Cyclists and the public highway.

cycletheroad

I think most people would agree that a lot of cyclists don't have a clue how to cycle in traffic, where to position themselves at traffic lights and all the rest of it.

In my view a golden opportunity was lost with the bike to work scheme in getting some level of cycling proficiency on the roads, and the primary reason for the bike scheme was to facilitate people who wanted to cycle to work.

There should have been a compulsory cycling proficiency programme for everyone wanting to take up the bike to work scheme as part of getting the grant. After all, if we can have manual handling courses to show us how to move boxes from A to B, we could have had a cycling proficiency course.

A golden opportunity missed i think.

Seweryn

cycletheroad wrote: »

There should have been a compulsory cycling proficiency programme for everyone wanting to take up the bike to work scheme as part of getting the grant. After all, if we can have manual handling courses to show us how to move boxes from A to B, we could have had a cycling proficiency course.

Yes, and we also have a full day Safe Pass course, a lot of H&S regulations and what not. But then suddenly we allow a driver to fail his driving test and we let him drive home in his own car. Legally...

cycletheroad

ya...but forget about that angle, it would have been the thing to do because it would have been the right thing to do, cyclists should be taught the rules of the road regardless of who does what in a car or a lorry etc, because an awful lot of cyclists have' nt a clue how to cycle in traffic.

Creamy Goodness

http://tigerhoods.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Michael+Jackson+likes+popcorn+www+thefacepalm+org_17ff93_218203.gif

Seweryn

cycletheroad wrote: »

ya...but forget about that angle, it would have been the thing to do because it would have been the right thing to do, cyclists should be taught the rules of the road regardless of who does what in a car or a lorry etc, because an awful lot of cyclists have' nt a clue how to cycle in traffic.

Sure, but most cyclists (I recon 90%) are also drivers, so they should know the ROR. And many drivers (in more less the same proportion as cyclists) have no clue how to drive. Most of them have never been in a car with a professional driving instructor and have never taken a single driving lesson.

cycletheroad

Seweryn wrote: »

Sure, but most cyclists (I recon 90%) are also drivers, so they should know the ROR. And many drivers (in more less the same proportion as cyclists) have no clue how to drive. Most of them have never been in a car with a professional driving instructor and have never taken a single driving lesson.

It comes down to the individual on the bike, whether they want to do it the right or wrong way,the same as a driver, whether they want to drive properly or not. If everyone used common sense on the roads, their would nt be have the accidents.

Anyway,i suppose it will never progress if its a them and us approach, it should have been done because cyclists are the most vulnerable on the roads

what do you think Jackson:D

monument

cycletheroad wrote: »

ya...but forget about that angle, it would have been the thing to do because it would have been the right thing to do, cyclists should be taught the rules of the road regardless of who does what in a car or a lorry etc, because an awful lot of cyclists have' nt a clue how to cycle in traffic.

Forget about drivers in charge of large, ton plus vehicles, which can do 0-60MPH in a matter of seconds?

The "right thing to do" is not to get carried away with a fairly minor issue when there's a far greater one left unresolved for decades. No?

cycletheroad wrote: »

I think most people would agree that a lot of cyclists don't have a clue how to cycle in traffic, where to position themselves at traffic lights and all the rest of it.

Sure.

cycletheroad wrote: »

In my view a golden opportunity was lost with the bike to work scheme in getting some level of cycling proficiency on the roads, and the primary reason for the bike scheme was to facilitate people who wanted to cycle to work.

There should have been a compulsory cycling proficiency programme for everyone wanting to take up the bike to work scheme as part of getting the grant. After all, if we can have manual handling courses to show us how to move boxes from A to B, we could have had a cycling proficiency course.

A golden opportunity missed i think.

Besides anything else, do you know how the bike to work scheme works?

I'd agree with offering optional free training as is provided by some London local authorities, and I'd even agree with mandatory training for serious road traffic law offenders, but there is nothing to show that [1] the new cyclists have become a problem or [2] cyclists are the problem to start with.

In fact, going by the stats, overall cyclist safety seems to have gotten better not worse, and international studies all point to drivers being at fault the majority of the time.

rich.d.berry

I can see a great deal of sense in providing training as part of the B2W scheme. I started commuting in April last year and have learned a great deal, some of it the hard way.

I am now a far safer cyclist, with regard to my own safety, than I was a year ago. Had I been offered some coaching I would have been saved a few spills and avoided a number of altercations with other road users.

