with a valid driver's licence be exempt from this test? Surely the curriculum etc would be basically the same?

Would we be adding an additional category to the standard driver's licence?
e.g. When you pass your driving test, they automatically add tractor (category W) and bicycle (category ?) to your licence.
If you do the cycling test as a 14 year old, you get a driver's licence with bicycle ticked, and then when you pass the driving test a few years later, they add cat B & W to the licence.

PeadarCo · 24-12-2016 07:56PM

AltAccount wrote:

Would anyone with a valid driver's licence be exempt from this test? Surely the curriculum etc would be basically the same?

Why is a license for cyclists needed? You didn't need a drivers for a car until 50+ years after the car was invented. The reason it was brought in was due to the deaths and overall damage bad driving did and does. Its a solution looking for a problem.

CramCycle · 24-12-2016 08:00PM

mickdw wrote: »

Cyclist should fund test and training costs.

Training and insurance were introduced for motorists because the cost of motoring accidents to the state are phenomenal. This is simply untrue with cyclists. It would cost more to set up then they will ever cost.

Children accompanied by licenced adult would not require test.

So my son needs to be accompanied to school or his friends house that is no more than a minute from our door?!? Remove any independence I have instilled in him. Talk about either making cycling unattractive for parents or molly cuddling the f*ck out of the next generation.

Test could be brought into school curriculum so that everyone has the basic training in first year in secondary school.

I agree with mandatory training, for everyone in regards road safety. Should be mandatory for every person U18, hopefully it will reduce some of the stupidity we see across all road user groups over time.

For a start, cyclists legal in home country could be deemed legal here so foreign residents would only need to meet requirements of home country in terms of learning and licencing.

LOL. I am from the UK/france/Germany/wherever. There is no requirement to carry ID or do a test. Talk about making it an exercise in wasting garda time and resources.

on rear of compulsory high visibility vest.

So I can't wear a backpack. I have to wear a piece of clothing known to give a false sense of security and can be easily faked. Awesome plan.

AltAccount · 24-12-2016 08:01PM

PeadarCo wrote: »

Why is a license for cyclists needed? You didn't need a drivers for a car until 50+ years after the car was invented. The reason it was brought in was due to the deaths and overall damage bad driving did and does. Its a solution looking for a problem.

Roads were the wild west back when licences weren't needed, and the roads were a lot quieter too. Now we have huge volumes of traffic and it's far more important for everyone to operate by the same rules to minimise "vehicle overlap"...

I'm just wondering if there's a special level of information/testing required for a cycling competency test, or could the existing testing infrastructure be leveraged.

prinzeugen · 25-12-2016 07:20AM

AltAccount wrote: »

Would anyone with a valid driver's licence be exempt from this test? Surely the curriculum etc would be basically the same?

Would we be adding an additional category to the standard driver's licence?
e.g. When you pass your driving test, they automatically add tractor (category W) and bicycle (category ?) to your licence.
If you do the cycling test as a 14 year old, you get a driver's licence with bicycle ticked, and then when you pass the driving test a few years later, they add cat B & W to the licence.

No. You don't get a moped or motorbike licence when you pass the car test.

A cycling category should be separate.

99% of cyclists would fail a test if it is as strict as the motorbike test.

Don't look over your shoulder? Fail.

mickdw · 25-12-2016 12:39PM

CramCycle wrote: »

Training and insurance were introduced for motorists because the cost of motoring accidents to the state are phenomenal. This is simply untrue with cyclists. It would cost more to set up then they will ever cost.
So my son needs to be accompanied to school or his friends house that is no more than a minute from our door?!? Remove any independence I have instilled in him. Talk about either making cycling unattractive for parents or molly cuddling the f*ck out of the next generation.
I agree with mandatory training, for everyone in regards road safety. Should be mandatory for every person U18, hopefully it will reduce some of the stupidity we see across all road user groups over time.
LOL. I am from the UK/france/Germany/wherever. There is no requirement to carry ID or do a test. Talk about making it an exercise in wasting garda time and resources.
So I can't wear a backpack. I have to wear a piece of clothing known to give a false sense of security and can be easily faked. Awesome plan.

I'm not really making reference to cost of accidents to the state. I believe insurance should be in place to prevent cyclists peddling away from their responsibilities when they cause damage to property particularly in city traffic where they cannot be chased.
If the training was undertaken at the same age as kids are deemed to be safe on their own, I don't see any knock on issues re freedom.
I don't get what you are saying re tourists. cars for example must be legal in home country to drive here.
I guess consideration could be given to backpacks displaying the ID. Its amazing to me that you wouldn't think that a compulsory hi viz top is a good idea for a vulnerable road user.
Car reg can be easily faked. I have not heard anyone say we should get rid of them.
Opposition to this clearly comes from the mindset of the cyclist who believes they can do as they wish on the road. My point is that when they are sharing the road with expensive property and the owners of the vehicles are paying an arm and a leg for the privilege, then it's not too much to ask that the cyclist is identifiable and able to pay for damage caused.

endagibson · 25-12-2016 02:13PM

Anyone got any plans for dealing with the hordes of machine gun wielding unicorns in Dublin?