It's all very well saying that motorists are mostly to blame in collisions, but there is a lot that we can do as cyclists to reduce the risk and to recognise the potential dangers. A telling statistic that cyclists need training is that of the 11 cycling fatalities between 2002 and 2006 8 of these deaths were due to left-turning lorries. Even if avoiding the inside of HGVs is all that cyclists take away from their training it will be worthwhile.

cycletheroad

monument wrote: »

cycletheroad wrote: »

ya...but forget about that angle, it would have been the thing to do because it would have been the right thing to do, cyclists should be taught the rules of the road regardless of who does what in a car or a lorry etc, because an awful lot of cyclists have' nt a clue how to cycle in traffic.

Forget about drivers in charge of large, ton plus vehicles, which can do 0-60MPH in a matter of seconds?

The "right thing to do" is not to get carried away with a fairly minor issue when there's a far greater one left unresolved for decades. No?

cycletheroad wrote: »

I think most people would agree that a lot of cyclists don't have a clue how to cycle in traffic, where to position themselves at traffic lights and all the rest of it.

Sure.

cycletheroad wrote: »

In my view a golden opportunity was lost with the bike to work scheme in getting some level of cycling proficiency on the roads, and the primary reason for the bike scheme was to facilitate people who wanted to cycle to work.

There should have been a compulsory cycling proficiency programme for everyone wanting to take up the bike to work scheme as part of getting the grant. After all, if we can have manual handling courses to show us how to move boxes from A to B, we could have had a cycling proficiency course.

A golden opportunity missed i think.

Besides anything else, do you know how the bike to work scheme works?

I'd agree with offering optional free training as is provided by some London local authorities, and I'd even agree with mandatory training for serious road traffic law offenders, but there is nothing to show that [1] the new cyclists have become a problem or [2] cyclists are the problem to start with.

In fact, going by the stats, overall cyclist safety seems to have gotten better not worse, and international studies all point to drivers being at fault the majority of the time.

Don't over complicate it

monument

rich.d.berry wrote: »

I can see a great deal of sense in providing training as part of the B2W scheme. I started commuting in April last year and have learned a great deal, some of it the hard way.

I am now a far safer cyclist, with regard to my own safety, than I was a year ago. Had I been offered some coaching I would have been saved a few spills and avoided a number of altercations with other road users.

I see a great sense in offering it, but there is no way it can be made mandatory without changing the scheme and increasing the admin costs to an unsustainable level.

rich.d.berry wrote: »

It's all very well saying that motorists are mostly to blame in collisions, but there is a lot that we can do as cyclists to reduce the risk and to recognise the potential dangers.

It's all very well what you do as a cyclist, what the state makes mandatory is another thing. The simple fact is that more people on bikes seems to have made the roads safer (ie safety in numbers) -- you don't put barriers up in the way of the most proven safety measure for cyclists.

And did I say people should not recognise the potential dangers?

No, what I am saying is that it would be state lunacy to target cyclists for any type of mandatory training. This is make worse by suggesting it when motorist are still allowed to drive after failing their test and a blind eye is turned to learners driving without supervision. But mandatory training for cyclists would be lunacy regardless of what happens to motorists. Nobody here has made any solid arguments for mandatory training here.

rich.d.berry wrote: »

A telling statistic that cyclists need training is that of the 11 cycling fatalities between 2002 and 2006 8 of these deaths were due to left-turning lorries. Even if avoiding the inside of HGVs is all that cyclists take away from their training it will be worthwhile.

That's no longer seems to be such a large problem -- it's telling that this changed without mandatory cyclist training and little cyclist education of any kind.

galwaycyclist

I think I did somewhere at sometime make an argument for mandatory cycle training for learner drivers. That could be imposed as part of the pre test requirements.

mel.b

Is there a 'Bike Ed' scheme in schools? Growing up in Australia in Grade 5 we had a bike Ed course where you learnt o handle a bike properly, the road rules etc and at the end there was a proficeny test. Not only are you better starting young and instilling good habits, but it may get more young children cycling and active.

Wishbone Ash

mel.b wrote: »

Is there a 'Bike Ed' scheme in schools?

I did cycling education classes in primary school around about 1975. I still remember much of what we were taught then.

morana

cycletheroad wrote: »

I think most people would agree that a lot of cyclists don't have a clue how to cycle in traffic,.

I am glad I am not one of the 'most'

Lumen

cycletheroad wrote: »

Don't over complicate it

The BTW scheme is beautiful in its simplicity. You could take your own advice.

I don't want a multi-hour lecture from some hivisdork cycling instructor, I want my cheap bike.

Beasty

cycletheroad wrote: »

There should have been a compulsory cycling proficiency programme for everyone wanting to take up the bike to work scheme as part of getting the grant. After all, if we can have manual handling courses to show us how to move boxes from A to B, we could have had a cycling proficiency course.

A golden opportunity missed i think.

.. and that would have killed the scheme, stone dead. It would eat into the savings, and tbh most adults would probably not take too kindly to being sent back to school to learn how to ride a bike again.

reallyunique

Might be an opportunity for the bike shops to offer a free course on "defensive cycling" or some such. Get people in for an evening, offer discounts on starter-kit stuff, throw in how to fix a puncture and then sell them some gear on the way out. The shop looks like its doing the punters a favour and gets the chance to sell stuff too. Most of the more experienced lads in the shops would be happy to offer this advice free if they were asked only nobody asks.
Cheap course to run and you can rope people in when you're selling the bike. Probably not worth offering it to people buying 9k of carbon niceness though

John_Rambo

I just posted this on the motoring section, couldn't believe it. Lost tourists maybe?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77767336&postcount=68

Two of them were trying time their crossing of an exit! Disaster waiting to happen. :mad:

DePurpereWolf

I think in most countries cycling on the motorway is legal. The only country it isn't is the Netherlands, that I know off.

It is tempting though. You can't have a smooth road without cars driving fast. If you're hit by 100 or 120 km/h you'll die anyway. I think the M roads are safer than most N roads.

Required cycling proficiency varies from person to person. I for one would never go on most N-roads, let alone an M road. But I ride much more aggresive (assertive) within the city then others. There are loads of cyclists that get by on cycle lanes or on the side of the road commuting to and from work. They are a much different part of traffic then I am, and most roadies are.

fat bloke

Lumen wrote: »

I don't want a multi-hour lecture from some hivisdork cycling instructor, I want my cheap bike.

Or 500 quid off that powertap.

Wishbone Ash

reallyunique wrote: »

Might be an opportunity for the bike shops to offer a free course on "defensive cycling" or some such

...........and maybe motor dealers with do likewise for motor vehicles.

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

I think in most countries cycling on the motorway is legal

*shakes head in disbelief*

John_Rambo

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

I think in most countries cycling on the motorway is legal. The only country it isn't is the Netherlands, that I know off.

Who told you that?

Captain Havoc

John_Rambo wrote: »

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

I think in most countries cycling on the motorway is legal. The only country it isn't is the Netherlands, that I know off.

Who told you that?

It's definitely illegal in the countries I've lived in, Ireland, France, Switzerland and England.

rp

Captain Havoc wrote: »

It's definitely illegal in the countries I've lived in, Ireland, France, Switzerland and England.

I think its generally allowed in the baltic countries, Spain and US. Deffo not in Germany and Lux.

Bicycle Hunter

I was thinking to contact the dcc cycling officer about this just last week. not to make it manditory but to offer an option or to see if their is anyone doing this currently so I could recomend it.

When I was in primary school(90s) we where brought to a state run place to teach us about the safe cross code and cycling in the city, it was great fun they even had a cycle go kart track.

I'm gonna email him tonight and I'll post what he gets back with when he does.

I searched on google for something simmilar so i could start to run something like this maybe one day a week, but i'd like some training first. I'd like to beleave my edicate on the road is impecabel but I'd also like it in wrighting before I'd start preaching.

If anyone has any pointers I'm all ears

p

cycletheroad wrote: »

I think most people would agree that a lot of cyclists don't have a clue how to cycle in traffic, where to position themselves at traffic lights and all the rest of it.

In my view a golden opportunity was lost with the bike to work scheme in getting some level of cycling proficiency on the roads, and the primary reason for the bike scheme was to facilitate people who wanted to cycle to work.

There should have been a compulsory cycling proficiency programme for everyone wanting to take up the bike to work scheme as part of getting the grant. After all, if we can have manual handling courses to show us how to move boxes from A to B, we could have had a cycling proficiency course.

A golden opportunity missed i think.