Just curious, since we're looking for solutions to problems that don't exist.

AltAccount · 25-12-2016 06:19PM

prinzeugen wrote: »

99% of cyclists would fail a test if it is as strict as the motorbike test.

By the same logic, probably 99% of drivers would fail the motorbike test too, and cars are arguably FAR more lethal/dangerous to everyone (except the driver) than motorbikes or bikes.

On that basis, it doesn't really make sense that the motorbike test is so much harder than the car test, or that you'd make the cycling test as hard as the motorbike test rather than as "easy" as the car test.

magicbastarder · 25-12-2016 11:31PM

mickdw wrote: »

I believe insurance should be in place to prevent cyclists peddling away from their responsibilities when they cause damage to property particularly in city traffic where they cannot be chased.

what does insurance do to prevent cyclists from doing this? and please quantify how much of a problem this is.
i started cycling on public roads (to school) when i was twelve. in the 28 years since, the most damage i've done to a car is cracked a taillight, or averaged out over the years, averaged no more thn €5 a year in damage. which would have been handled outside insurance anyway if it had been required.

what incidents are you aware of where insurance would have been required to cover the damage?

magicbastarder · 25-12-2016 11:44PM

mickdw wrote: »

My point is that when they are sharing the road with expensive property and the owners of the vehicles are paying an arm and a leg for the privilege, then it's not too much to ask that the cyclist is identifiable and able to pay for damage caused.

this is faintly absurd. because some people are paying lots of money to do something, the people *not* paying the money, and doing a tiny fraction of the damage, should be forced to carry identification and insurance?
the people doing the damage are other people who have shelled out for cars, not the cyclists.

a cyclist - combined weight of bike and rider of 100kg - doing 30km/h - has a kinetic energy of about 3,500J.
my car - an octavia - with me in it, and with half a tank of fuel, weighs 1500kg, has the same kinetic energy at 7km/h.
if you use momentum to compare, it's even more stark. the same cyclist at 30km/h has the same momentum as the octavia doing 2km/h.

can you imagine if the speed limit in the cities was 7km/h? that'd be gas.

Mrs OBumble · 26-12-2016 01:16AM

magicbastarder wrote: »

what incidents are you aware of where insurance would have been required to cover the damage?

I've been the owner of a legally-parked car which had approx E2000 (in today's terms) worth of panel damage done by a cyclist who came down a hill, failed to give way and crashed into it. Somehow the cyclist wasn't badly hurt - and for whatever reason he decided to leave a note under my windscreen with his contact details. Sitting with the agent from my insurance company when they rang him looking for compensation was priceless.

I totally support the proposal: all people who operate vehicles on public roads should have to prove that they're capable of doing so, and that they've got adequate insurance to pay for whatever damage they might cause.

magicbastarder · 26-12-2016 01:18AM

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I've been the owner of a legally-parked car which had approx E2000 (in today's terms) worth of panel damage done by a cyclist

what panels?

jimmycrackcorm · 26-12-2016 01:33AM

CramCycle wrote: »

Make it part of the national school curriculum with a follow up in Junior cert. Make it for general road safety for pedestrians, cyclists and for the junior cert, include motorists.

Job done.

Next topic.

In the 70's in primary school I took part in a programme on cycling safety where they had marked lanes out on the taught us the basic rules. We were alos taught the green cross code - familiar to anyone who remembers wanderly wagon.

I also think the OP's point could be vaild for any pedestrians who drink.

mickdw · 26-12-2016 03:38AM

magicbastarder wrote: »

what does insurance do to prevent cyclists from doing this? and please quantify how much of a problem this is.
i started cycling on public roads (to school) when i was twelve. in the 28 years since, the most damage i've done to a car is cracked a taillight, or averaged out over the years, averaged no more thn €5 a year in damage. which would have been handled outside insurance anyway if it had been required.

what incidents are you aware of where insurance would have been required to cover the damage?

Insurance and identification means that a cyclist who attempts to cycle off from accident can be traced and the damaged party compensated for damage.
So did you pay for that taillight?
I've personally witnessed a cyclist breaking a red light and heavily hitting the drivers door of a taxi, destroying the door. I've also seen a cyclist kick the side of a dublin bus for no good reason, scratch the rear corner of my car while I sat in traffic and also I remember a car hitting another car in other lane to avoid a cyclist who fell off its path.

TheChizler · 26-12-2016 03:45AM

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I've been the owner of a legally-parked car which had approx E2000 (in today's terms) worth of panel damage done by a cyclist who came down a hill, failed to give way and crashed into it. Somehow the cyclist wasn't badly hurt - and for whatever reason he decided to leave a note under my windscreen with his contact details. Sitting with the agent from my insurance company when they rang him looking for compensation was priceless.