Totally agree. Same should be true for walking. Pedestrians are such trouble makers!

galwaycyclist

Bicycle Hunter wrote: »

When I was in primary school(90s) we where brought to a state run place to teach us about the safe cross code and cycling in the city, it was great fun they even had a cycle go kart track.

I'm gonna email him tonight and I'll post what he gets back with when he does.

I searched on google for something simmilar so i could start to run something like this maybe one day a week, but i'd like some training first. I'd like to beleave my edicate on the road is impecabel but I'd also like it in wrighting before I'd start preaching.

This kind of "traffic school" idea is no longer considered good practice since its a very artficial environment. Nowadays cycle training under the UK National standard is done on quiet (ish) roads so that the kids get direct experience of interacting with motorists. The skills being taught are not "giving hand signals" but "how to communicate".

There is a company in Belfast running UK National Standard Instructor Courses the course takes four days and should cost around £500 -£600 give or take.

AltAccount

Lumen wrote: »

The BTW scheme is beautiful in its simplicity. You could take your own advice.

I don't want a multi-hour lecture from some hivisdork cycling instructor, I want my cheap bike.

I know you're joking, but this is the reality - as laudable a goal as the OP may have, it'll be rendered pointless and unusable once the H&S/PC brigade get their hands on it.

BostonB

Bicycle Hunter wrote: »

I was thinking to contact the dcc cycling officer about this just last week. not to make it manditory but to offer an option or to see if their is anyone doing this currently so I could recomend it.

When I was in primary school(90s) we where brought to a state run place to teach us about the safe cross code and cycling in the city, it was great fun they even had a cycle go kart track.

I'm gonna email him tonight and I'll post what he gets back with when he does.

I searched on google for something simmilar so i could start to run something like this maybe one day a week, but i'd like some training first. I'd like to beleave my edicate on the road is impecabel but I'd also like it in wrighting before I'd start preaching.

If anyone has any pointers I'm all ears

I think that was in Fairview, I remember being at that as well. Don't really think it was a useful expercise for learning. Fun though.

TBH I think a better way of teaching is a buddy system like they do on Motorbikes. Radio intercom.

CramCycle

Go out to Sundrive, do a track accreditation course.

I thought it was great at reinfocing observation skills a and other skill sets newer cyclists tend to forget or not realise they need.

DePurpereWolf

galwaycyclist wrote: »

This kind of "traffic school" idea is no longer considered good practice since its a very artficial environment. Nowadays cycle training under the UK National standard is done on quiet (ish) roads so that the kids get direct experience of interacting with motorists. The skills being taught are not "giving hand signals" but "how to communicate".

There is a company in Belfast running UK National Standard Instructor Courses the course takes four days and should cost around £500 -£600 give or take.

Just to give the Dutch angle on this again, when I was 11 we had to do an exam where you take the bike on a route through town after they had taught us about the rules of the road. The route was all in estates and they just set up fake traffic light crossings, stop signs and the like. Each kid was let loose alone and we were told that people would be looking through the windows to check if we did everything okay (so every house became a suspect). I remember I took it pretty seriously. At the end you get a certificate. This was all arranged by the school.

saa

Okay I know we've gotten plenty of useless leaflets through our doors in the past number of years but it would be great to get one about specific rules that relate to cyclists or have it at the back of the phone book idk, it would be handy for drivers to know as well.

Well the cyclist should know that, well I see a lot of them that don't know where to position themselves or how to handle changing lanes or roundabouts and then on the other hand I see cyclists obeying the rules of the road and drivers roaring at them just for being on the road in the first place or slowing them down.

seamus

Leaflets and things written on the phonebook are useless IMO. Most leaflets get binned and our phonebooks from 2009 are still in their plastic wrapper. I use the golden pages to dry out my shoes when I've no newspaper around.

Any semi-decent TV ad could cover the basics in 30 seconds - indicate before you change position, check over your shoulder every few hundred meters, stop for red lights, have lights on your bike and don't cycle in the gutter. Of course the RSA would probably waste half of the ad time talking about helmets and high-vis.

I said on another thread on a completely unrelated topic that all children should know how to walk, run, swim and cycle before their fifth birthday. And after that the curriculum should include a minimum time spent doing all four of these things all the way up to junior cert level.
Not just because in some cases it'll save your life (like being able to swim), but because they are what I would consider the core means of locomotion and using them on a regular basis normalises them.
Walking and running are good, but can't compete with cycling in terms of maximising distance and minimising energy use. We could do perfectly fine without cycling of course, but the issue is that once children get into the realm of roaming more than 2 or 3km (i.e. when they become teenagers), without cycling they will turn to lifts or taking the bus.

Tenzor07

With regards to bicycle user education, why not learn the way a lot of people have and join a Bike club? Learn from more expierienced cyclists on how to ride your bike properly, fix punctures etc?

With the explosion in numbers of Cycling Ireland licences there must be clubs around the country bursting at the seams with members? And from what I gather a large percentage of those are leisure focussed and not racing clubs so plenty of casual cyclists can get involved. And with the average age of those club members being pretty high they can get there kids involved so they can be educated at an early age.

BostonB

Do cycling clubs teach any road skills though?

Chips Lovell

seamus wrote: »

Leaflets and things written on the phonebook are useless IMO. Most leaflets get binned and our phonebooks from 2009 are still in their plastic wrapper. I use the golden pages to dry out my shoes when I've no newspaper around.

I just dump the phonebooks in the recycle bin the day I get them. It's such a waste of paper that they're not opt-in these days.

tomasrojo

seamus wrote: »

Of course the RSA would probably waste half of the ad time talking about helmets and high-vis.

Yes, they certainly would. They also would start off with those. No need to worry your pretty little polystyrene-enclosed head about the details of brakes or lights or road positioning.

jameverywhere

seamus wrote: »

I said on another thread on a completely unrelated topic that all children should know how to walk, run, swim and cycle before their fifth birthday.

Now, that's not quite fair. I could walk, run, and swim just fine by 5, but I never mastered cycling until I was 11 due to balance/spatial awareness problems. Nothing major, but enough to delay that milestone considerably.

There was a stretch there when I was big enough to bend/break training wheels but couldn't cycle without them, so I didn't cycle at all. When I was 11 my sister started pushing me down hills on the bike, giving me the choice to either learn or fall :pac:

cycletheroad

Beasty wrote: »

.. and that would have killed the scheme, stone dead. It would eat into the savings, and tbh most adults would probably not take too kindly to being sent back to school to learn how to ride a bike again.

Their in lies the problem, But leave the adult have their tantrum,thats a poor argument because adults might not take too kindly. my point was nt to show people how to ride a bike, it was about cycling proficiency on the roads and it was an opportunity to contribute to it.

cycletheroad

Lumen wrote: »

The BTW scheme is beautiful in its simplicity. You could take your own advice.

I don't want a multi-hour lecture from some hivisdork cycling instructor, I want my cheap bike.

seamus

cycletheroad wrote: »

my point was nt to show people how to ride a bike, it was about cycling proficiency on the roads and it was an opportunity to contribute to it.

Yes, but the reality is that most people will see, "Mandatory cycling proficiency course", and will think, "Fnck that. I know how to cycle and I have a driving licence, I'm not doing some stupid course". And the B2W scheme is then killed stone dead.

cycletheroad wrote: »

Lumen's rather insightful point is that any mandatory cycle safety course will be done by some guy from the RSA who cycles about 5km a week and reads from a bunch of slides which mainly advise wearing high-vis, wearing your helmet, using cycle tracks, dismounting to cross a junction and keeping to the extreme left-hand side of the road.

cycletheroad

It really says a lot when a suggestion to try and improve cycling safety on the roads has been tore to shreds with all sorts of reasons trotted out why it would not work.Thats why i posted the thread and my guess on the response was right.over analysis,dissecting it, this won't work, that won't work, Their is no doubt that some of the unfortunate cyclists deaths on the road were bike to work scheme participants, and if their were a cycling profiency program attached to btw, maybe some of those killed by trucks by going around a corner on the left of trucks instead of positioning behind the truck would be alive today, and it would have been worth it.

cycletheroad

seamus wrote: »

Yes, but the reality is that most people will see, "Mandatory cycling proficiency course", and will think, "Fnck that. I know how to cycle and I have a driving licence, I'm not doing some stupid course". And the B2W scheme is then killed stone dead.
.

They were people who took up the btw who didn't know the back wheel from the front,

Chips Lovell

cycletheroad wrote: »

Their is no doubt that some of the unfortunate cyclists deaths on the road were bike to work scheme participants, and if their were a cycling profiency program attached to btw, maybe some of those killed by trucks by going around a corner on the left of trucks instead of positioning behind the truck would be alive today, and it would have been worth it.