So it all worked out well in the end without any insurance needed?

mickdw · 26-12-2016 03:48AM

magicbastarder wrote: »

this is faintly absurd. because some people are paying lots of money to do something, the people *not* paying the money, and doing a tiny fraction of the damage, should be forced to carry identification and insurance?
the people doing the damage are other people who have shelled out for cars, not the cyclists.

a cyclist - combined weight of bike and rider of 100kg - doing 30km/h - has a kinetic energy of about 3,500J.
my car - an octavia - with me in it, and with half a tank of fuel, weighs 1500kg, has the same kinetic energy at 7km/h.
if you use momentum to compare, it's even more stark. the same cyclist at 30km/h has the same momentum as the octavia doing 2km/h.

can you imagine if the speed limit in the cities was 7km/h? that'd be gas.

Damage is damage and people need to be traceable.
Following your logic, are you ok with random cars rubbing off the side of your octavia at a speed of say 5 km/h?
A car rubs up the side of your car scratching panels...... That is ok?
Damage the wing mirror and drive off....... That is ok?

luckily the car has a unique identifier that will get you out of trouble if the driver was to give you 2 fingers as he or she scratches along your car and takes off up the road.

prinzeugen · 26-12-2016 05:31AM

AltAccount wrote: »

By the same logic, probably 99% of drivers would fail the motorbike test too, and cars are arguably FAR more lethal/dangerous to everyone (except the driver) than motorbikes or bikes.

On that basis, it doesn't really make sense that the motorbike test is so much harder than the car test, or that you'd make the cycling test as hard as the motorbike test rather than as "easy" as the car test.

I agree. At the moment, a car driver is not required to look over the shoulder in addition to checking the mirrors during the test. Its called the life saver for a reason.

Did advanced motorbike training years ago and the guy would ask you to look over your shoulder. Few seconds later they would ask what make and colour the car behind you was.. Its not as easy as you think!

Everyone should have a test or some sort of training.

Its amazing what it does for your general situational awareness.

Subcomandante Marcos · 26-12-2016 05:44AM

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I've been the owner of a legally-parked car which had approx E2000 (in today's terms) worth of panel damage done by a cyclist who came down a hill, failed to give way and crashed into it. Somehow the cyclist wasn't badly hurt - and for whatever reason he decided to leave a note under my windscreen with his contact details. Sitting with the agent from my insurance company when they rang him looking for compensation was priceless.

I totally support the proposal: all people who operate vehicles on public roads should have to prove that they're capable of doing so, and that they've got adequate insurance to pay for whatever damage they might cause.

How does one give way to a parked car?

magicbastarder · 26-12-2016 10:45AM

mickdw wrote: »

Damage is damage and people need to be traceable.
Following your logic, are you ok with random cars rubbing off the side of your octavia at a speed of say 5 km/h?
A car rubs up the side of your car scratching panels...... That is ok?
Damage the wing mirror and drive off....... That is ok?

i obviously didn't explain myself well enough. i was getting at the level of insurance we'd need for cars (not including fire and theft, etc.) if cars only travelled at a couple of km/h.

magicbastarder · 26-12-2016 10:47AM

mickdw wrote: »

Insurance and identification means that a cyclist who attempts to cycle off from accident can be traced and the damaged party compensated for damage.
So did you pay for that taillight?

i didn't; the driver (it was a taxi) helped me load the bike into the boot, and was going to drive me to the mater, but i asked him to drop me home (which was nearer) so i could ring for a relative to bring me to the VHI clinic.

he drove off without swapping details, but he certainly knew where i lived. maybe he was just glad i managed not to bleed all over the inside of his car.

CramCycle · 26-12-2016 11:43AM

mickdw wrote: »

Insurance and identification means that a cyclist who attempts to cycle off from accident can be traced and the damaged party compensated for damage.

Having had several incidents where cars have driven off, it does not seem to make a huge difference. Gardai, insurance and all others seemed not to give a sh1t.

I've personally witnessed a cyclist breaking a red light and heavily hitting the drivers door of a taxi, destroying the door. I've also seen a cyclist kick the side of a dublin bus for no good reason, scratch the rear corner of my car while I sat in traffic and also I remember a car hitting another car in other lane to avoid a cyclist who fell off its path.

Great anecdotes, obvio5proves a huge problem.

mickdw wrote: »

Damage is damage and people need to be traceable.
Following your logic, are you ok with random cars rubbing off the side of your octavia at a speed of say 5 km/h?
A car rubs up the side of your car scratching panels...... That is ok?
Damage the wing mirror and drive off....... That is ok?

Happens all the time in car parks. Sitting in my car the other day when a neighbouring car slammed their door into me with enough force to rock the car. Decent damage done to the panel. Kid in the car laughed. On camera in the SC. Witnessed in the act and they drove off when I tried to get their attention. They did not care, Gardai did not care and their insurance just said that it did not happen.

prinzeugen wrote: »

I agree. At the moment, a car driver is not required to look over the shoulder in addition to checking the mirrors during the test. Its called the life saver for a reason.

I was taught to cover blind spots, surprised this is no longer required.

John_C · 26-12-2016 01:06PM

I think it's a good idea. I'd also make it necessary to hold a cycle license for maybe 2 years before applying for a driving license.

Cyclists should be tested + licensed (mega-thread, topic not allow in other threads)

Comments