Are you aware that the number of cyclists killed on the roads every year is minuscule? Saying that there's no doubt some availed of the BTW is a big stretch.

cycletheroad

seamus wrote: »

Yes, but the reality is that most people will see, "Mandatory cycling proficiency course", and will think, "Fnck that. I know how to cycle and I have a driving licence, I'm not doing some stupid course". And the B2W scheme is then killed stone dead.
Lumen's rather insightful point is that any mandatory cycle safety course will be done by some guy from the RSA who cycles about 5km a week and reads from a bunch of slides which mainly advise wearing high-vis, wearing your helmet, using cycle tracks, dismounting to cross a junction and keeping to the extreme left-hand side of the road.

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Are you aware that the number of cyclists killed on the roads every year is minuscule? Saying that there's no doubt some availed of the BTW is a big stretch.

Ye have all the answers:D

CramCycle

cycletheroad wrote: »

and it would have been worth it.

It's a big maybe, had to drive into work the last few days due to a dislocated patella. The number of mistakes and errors by motorists on the road was humongous, I'll go as far as to say I noticed alot more as a driver than when I was cycling. None of these cars had L plates so it is reasonable to assume they mostly have past their drivers test (obviously there are a few exceptions).

Education means nothing if the person is not willing to learn, darwinism doesn't work in these situations because those of us with good observation skills react in time (sometimes to our own detriment) to avoid giving them the lesson they need to learn, I presume it is the same with a large number of cyclists who you are suggesting go to these lessons, for the majority, it just won't work.

I wish it would work but much like the DB cyclist who comes along Parnell st the wrong way into your lane and starts screaming at you for being in his way, he is never going to learn, if he does get knocked down, he will either quit cycling, get up and count his lucky stars but do the same next week or he will die, in none of these situations will he analyse the issue, in his mind it was someone elses fault or the bicycles, same as the person who nearly hits a person while driving because they were texting or putting on make up, unless they hit the person or get hit themselves they will never learn, if they get caught by the gardai it is bad luck, if they hit a pedestrian then the pedestrian must have stepped out in front of them.

Some people won't learn, what they need is for stricter enforcement and for heavy fines and disqualification at a lower limit, education won't fix them, fear and a fine might.

Tenzor07

cycletheroad wrote: »

Their is no doubt that some of the unfortunate cyclists deaths on the road were bike to work scheme participants

You're just guessing here?

cycletheroad wrote: »

and if their were a cycling proficiency program attached to btw, maybe some of those killed by trucks by going around a corner on the left of trucks instead of positioning behind the truck would be alive today, and it would have been worth it.

You are implying that accidents such as this happen as fault of the cyclist, when this could happen to the most proficient cyclist out there if a truck turned in on them...

cycletheroad

Tenzor07 wrote: »

You're just guessing here?



You are implying that accidents such as this happen as fault of the cyclist, when this could happen to the most proficient cyclist out there if a truck turned in on them...

Its not the truck's fault, if cyclist is cycling long side, back of truck is correct position.

ciotog

cycletheroad wrote: »

Its not the truck's fault, if cyclist is cycling long side, back of truck is correct position.

Equally, it's not the fault of the cyclist if a truck drives alongside and turns left across the line of the cyclist. It's also quite feasible for both a cyclist and truck driver to be obeying the rules of the road yet the cyclist finds herself inside the truck - think about some of the wonderful cycle lane designs we have in this country where the stop lines place a cyclist in a truck's blindspot. The law and consequently a trainer tells you to use the cycle lane provided. Unless you have validated statistics about what type of cyclist they were then don't make the accusation that it was some new bike to work cyclist who didn't know what they were doing.

cycletheroad

:eek:

Bunnyhopper

ciotog wrote: »

some of the wonderful cycle lane designs we have in this country

What would a cycling proficiency course teach cyclists to do here? Would you be told to use the cycle lane (which puts you down into traffic on the road immediately before a junction and to the left of a left-turn-only lane even if you're going straight, an unfathomably cretinous design) or would you be told to ignore the lane (risking either a summons from Gardaí for not using a lane that might or might not be mandatory or the aggressive impatience of drivers who want you to use the "perfectly good" cycle lane)?

What would the cycle trainer tell you about the signs on this same cycle facility (seen here), neither of which has any statutory basis, afaik?

There are lots of things that need fixing before you could even start to draft the curriculum for a cycling proficiency course in this country.